test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

So 'NOT' Trek! .. Advice 4 the Devs

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
Listen folks .. this game must be re-designed, and I'm pretty sure you already know that's the case.

Here are but a few suggestions ... food for thought, and some of the food I will need to continue on this journey ..

I will just mention one major re-tooling, that should be done asap .. the game should be all about SKILLS and RENOWN, not collecting or buying/selling widgets. Ships should be modifiable based on the skill level of it's crew, but the base configuration should remain static... for example, an accomplished, highly skilled crew should be able to turn make a stock Miranda class ship out perform the stock ship of a lesser skilled crew, but the configuration of the ship should remain be the same.

A more highly skilled crew should be able to make a lesser class vessel outperform a higher one. The more capable crew could fire faster, with more punch, move faster, and take more damage, before becoming disabled, and as they move up in ship class they would have the added benefit of the greater class' capability.

Slapping in buffs and swapping out phasers for disruptors, and all that nonsense makes each ship unique, and therefore what they are, as Starfleet starshps, becomes meaningless.

As far as crew skills go .. they shouldn't be handled the same way player attack/defense skills have been done in every mmo that has come before .. BORING, and non-immersive. Crew AI should be more sophisticated, that way they will feel more like a crew, rather than a 'skill container' as they do now .. which bluntly, was a REALLY BLOODY LAZY way to do it!!

Starships have patterns to their actions/reactions .. movements coupled with phaser/torp fire, or in order to avoid taking hits/damage .. captains should be able to group their crew skills into patterns, and have them executed on demand, and AT THE VERY LEAST, we should be able to call for "FIRE AT WILL" .. which would couple defense movement coupled with intelligent use of weapons.

Personally I think that ship-to-ship combat, should be more time consuming and tactical, and involve a lot more possibilities... crew, depending on their skills, should make recommendations, to disable impulse engines, or aft disruptor due scans showing reduced aft shield generator failure .. just more more more .. no starship should be able to combat 2 or more of an enemy ship of equal or greater capability, unless they are engaged in a coordinated fleet action (which shouldn't be mandatory btw)

The replicator credits makes sense, and exchanging items for other items is a great idea, but it should be done in a more complex way, at an actual replicator, on your ship .. not with the standard mmo 'store' shortcut, or out of your inventory. Also, we should not have to use a Starfleet 'bank' to store the TRIBBLE we collect .. that should be done onboard your ship .. the bigger the ship, the more TRIBBLE you can retain.

We should be doing far more onboard tasks .. interacting with npc crew, and engaging in more "starship management". There should be forced downtime, to a certain degree, to get players off their ships and onto bases, where there would be other tasks to perform (I mean other than running around and picking up more 'led-by-the-nose' ship combat related quests .. ship combat alone will not sustain the game.

Artifacts, samples, and the product of scientific research, should be handled in a completely different way!! The more science-based (and diplomatic) work done by a crew should be just as complex and valued pursuit as combat intenstive 'missions'. There should be real puzzles to be solved, requiring research, collecting clues, pursuing leads, and the more skilled the crew is, the more clues will present themselves, or the less time it will take to pass task milestones. All these accomplishments would increase the value of the crew, in the eyes of Starfleet, thus granting the ship more resources, access to more important missions, and more 'rank/skill' points.

Downtime, in the result of Refits/Repairs/Crew Replenishment .. after having been "Defeated" .. recklessness in the pursuit of bridge officer points .. should be expected, and should be seen by all as desirable. If there is no loss, then the rewards have no value.

Surat
USS Vanguard

P.S.
TOS & TNGMuse were a hell of a lot more engaging than this game is, in it's current state, and they were entirely text-based. :-)
Post edited by baddmoonrizin on
«1

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I read as far as "Listen folks .. this game must be re-designed" before I gave up. I only read one book at a time, and atm I'm in the middle of EVE: The Empyrean Age.

    Anyhoo, they're not going to redesign the game. Last time a developer did that, SOE became the most hated game developer in the world.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    tell you what.

    you make that game, and i'll come on your forums and tell you to remake it to be like this one :)

    fair?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Shingi wrote:
    tell you what.

    you make that game, and i'll come on your forums and tell you to remake it to be like this one :)

    fair?

    Beautiful response :) :::salute::: :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I read as far as "Listen folks .. this game must be re-designed" before I gave up. I only read one book at a time, and atm I'm in the middle of EVE: The Empyrean Age.

    Anyhoo, they're not going to redesign the game. Last time a developer did that, SOE became the most hated game developer in the world.

    Completely off topic but EvE: The Empyrean Age is actually a pretty good read.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    OP - you joined this website in July of 2008 and are just now getting around to figuring out what Cryptic did with the game? Where have you been?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    ...what game have you been playing?

    This is highly tactical. Have you even reached T2 yet?

    It works extremely well, the only current problem is the lack fo death penalty. The tactical aspect of hte game is extensive and works remarkably well.

    Oh, and by the by, you CAN use the T1 ship as an admiral and refit it with your strongest weaponry and officers.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Surat: I do agree with a lot of what you say, I think a lot of that stuff would definitely add more of a Star Trek feel to the game and that Cryptic has taken quite a few design decisions that detract from the game's title.

    Unfortunately, the kind of game you are proposing will be too appealing to us Star Trek fans. Personally, judging based on what I have seen so far, Cryptic had the obvious intention of appealing to the masses instead and decided that wasting some of the potential would be worth the extra subscriptions (and therefore, profits).

    While this game is a decent "WoW in space", it's still WoW in space.

    During beta I wrote a thread like this myself that basically amounted to "Cryptic should've ripped-off 'A Final Unity' (the game)", because I felt that there's not a lot you actually do in Star Trek Online. A lot of things that could've added immersion, such as actually using things on your ship as opposed to using an interface "shortcut", as per your example, have been glossed over. It seems like an easy way out.
    I read as far as "Listen folks .. this game must be re-designed" before I gave up. I only read one book at a time, and atm I'm in the middle of EVE: The Empyrean Age.

    Why the hell did you waste everyone's time by replying then? Get out if you don't have something to add to the topic, even if it's to voice serious disagreement. He took the time to write it for us and didn't "rage", "troll" or anything like that, so if you can't take the time to read it then show some respect and keep it shut.
    Shingi wrote:
    tell you what.

    you make that game, and i'll come on your forums and tell you to remake it to be like this one :)

    fair?

    I do hate this cop-out "you can't comment unless you make your own game" response. The OP is not being paid to produce a Star Trek MMORPG, Cryptic are, and as a paying customer he has the right to criticise it.

    Just like, if the OP made a game, you would have the same right as a paying customer. :rolleyes:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    WoW in space?

    Hardly. It has far more tactical aspects to it than WoW ever had.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Pyryck wrote:
    OP - you joined this website in July of 2008 and are just now getting around to figuring out what Cryptic did with the game? Where have you been?

    It has only just gone live. Those of us who have been on these forums for much longer than you have did not receive any special privilages when it came to seeing how the game played or how much like Star Trek it was.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Ships are modular in trek. Some Galaxy classes (Dominion wars) received phaser and torpedo upgrades. the Defiant received ablative armor over other Defiants. Voyager received transphasic torpedoes, etc...

    replacing componants is normal in star trek, when a new componant comes along, they upgrade the ship as planned. Biggest example Constitution Class.

    So saying the game needs to be redesigned just cause you can kit out new weapons, shields and sensors is stupid.

    If you read the TNG technical manual, the Galaxy class was designed so you could even swap out SECTION OF THE SAUCER for different modules, like medical modules, habitat bays, hydroponics and storage.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Kitsunami wrote: »
    WoW in space?

    Hardly. It has far more tactical aspects to it than WoW ever had.

    I play WoW and I couldn't really disagree more, they're equally dumbed-down.

    More spacebar, mister Worf!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Surat wrote: »
    Listen folks .. this game must be re-designed, and I'm pretty sure you already know that's the case.

    Here are but a few suggestions ... food for thought, and some of the food I will need to continue on this journey ..

    I will just mention one major re-tooling, that should be done asap .. the game should be all about SKILLS and RENOWN, not collecting or buying/selling widgets. Ships should be modifiable based on the skill level of it's crew, but the base configuration should remain static... for example, an accomplished, highly skilled crew should be able to turn make a stock Miranda class ship out perform the stock ship of a lesser skilled crew, but the configuration of the ship should remain be the same.

    A more highly skilled crew should be able to make a lesser class vessel outperform a higher one. The more capable crew could fire faster, with more punch, move faster, and take more damage, before becoming disabled, and as they move up in ship class they would have the added benefit of the greater class' capability.

    Slapping in buffs and swapping out phasers for disruptors, and all that nonsense makes each ship unique, and therefore what they are, as Starfleet starshps, becomes meaningless.

    As far as crew skills go .. they shouldn't be handled the same way player attack/defense skills have been done in every mmo that has come before .. BORING, and non-immersive. Crew AI should be more sophisticated, that way they will feel more like a crew, rather than a 'skill container' as they do now .. which bluntly, was a REALLY BLOODY LAZY way to do it!!

    Starships have patterns to their actions/reactions .. movements coupled with phaser/torp fire, or in order to avoid taking hits/damage .. captains should be able to group their crew skills into patterns, and have them executed on demand, and AT THE VERY LEAST, we should be able to call for "FIRE AT WILL" .. which would couple defense movement coupled with intelligent use of weapons.

    Personally I think that ship-to-ship combat, should be more time consuming and tactical, and involve a lot more possibilities... crew, depending on their skills, should make recommendations, to disable impulse engines, or aft disruptor due scans showing reduced aft shield generator failure .. just more more more .. no starship should be able to combat 2 or more of an enemy ship of equal or greater capability, unless they are engaged in a coordinated fleet action (which shouldn't be mandatory btw)

    The replicator credits makes sense, and exchanging items for other items is a great idea, but it should be done in a more complex way, at an actual replicator, on your ship .. not with the standard mmo 'store' shortcut, or out of your inventory. Also, we should not have to use a Starfleet 'bank' to store the TRIBBLE we collect .. that should be done onboard your ship .. the bigger the ship, the more TRIBBLE you can retain.

    We should be doing far more onboard tasks .. interacting with npc crew, and engaging in more "starship management". There should be forced downtime, to a certain degree, to get players off their ships and onto bases, where there would be other tasks to perform (I mean other than running around and picking up more 'led-by-the-nose' ship combat related quests .. ship combat alone will not sustain the game.

    Artifacts, samples, and the product of scientific research, should be handled in a completely different way!! The more science-based (and diplomatic) work done by a crew should be just as complex and valued pursuit as combat intenstive 'missions'. There should be real puzzles to be solved, requiring research, collecting clues, pursuing leads, and the more skilled the crew is, the more clues will present themselves, or the less time it will take to pass task milestones. All these accomplishments would increase the value of the crew, in the eyes of Starfleet, thus granting the ship more resources, access to more important missions, and more 'rank/skill' points.

    Downtime, in the result of Refits/Repairs/Crew Replenishment .. after having been "Defeated" .. recklessness in the pursuit of bridge officer points .. should be expected, and should be seen by all as desirable. If there is no loss, then the rewards have no value.

    Surat
    USS Vanguard

    P.S.
    TOS & TNGMuse were a hell of a lot more engaging than this game is, in it's current state, and they were entirely text-based. :-)

    Well then when should we expect the re designed game made by you and your team of developers?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Well then when should we expect the re designed game made by you and your team of developers?

    You quoted the whole thing just to re-cycle the same TRIBBLE someone already said before you?

    He isn't being paid to produce a Star Trek MMORPG, Cryptic are, and as a customer he has the right to express criticisms that he feels could improve the game. If he still isn't happy, he also has the right to quit. Deal with it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I read as far as "Listen folks .. this game must be re-designed" before I gave up. I only read one book at a time, and atm I'm in the middle of EVE: The Empyrean Age.

    Anyhoo, they're not going to redesign the game. Last time a developer did that, SOE became the most hated game developer in the world.

    Blizzard do it more or less with every expansion. Their newest one this year, theyre basically NGE'ing the game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Ulfhedjinn wrote: »
    I play WoW and I couldn't really disagree more, they're equally dumbed-down.

    More spacebar, mister Worf!

    WoW tactics: Stay behind the target
    STO tactics: Stay where their shield is weakest.. which varies.. and the ship moves.

    With ground combat, flanking and expose/exploit teamwork easily surpasses WoW.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Chat stopped reading at "4".
    If you are giving advice then you are more likely to be listened too if you at least try some kind of grammar.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Rikaelus wrote: »
    WoW tactics: Stay behind the target
    STO tactics: Stay where their shield is weakest.. which varies.. and the ship moves.

    With ground combat, flanking and expose/exploit teamwork easily surpasses WoW.

    Sorry mister DPS, I am a tank in WoW. I have to stay in front of the target, keeping everyone else out of any cones/AOEs, while letting you people spam AOEs, without losing threat by timing my threat-generating abilities properly. I also have to keep my eye on my HP, my healer's mana, and the threat meter all at the same time while doing that.

    Oh, and if I make a mistake or you take threat off me. I get all the anger directed at me.

    But even tanking is easy, so well done on exaggerating your facerolling. Both games are very simple.

    Edit: And I laugh at you for thinking the expose/exploit system is even remotely tactical. As a science officer I cannot TRIBBLE without it generating a 10% chance to expose, as long as people watch for the bright orange circle the job is done.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Chat wrote:
    Chat stopped reading at "4".
    If you are giving advice then you are more likely to be listened too if you at least try some kind of grammar.

    The Vedis concurs
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    thevedis wrote: »
    The Vedis concurs
    There are 4 lights!
    Not...
    There are for lights!


    And Chat felt like writing grammer instead of grammar but not many would have gotten that joke.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Some these "this is not Trek" threads do have some great and "doable" solutions for cryptic. The problem is it's incased in this sea of rants and stream of conscious writing that those constructive points get lost.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Chat wrote:
    There are 4 lights!
    Not...
    There are for lights!


    And Chat felt like writing grammer instead of grammar but not many would have gotten that joke.

    The Vedis still concurs
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Ulfhedjinn wrote: »
    I do hate this cop-out "you can't comment unless you make your own game" response. The OP is not being paid to produce a Star Trek MMORPG, Cryptic are, and as a paying customer he has the right to criticise it.

    Just like, if the OP made a game, you would have the same right as a paying customer. :rolleyes:

    i'll be honest, regardless of content, anyone who basically is telling someone else they've done their job wrong has no place to make that comment unless they can do the job themselves.

    its a pet peeve of mine. too many middle managers promoted into positions they know nothing about.

    i have no issue with looking at whats there, and making suggestions on improving it, but saying "toss it all out and do it this way" when you have no experience in doing it isnt helpful.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    A hell of a lot of people love the game, so if you don't like it, go ahead and GTFO...take your QQ elsewhere, crybabies...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Ulfhedjinn wrote: »
    You quoted the whole thing just to re-cycle the same TRIBBLE someone already said before you?

    He isn't being paid to produce a Star Trek MMORPG, Cryptic are, and as a customer he has the right to express criticisms that he feels could improve the game. If he still isn't happy, he also has the right to quit. Deal with it.

    Cryptic made the game they had in their head. Not everyone is going to agree with the choices they made, however those are the choices they made. If someone thinks they can do a better job then floor is theirs! I would like to see someone do a better job.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Ulfhedjinn wrote: »
    You quoted the whole thing just to re-cycle the same TRIBBLE someone already said before you?

    He isn't being paid to produce a Star Trek MMORPG, Cryptic are, and as a customer he has the right to express criticisms that he feels could improve the game. If he still isn't happy, he also has the right to quit. Deal with it.

    What the OP is suggesting is to cancel/kill the currently released live game and completely rebuild it in a manner that will only appeal to the hard-core simulation crowd and not appeal to the masses of folks that are "casual" gamers. It would become too detail-oriented, too complex and not very enjoyable for the targeted audience.

    Quite frankly and bluntly (because I have yet to see this point brought up anywhere), Cryptic can afford to lose a hard-core simulation player or three or even three hundred and not have it effect the bottom-line. If the targeted audience of casual gamers goes away then the bottom drops out, STO dies, and Cryptic goes into "which-employee-gets-to-stay-to-shut-off-the-server" mode.

    Now, based on everyone's MMO experience with games being re-designed after live release, what do you think would happen to STO if it was remade to YOUR specifications?

    It's easy to criticize anothers work when it doesn't meet with your imagination and expectations. The difficult part is finding the maturity to accept what you cannot change, change what you cannot accept by finding the wisdom to know the difference between the two.

    It really is a simple choice: log in and play what's offered adjusting to changes or uninstall it and move on to something else.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Kanemura wrote: »
    A hell of a lot of people love the game, so if you don't like it, go ahead and GTFO...take your QQ elsewhere, crybabies...

    QFT QQMOAR STFU GTFO KTHXBYE

    PS. It is normally not a good idea to douse ones self with gasoline, hand out matches and then wonder why you are being flamed........
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Shingi wrote:
    i'll be honest, regardless of content, anyone who basically is telling someone else they've done their job wrong has no place to make that comment unless they can do the job themselves.

    its a pet peeve of mine. too many middle managers promoted into positions they know nothing about.

    i have no issue with looking at whats there, and making suggestions on improving it, but saying "toss it all out and do it this way" when you have no experience in doing it isnt helpful.

    Emphasis mine, because it's such an illogical statement. Cryptic's job here is to entertain, if a paying customer is not entertained then they are within their rights to make constructive criticism in the hope that Cryptic might take their ideas in to consideration (and in MMOs it's not uncommon for a developer to do so).

    If Cryptic decides the player's input is not suitable, for whatever reason, the customer is free to quit.

    What if, one day, someone made an amazing suggestion that a great many people (including you) decided was worth implementing in the game. Would you say "dude you're not a developer, stfu"? I'll guess not, and this is why MMO game communities are in a very unique position for promoting their own ideas.
    Cryptic made the game they had in their head. Not everyone is going to agree with the choices they made, however those are the choices they made. If someone thinks they can do a better job then floor is theirs! I would like to see someone do a better job.

    Like I said above. Paying customers are entitled to put forward ideas that make the game more fun, and I guarantee that Cryptic would be with me on this one because they wouldn't need to pay the player a penny if they did come up with a really good idea that happened to get implemented.

    I'm not saying that is what is happening here, not all suggestions are good ones, but the OP is entitled to constructive criticism that doesn't break the rules. The "cancel subscription" button is right there if he feels his ideas are not listened to, and he knows that, so let him say his piece if it's constructive and not a "troll" or "rage" post.
    Pyryck wrote:
    What the OP is suggesting is to cancel/kill the currently released live game and completely rebuild it in a manner that will only appeal to the hard-core simulation crowd and not appeal to the masses of folks that are "casual" gamers. It would become too detail-oriented, too complex and not very enjoyable for the targeted audience.

    And I agree with you completely, but there's one difference. I have a certain respect for him posting his ideas, and for not doing so in a way that is "raging" or "trolling", so I simply replied saying that Cryptic have their heart set on a wider audience than the hard-core Trekkers and that they wouldn't take this on board.

    Yet other people feel the need to flame, and go as far as saying "you're not allowed to make criticism unless you make your own game". Please, that's the most childish bullcrap ever, don't defend it.
    Pyryck wrote:
    It really is a simple choice: log in and play what's offered adjusting to changes or uninstall it and move on to something else.

    That's not only a black and white fallacy, it's incorrect. As a paying customer he is entitled to express his constructive criticism, as long as it doesn't break the rules, and then he should move on if he feels the game is not going in a direction that would make him happy.

    Unfortunately vocal members of this community wish to deny people that. Such a shame.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Only today my sabre-class kicked the butt of a Romulan Warbird.

    Out-classing enough?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Best way to make your point to the masses? Write an epic novel of course.

    I mentioned it the other day. All the complainers seem to have a lot of time on their hands, since every complaining post is usually about 10 paragraphs long. Funny thing is that most of, if not all of it has been said before.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Zabonam wrote: »
    Best way to make your point to the masses? Write an epic novel of course.

    I mentioned it the other day. All the complainers seem to have a lot of time on their hands, since every complaining post is usually about 10 paragraphs long. Funny thing is that most of, if not all of it has been said before.

    And people like you just have to reply to every single one of them with flames, without actually addressing anything that was said in that "novel" of a post (which it really wasn't, you're just too impatient). Have a badge.

    And to think... People thought this community would be more patient and intellectual because it would be made up of Star Trek fans, I guess I was absolutely right during Open Beta when I kept saying the forums would be feral post-launch. ;)
This discussion has been closed.