Maybe next Star Trek...and lets not try to use a game engine that could allow it to work on consoles you are limiting how much better the game could have been on the PC.
95% of the issues with this game all stem from the same problem, it was grossly rushed. And it's continued problems are a symptom of staffing aka 3 whole people to do starship design and 1 or 2 people to do character stuff etc, etc.
I have to laugh at every post that I read from devs stating that they don't have the tech to fix something atm. LOL? Isn't this your special engine that was the reason you could develop this game in 2 years?
Nobody is making anyone play. I mean I can understand the desire to have the game be this or that, but at the end of the day I ask you what you've done to make a great Star Trek Online experience. Cryptic sure as hell tried for better or worse. If you want to say you don't have the time or money to make this game then I say, wow that sucks. It's too bad we didn't get to play your version of Star Trek.
But Cryptic made this game, and we can play it. There are few games that I would consider excellent, but I always use the argument. Is it fun to play? I think you give STO time and its gonna be quite a bit different, or not.
At the end of the day no one is making you play. And if you want to be constructive and help, then take a page from some of these people who have written well-thought out arguments and posted them. Of course STO isn't any of those things, those are different games. The original developers didn't even have a playable game, they only had ideas. Like you.
95% of the issues with this game all stem from the same problem, it was grossly rushed. And it's continued problems are a symptom of staffing aka 3 whole people to do starship design and 1 or 2 people to do character stuff etc, etc.
I have to laugh at every post that I read from devs stating that they don't have the tech to fix something atm. LOL? Isn't this your special engine that was the reason you could develop this game in 2 years?
The economy does a play a part in how well they can staff their company. Just something to keep in mind.
Nobody is making anyone play. I mean I can understand the desire to have the game be this or that, but at the end of the day I ask you what you've done to make a great Star Trek Online experience. Cryptic sure as hell tried for better or worse. If you want to say you don't have the time or money to make this game then I say, wow that sucks. It's too bad we didn't get to play your version of Star Trek.
But Cryptic made this game, and we can play it. There are few games that I would consider excellent, but I always use the argument. Is it fun to play? I think you give STO time and its gonna be quite a bit different, or not.
At the end of the day no one is making you play. And if you want to be constructive and help, then take a page from some of these people who have written well-thought out arguments and posted them. Of course STO isn't any of those things, those are different games. The original developers didn't even have a playable game, they only had ideas. Like you.
Huh?
Ok like I have said many times before if everyone left cause the game was not to there liking, then we would not hve a game to play causeI dont know if you noticed but ALLOT of people are not happy.
I love how the only argument people have is "If you dont like it leave"
Come with something else or a better argument than that buddy cause that come back is wearing thin.
QUOTE]Originally Posted by Acherion
Bridge Commander wasn't FPS I believe.
95% of the issues with this game all stem from the same problem, it was grossly rushed. And it's continued problems are a symptom of staffing aka 3 whole people to do starship design and 1 or 2 people to do character stuff etc, etc.
I have to laugh at every post that I read from devs stating that they don't have the tech to fix something atm. LOL? Isn't this your special engine that was the reason you could develop this game in 2 years?
The economy does a play a part in how well they can staff their company. Just something to keep in mind.[/QUOTE]
That's true, to a point. However, it still doesn't make up for a rushed job. Remeber, they have stated that their goal was 50k subs so therefore I will make the assumption that they are at their planned full staff levels (minus the recent departures) but that's a big part of the problem too. They placed the bar for themselves very low and this is what we got because of that.
For the "just leave" people (which, admittedly I have said myself in other games) my answer is simple .. there is nowhere else to go. EVE is to much PvP with too high a loss and I am totally burned out to nuclear levels with WOW and I found LOTRO totally boring. However, beyond all that, I am also a huge star trek fan and I guess that is why I scream the most. The nauseating level of disapointment I felt when I hit open beta and saw what we were actually getting was just too much to sit back and be silent about it.
The first two are complete vapourware and hipe. Perpetual did sod all, but draw a few pictures and talk about what the game would be like, despite not actually being able to devlier any of it. Hence, why they went under.
I've already replied to such posts multiple times.
HERE is a link. It contains facts and information, as well as a dissenting opinion on Perpetual's effort.
Short Version: STO would not have been what you think it would have been. It is very easy to project on what was never created what you THINK and HOPE it would have been, rather than what the known information indicates.
I'm all for pushing STO to be more than it is, and I think it has a lot of room to grow. However, dwelling in the fantasy of what might have been does not help get STO to where it needs to be.
The idea that people are leaving because they don't like the game is a duh argument. There will always be a portion of the game's population who are only there until their attention span runs out or another game is released. American's have entertainment ADD. Our standards have become as impressively high as they are low. I read a review for Dead to Rights, and they described the game as ugly. I found the game amazingly detailed and thought the Blitz Engine showcased outstanding capabilities. Maybe my standards are just too lax.
My question is how many players do you think STO has and how many do you think are leaving, then cross reference that with new players. Add in how many career officers there are, and as always factor in that many people who are 'melodramatically leaving' will come back to play again, off and on because that's what they do. I never said nothing in STO can be improved, I said you aren't helping anything complaining. I never said leave, I said no one is making you play. It's obvious you either like STO or you like Star Trek because you apparently have a passion on the subject. However you seem to also have shut yourself off to any angle of the discussion other than the one you want to make or hear.
I'd like to see lots of things in STO. However, I'm also willing to recognize there's a whole process between wishing and a fruit bearing plant. If I had my way, crew deaths would be permanent, BO's could die and injuries would be sustained during combat instead of after. The death penalty would be the loss of your ship, and though the hull could 'regenerate' I'd use a 'progressively not beyond this point' system and you'd have to go back to a Starbase to repair most of the above(though it'd be free). I'd ditch the tiered module system in favor of an on-the-fly modification system, I'd ditch the tiered ship system(nothing ****es me off more than 'obsolesence'(everything has a purpose, captains AND lieutenants fly F-18's). I'd put in a rainbow six style cover system and do away with personal shields to make the ground game more deadly, include the ability for your ship to be engaged in combat while you are on away missions, and add the possibility of being marooned/stranded.
However, would it not be a bit selfish of me to think that because I'd like the game this way that this is the way it should be? I pay just like everyone else. I think it would be incredible, I hope the devs take six chapters out of the Starfleet Command(SFB, if you prefer) book and up the intricacies. The game is way more casual than I'd like. But at the end of the day, I enjoy the game(when my internet allows) and should the day come that I don't, well maybe someone else will make a Star Trek game. Hell, if it lasts long enough there might just be an STO2, and maybe some of the stuff we didn't get this time around will be there. Food for thought.
So no, my argument isn't leave. My argument is be constructive, be patient, and if at all possible,
Nobody is making anyone play. I mean I can understand the desire to have the game be this or that, but at the end of the day I ask you what you've done to make a great Star Trek Online experience. Cryptic sure as hell tried for better or worse. If you want to say you don't have the time or money to make this game then I say, wow that sucks. It's too bad we didn't get to play your version of Star Trek.
But Cryptic made this game, and we can play it. There are few games that I would consider excellent, but I always use the argument. Is it fun to play? I think you give STO time and its gonna be quite a bit different, or not.
At the end of the day no one is making you play. And if you want to be constructive and help, then take a page from some of these people who have written well-thought out arguments and posted them. Of course STO isn't any of those things, those are different games. The original developers didn't even have a playable game, they only had ideas. Like you.
I actually DO make stuff, I know several people in various artistic industries, and different people who have actually created some of the hardware you're playing this on, and I tell you what, genius, Cryptic is doing it FOR THE MONEY.
Every person you ever knew who ever made anything has done it, for one reason or another, except maybe Jim Jarmusch and a few like him, the number of which could be counted as a fraction of a percent. I can tell when someone cares about what they do, and when they don't, and I can definitely tell you that Cryptic only cares enough to keep the fishing lure out there, pulling in the little minnows, in the hopes that they grab enough to fill the boat. Cryptic is the video game equivalent of Bender Spink and STO is Will Smith.
Frankly i don't think i would have bought Perpetual's STO if they had actually managed to make it.
Mainly because their vision differed greatly from what i wanted.
Perpetuals concept was sticking the players into small fighter/destroyer like ships and have the large ships like the Galaxy and Sovereign class ships as cities in space, social hubs etc and not actually possible to command one.
And that is something that would not have appealed to me at all. :cool:
Excaliber isn't a game. It is more like a game engine, that other people could make a game with. There is nothing wrong with that, and it looks like a really good effort. I've been quietly tracking it for years, ever since several of the core people from Nano FX went to it.
It has potential, and if its code is efficient enough, maybe someone will use it in a game. If it isn't priced prohibitively (might be a free community effort, or free to use if used without charging for the game it is used in) we might see some decent community made space scenarios. Perhaps even a small campaign set entirely in space.
So far, nothing other than space is planned with it. That means, no planets and no ship interiors. That could always change, or be something they are holding close to their chests.
Comments
Solidarity man! Solidarity!
Economics man Economics!
95% of the issues with this game all stem from the same problem, it was grossly rushed. And it's continued problems are a symptom of staffing aka 3 whole people to do starship design and 1 or 2 people to do character stuff etc, etc.
I have to laugh at every post that I read from devs stating that they don't have the tech to fix something atm. LOL? Isn't this your special engine that was the reason you could develop this game in 2 years?
But Cryptic made this game, and we can play it. There are few games that I would consider excellent, but I always use the argument. Is it fun to play? I think you give STO time and its gonna be quite a bit different, or not.
At the end of the day no one is making you play. And if you want to be constructive and help, then take a page from some of these people who have written well-thought out arguments and posted them. Of course STO isn't any of those things, those are different games. The original developers didn't even have a playable game, they only had ideas. Like you.
Playable game vs. Vaporware.
Plug in man! Plug in!
The economy does a play a part in how well they can staff their company. Just something to keep in mind.
Huh?
Ok like I have said many times before if everyone left cause the game was not to there liking, then we would not hve a game to play causeI dont know if you noticed but ALLOT of people are not happy.
I love how the only argument people have is "If you dont like it leave"
Come with something else or a better argument than that buddy cause that come back is wearing thin.
The economy does a play a part in how well they can staff their company. Just something to keep in mind.[/QUOTE]
That's true, to a point. However, it still doesn't make up for a rushed job. Remeber, they have stated that their goal was 50k subs so therefore I will make the assumption that they are at their planned full staff levels (minus the recent departures) but that's a big part of the problem too. They placed the bar for themselves very low and this is what we got because of that.
For the "just leave" people (which, admittedly I have said myself in other games) my answer is simple .. there is nowhere else to go. EVE is to much PvP with too high a loss and I am totally burned out to nuclear levels with WOW and I found LOTRO totally boring. However, beyond all that, I am also a huge star trek fan and I guess that is why I scream the most. The nauseating level of disapointment I felt when I hit open beta and saw what we were actually getting was just too much to sit back and be silent about it.
The first two are complete vapourware and hipe. Perpetual did sod all, but draw a few pictures and talk about what the game would be like, despite not actually being able to devlier any of it. Hence, why they went under.
I've already replied to such posts multiple times.
HERE is a link. It contains facts and information, as well as a dissenting opinion on Perpetual's effort.
Short Version: STO would not have been what you think it would have been. It is very easy to project on what was never created what you THINK and HOPE it would have been, rather than what the known information indicates.
I'm all for pushing STO to be more than it is, and I think it has a lot of room to grow. However, dwelling in the fantasy of what might have been does not help get STO to where it needs to be.
My question is how many players do you think STO has and how many do you think are leaving, then cross reference that with new players. Add in how many career officers there are, and as always factor in that many people who are 'melodramatically leaving' will come back to play again, off and on because that's what they do. I never said nothing in STO can be improved, I said you aren't helping anything complaining. I never said leave, I said no one is making you play. It's obvious you either like STO or you like Star Trek because you apparently have a passion on the subject. However you seem to also have shut yourself off to any angle of the discussion other than the one you want to make or hear.
I'd like to see lots of things in STO. However, I'm also willing to recognize there's a whole process between wishing and a fruit bearing plant. If I had my way, crew deaths would be permanent, BO's could die and injuries would be sustained during combat instead of after. The death penalty would be the loss of your ship, and though the hull could 'regenerate' I'd use a 'progressively not beyond this point' system and you'd have to go back to a Starbase to repair most of the above(though it'd be free). I'd ditch the tiered module system in favor of an on-the-fly modification system, I'd ditch the tiered ship system(nothing ****es me off more than 'obsolesence'(everything has a purpose, captains AND lieutenants fly F-18's). I'd put in a rainbow six style cover system and do away with personal shields to make the ground game more deadly, include the ability for your ship to be engaged in combat while you are on away missions, and add the possibility of being marooned/stranded.
However, would it not be a bit selfish of me to think that because I'd like the game this way that this is the way it should be? I pay just like everyone else. I think it would be incredible, I hope the devs take six chapters out of the Starfleet Command(SFB, if you prefer) book and up the intricacies. The game is way more casual than I'd like. But at the end of the day, I enjoy the game(when my internet allows) and should the day come that I don't, well maybe someone else will make a Star Trek game. Hell, if it lasts long enough there might just be an STO2, and maybe some of the stuff we didn't get this time around will be there. Food for thought.
So no, my argument isn't leave. My argument is be constructive, be patient, and if at all possible,
Enjoy what already exists.
I actually DO make stuff, I know several people in various artistic industries, and different people who have actually created some of the hardware you're playing this on, and I tell you what, genius, Cryptic is doing it FOR THE MONEY.
Every person you ever knew who ever made anything has done it, for one reason or another, except maybe Jim Jarmusch and a few like him, the number of which could be counted as a fraction of a percent. I can tell when someone cares about what they do, and when they don't, and I can definitely tell you that Cryptic only cares enough to keep the fishing lure out there, pulling in the little minnows, in the hopes that they grab enough to fill the boat. Cryptic is the video game equivalent of Bender Spink and STO is Will Smith.
Star Trek Excalibur
Mainly because their vision differed greatly from what i wanted.
Perpetuals concept was sticking the players into small fighter/destroyer like ships and have the large ships like the Galaxy and Sovereign class ships as cities in space, social hubs etc and not actually possible to command one.
And that is something that would not have appealed to me at all. :cool:
Thank you for this information!
I am excited about this game now!
however it seems that most of the graphics could be attained by a simple first person view
the space battles in the videos -online looks better
the ground is non exsistent in the others
but- i agree that old ships would be better put to use
Excaliber isn't a game. It is more like a game engine, that other people could make a game with. There is nothing wrong with that, and it looks like a really good effort. I've been quietly tracking it for years, ever since several of the core people from Nano FX went to it.
It has potential, and if its code is efficient enough, maybe someone will use it in a game. If it isn't priced prohibitively (might be a free community effort, or free to use if used without charging for the game it is used in) we might see some decent community made space scenarios. Perhaps even a small campaign set entirely in space.
So far, nothing other than space is planned with it. That means, no planets and no ship interiors. That could always change, or be something they are holding close to their chests.