test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

I'm convinced that what many players here want, is a SINGLE PLAYER Star Trek game

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
Don't get me wrong, a single player Star Trek game with some of the features people here suggest would, indeed, be awesome.

Take a game like Mass Effect 1/2, for example. it's almost the same exact thing. You pick a class, you fly to different planets from your ship. You have a (somewhat) functional ship interior. You walk around and have meaningful conversations with your crew. You advance from mission to mission using the helm.

You travel down to planets. Having meaningful conversations with other characters. The story develops as one full of intrigue, mystery, deep characters, and choices.

You can explore for materials (with which you can craft new upgrades for your crew) and side quests.

Imagine a Mass Effect style game with Star Trek slapped on top of it. That would be bad TRIBBLE.


But this is not a single player game. It is an MMO. It's supposed to be multiplayer. With that in mind, there are certain things that just don't fit well. People on the forums speak endlessly about functioning bridge interiors and doing everything from inside the ship. Yes, that would be an immersive Star Trek experience...but you're breaking away from the multiplayer aspect just a bit.

I hear all these ideas about how your ship should be boarded in the middle of battle and you have to fight through your ship and defeat them. Again, a neat idea, but if you're grouped up with someone else, what happens to them? Are they still flying around in battle? Is your ship just sitting there whilst you fight off enemies? Did they get boarded, too? In which case they are on their own ship while you're on yours (which defeats the grouping aspect).

I would list more ideas, but my post would get super long. My main point is...many ideas that people list on here are GREAT ideas...perhaps for a single player game. But for an MMO there are just way too many variables to implement most of them. I'm not saying the game shouldn't strive to be deeper than it is...it always should...but I get the feeling that a Star Trek MMO is not really what some players want.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    everyone has different perceptions, and ideals.... yours falls within this same categorization as well eh ?


    .
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    We have those... quite a few of them actually, Try Star Trek Legacy, Star Trek Bridge Commander, Star Fleet Academy, ect...

    Check these many titles out here, there's really too many to list.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_games
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Starfleet Command 3 + Away Team = STO

    Starfleet Command 2 - Orion Pirates + Bridge Commander + Elite Force = :D:D:D:D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    [QUOTE=Hangover_Boy
    I hear all these ideas about how your ship should be boarded in the middle of battle and you have to fight through your ship and defeat them. Again, a neat idea, but if you're grouped up with someone else, what happens to them? Are they still flying around in battle? Is your ship just sitting there whilst you fight off enemies? Did they get boarded, too? In which case they are on their own ship while you're on yours (which defeats the grouping aspect).[/QUOTE]

    If your in a group of 2 the first ship starts the interior mission to defeat the enemy boarding parties.
    The other player ship remains in ship combat.
    If the ship combat ends Player 2 can then beam aboard Player 1 ship to aid the defence.
    If Player 1 succeeds in killing the boarding party first he returns to ship combat.
    This method can be adapted for larger groups.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    everyone has different perceptions, and ideals.... yours falls within this same categorization as well eh ?

    Certainly, however I haven't stated anything about what I want from this game. i'm just saying that alot of the feedback I see on these forums are better suited to other types of games.

    And to the poster that mentioned single player games, I agree...there are already some good games out there. But they usually focus on space combat OR ground combat, not both. I think most people here like the idea of Star Trek Online in some of the features it has, but they wish it was expanded into a fuller experience...which, in my opinion, only works in a Single Player game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    But this is not a single player game. It is an MMO. It's supposed to be multiplayer.

    An MMO is only supposed to give players the OPTION to player together, but not force it. There are many reasons people play an MMO, and actually grouping with other people is only one of them. Others include socialization(which you dont have to be grouped to do), RP, and getting new content on a regular basis, which single player games do not get.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    If your in a group of 2 the first ship starts the interior mission to defeat the enemy boarding parties.
    The other player ship remains in ship combat.
    If the ship combat ends Player 2 can then beam aboard Player 1 ship to aid the defence.
    If Player 1 succeeds in killing the boarding party first he returns to ship combat.
    This method can be adapted for larger groups.


    Perhaps, but I don't think it would be as smooth as you think. This would basically turn your ship invincible to avoid it getting destroyed in the middle of your boarding mission, and would just sit there in the middle of the space battle (then you get into the whole issue of your ship turning into an invincible NPC and acting like any other NPC ship would, but still...that's alot to program and would probably be very difficult to implement).

    Also, once you started on the interior, you're in a seperate instance. Unless I'm missing something, NO mission in STO has you and your team members performing the same missions in seperate instances. Now, this is most likely due to a limitation of the engine, and not in the nature of the style of game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    An MMO is only supposed to give players the OPTION to player together, but not force it. There are many reasons people play an MMO, and actually grouping with other people is only one of them. Others include socialization(which you dont have to be grouped to do), RP, and getting new content on a regular basis, which single player games do not get.

    And don't forget PvP. You may only want other people as targets, not team mates.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Naevius wrote:
    And don't forget PvP. You may only want other people as targets, not team mates.

    I likey.



    .
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    An MMO is only supposed to give players the OPTION to player together, but not force it. There are many reasons people play an MMO, and actually grouping with other people is only one of them. Others include socialization(which you dont have to be grouped to do), RP, and getting new content on a regular basis, which single player games do not get.


    I agree, but I also think the game should allow grouping in any case. And many features mentioned are single player oriented. If that's what they want, then what they really want is a single player game where they don't have to interact with anyone and just want an immersive ST experience. That's my original point.

    But because you CAN play STO single player only (which I think you should be able to if you want), players feel like they're not getting all they want from the game (because it's designed as multiplayer at the heart)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    If the ground combat were like Mass Effect 2 (and you could substitute in other players), this game would be win.

    Not sure how borrowing singleplayer elements will always make a bad multiplayer game. :confused:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Okay lets get a little clarification.

    An MMORPG or Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game does not equate to a TEAMED game only.. in fact it in no way makes ANY reference to teaming at all.

    Massively - MANY people
    Multiplayer = All playing at once in the same game
    Online = Self Explanatory
    Role = played as someone other than yourself
    Playing = Fun experience
    Game = recreational activity, entetainment

    MMO's are SOCIAL environments but that has no baring on a grouped only experience. Because it is entirely possibly to play together while not being on a team and yet still BE social with everyone around you.

    It is true what you say in so much as "some" single player game components of how the game works do not transalte well or at all into games where you can play teamed, but there are far more than can than can't.

    At the end of the day every one of us buys and pays for this game as individuals, and as such we are entitled to a solo experience for our money as a default for a lot of reasons.
    First and foremost of which is it is just silly to design a game where the only way you as an individual can play it is if others are present because that is choice removing and frustrating right off the bat. Also if I need you to play then why am I paying my sub fee and not us? lol

    What we want are OPTIONS.. we all as I say are entitled to a solo experience if we want it by default.. but we also want the option to group up and do grouped things if we like or choose too.. but such things should not imo be tied to the central storylines progression, because then you make the mistake lotro did (and is now fixing) whereby people cannot progress the story without others and not everyone wants to be grouped, or can find groups, or feels they should have to group to advance the storyline for a game "they" pay for to experience for themselves.

    So I disagree an MMO and a single player game are not entirel;y separate things, because an MMO has to have a single player element too it AND a grouped element it is not purely one thing or the other.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    I agree, but I also think the game should allow grouping in any case. And many features mentioned are single player oriented. If that's what they want, then what they really want is a single player game where they don't have to interact with anyone and just want an immersive ST experience. That's my original point.

    Single player games do not get regular content updates, unfortunately.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    NeoWolf wrote: »
    Massively - MANY people
    Multiplayer = All playing at once in the same game
    Online = Self Explanatory
    Role = played as someone other than yourself
    Playing = Fun experience
    Game = recreational activity, entetainment

    "Role" and "Playing" are actually part of the same term, that mean the same thing as your definition for "Role" :o
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    But this is not a single player game. It is an MMO. It's supposed to be multiplayer. With that in mind, there are certain things that just don't fit well. People on the forums speak endlessly about functioning bridge interiors and doing everything from inside the ship. Yes, that would be an immersive Star Trek experience...but you're breaking away from the multiplayer aspect just a bit.

    I hear all these ideas about how your ship should be boarded in the middle of battle and you have to fight through your ship and defeat them. Again, a neat idea, but if you're grouped up with someone else, what happens to them? Are they still flying around in battle? Is your ship just sitting there whilst you fight off enemies? Did they get boarded, too? In which case they are on their own ship while you're on yours (which defeats the grouping aspect).

    Which is why a lot of us want to have multiple players on one ship. Because that is both multiplayer AND immersive to the Star Trek experience.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    I think (in answer to the OP title) is that we want a successful ST single player game, lol. All the new ones have sucked.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    "Role" and "Playing" are actually part of the same term, that mean the same thing as your definition for "Role" :o

    As far as MMORPG's go Nagus they are separate, which is why the accronym is MMORPG not MMORG.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    NeoWolf wrote: »
    As far as MMORPG's go Nagus they are separate, which is why the accronym is MMORPG not MMORG.

    Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant. I mean those two words are part of the same term: "role playing". It is a two word term, and are not actually supposed to be separated in meaning like the rest of the words you listed.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Summers wrote: »
    Starfleet Command 3 + Away Team = STO

    Starfleet Command 2 - Orion Pirates + Bridge Commander + Elite Force = :D:D:D:D

    QFT!

    Elite Force is allways WIN ^^


    personally i consume everything with the name Star Trek on it,
    i dont care if it is MMO or Singleplayer as long as it is any GOOD! ...and even if it is bad i will still play it
    hell i played Star Trek Legacy like 5 times through... and then again with Mods... and the game was horrible... but i loved it ;P
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Z3R0B4NG wrote: »
    QFT!

    and Elite Force is allways WIN ^^

    Elite Force is okay but... it's kinda of dated from a gameplay mechanic standpoint.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant. I mean those two words are part of the same term: "role playing". It is a two word term, and are not actually supposed to be separated in meaning like the rest of the words you listed.

    I didn't misunderstand you at all Nagus, I got what you said, but as I pointed out the term Role-playing as far as the MMORPG accronym is concerned is not considered One thing as is evidence by the fact that it is MMORPG, not MMORG, which it would be if they were considering Rolep playing a singular term.

    even in PnP roleplaying games the words may be used as one but they still have singular meanings as well as added meaning when used together in the way that they are.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    its too bad really. because this game is very fun when you play grouped.

    the stf missions and fleet actions

    especially on advanced where you have to really work to keep one another alive or theres a consequence. its more intense.

    grouping used to be fun early on when everyone started out, right after open beta because almost every mission you joined an open group, in the first sol sector.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    this is a single player game and has been since launch....
    Don't get me wrong, a single player Star Trek game with some of the features people here suggest would, indeed, be awesome.

    Take a game like Mass Effect 1/2, for example. it's almost the same exact thing. You pick a class, you fly to different planets from your ship. You have a (somewhat) functional ship interior. You walk around and have meaningful conversations with your crew. You advance from mission to mission using the helm.

    You travel down to planets. Having meaningful conversations with other characters. The story develops as one full of intrigue, mystery, deep characters, and choices.

    You can explore for materials (with which you can craft new upgrades for your crew) and side quests.

    Imagine a Mass Effect style game with Star Trek slapped on top of it. That would be bad TRIBBLE.


    But this is not a single player game. It is an MMO. It's supposed to be multiplayer. With that in mind, there are certain things that just don't fit well. People on the forums speak endlessly about functioning bridge interiors and doing everything from inside the ship. Yes, that would be an immersive Star Trek experience...but you're breaking away from the multiplayer aspect just a bit.

    I hear all these ideas about how your ship should be boarded in the middle of battle and you have to fight through your ship and defeat them. Again, a neat idea, but if you're grouped up with someone else, what happens to them? Are they still flying around in battle? Is your ship just sitting there whilst you fight off enemies? Did they get boarded, too? In which case they are on their own ship while you're on yours (which defeats the grouping aspect).

    I would list more ideas, but my post would get super long. My main point is...many ideas that people list on here are GREAT ideas...perhaps for a single player game. But for an MMO there are just way too many variables to implement most of them. I'm not saying the game shouldn't strive to be deeper than it is...it always should...but I get the feeling that a Star Trek MMO is not really what some players want.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    naw, I think people just want more of the RPG in the MMORPG moniker.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Many of these great ideas that would seem geared towards a single player game...could have been used to make a GREAT MMO, if they had been applied properly.

    But from a proper application of the ideas, stems a great debate which will never find a middle ground of resolution.

    Had STO been designed to be a more immersive and more accurate representation of the universe of Trek, then this game would have been off the charts. For example, having multi-player ship crews, instead of everyone being a Captain, and with their own ship and bridge crew. Having ranks actually mean something, and be something to earn, rather than an experience bar. Not having Admiralty at every turn, but rather being the Captain of a starship be the thing to aspire to. So many ideas that could have been, and could have made this game the ultimate Trek exerience.

    But, in all these ideas that would have created the ultimate Trek game comes the great divide between the super casual player that wanted a more arcade type experience, vs, the more hardcore player that wanted to live the Star Trek experience. The debate becomes arcade vs. simulation, with the arcade faction believing that to achieve a simulation would have players scrubbing plasma conduits and doing menial tasks to achieve the proper rank structure, when in reality you wouldn't need the menial, but rather more thought and effort put into creating a virtual Star Trek that everyone could enjoy and find their fun within, without sacraficing autheticity.

    See, this whole debate is the crux of the single player / multiplayer game problem. STO was designed with an MMO in mind, but in an effort to capture a wider audience, ended up being a more solo centric game. I wouldn't call STO in it's current form an MMO. If it wanted to be an MMO, then it needed to be more authetic to Trek, in order to give people a need to be multiplayer. But alas, the need for "everyone to be a Captain" made this game the anomaly that it is today. A game without the substance that would make for an authetic Trek experience, much less a true MMO.

    /heavy sigh
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    there should be a player poll in game on the forums to ensure max participation.

    which combat model we want.

    since we dont have hundreds of players running around on ground combat, its not laggy, and i think therefore it would lend to a 3rd person shooter aspect like mass effect alot better, without creating lag still, since you're mostly doing ground combat against NPC.

    the ME combat is intense and fun and i wish sto had either elite force style or that style, standing up next to 5 enemies trading laser shots until they die is akin, to punching one another in turn until one person finally doesn't get back up.

    its just boring, lazy and has no excitement to it.

    if you had to run around for cover and actually aim it would be way more hectic, and since most st gamers came up on starfleet command and elite force, i bet most of us would vote for that kind of combat model.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Here's another big dilemma:
    Only the following require teams:
    • STFs
    • PvP

    The following do not require teams;
    • Warzones
    • Crafting
    • Tutorial
    • Exploration
    • FDC
    • DSE
    • Story Episodes (Patrol Missions)

    Mixed:
    • Fleet Actions (some are, some aren't)

    What this means is that only four missions, the PvP maps, and a few of the Fleet Actions actually require anyone else.

    If you want this game to thrive, you need content that needs people - or else we don't chat in-game, we don't join fleets, and we don't socialize. The power of that social component (from teaming) can be lost under the current content paradigm.

    Unless it's zone-chat debate hour, I only say "gg" in PvP or "gj" when my auto-team completes a mission.

    While the developers have nailed a lot of things (graphics are superb, space combat is great), they've missed a lot of opportunities - like giving players a reason to be in a fleet (like being in a WoW Guild).
    • If Fleets were ranked against Fleets for PvP performance, it'd be a great motivator to link up those players and getting them to work together.

    • If Fleet Actions both required fleet and fleets could enter them (who would've thought this feature would be requested?), it'd give a reason for Raid Guilds to Exist.

    • If crafting mattered more and long-term objects could be constructed for fleet use, there'd be more of a reason to have Fleet crafters (who, right now, can only hope of making worse gear than what you get from solo content and in worse time).
    You have lots of solo content. How about something to engage the group?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    As said, STO IS single player in it's current form.
    The few instances where it becomes MP is really just CO-OP mode.

    Then we finally have the MP instances where is simply variations of standard shooters. Capture and hold, deathmatch... yada yada

    That said, I dont mind it. Star Trek always was a single player series and fairly narrow in it's scope. The only one that really broke that scope was DS9 which has consistantly recieved flak from self professed Star Trek fans that it wasnt 'real' Star Trek.

    Result: Cryptic have pretty much captured exactly what Star Trek was about in the regard of having players being self contained within their own ship's story.

    Could STO benefit from more team orientated / fleet based content ?

    Definetly but thats really going the way of DS9 / EVE Online faction warfare. I.E Territory Control / Open PVP
    Something which sadly, the current game dynamics are extremely shoddy at approaching and I dont see Cryptic having anywhere near the required skill to pull it off.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    J-Sheridan wrote:
    As said, STO IS single player in it's current form.

    Could STO benefit from more team orientated / fleet based content ?

    Definetly but thats really going the way of DS9 / EVE Online faction warfare. I.E Territory Control / Open PVP
    Something which sadly, the current game dynamics are extremely shoddy at approaching and I dont see Cryptic having anywhere near the required skill to pull it off.

    Well if you focus on the problem how can you ever come up with a solution?
    I've just today made a suggestion for a new Fleet Action that is team oriented, and my suggestion does not require current "shoddy" game mechanics to be changed at all.

    Although it is not our job to make this game more innovative and less cookie-cutter, I feel this is the only Star Trek MMO that will be out for a long while. So instead of focusing on the problem, try and offer solutions to said problem. A la Thomas the Cat. Many people said minigames were a waste of time, and yet, look how fun they can be.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    FYI: MMO doesn't mean we have to /play/ together.

    It just means we are all logged in to the same game together.

    People seem to be confused about this. And they wonder why no one talks to them in-game.
Sign In or Register to comment.