Author Topic: Star Trek Online thread  (Read 167663 times)

Offline Ryles

  • Posts: 117
  • Cookies: 0
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1360 on: February 07, 2010, 02:10:43 AM »
Originally (closed beta), they didn't glow at all unless you talked to NPCs and asked the right questions. And there was no scan function which told you where to look for the "closest intractable object." Additionally, you had to be within 1-2 meters for the glow effect to happen.

It was tedious.

It was annoying.

(More so when there were optical occlusion errors and objects would be invisible.)

And it was for a PATROL mission which was intended to have you complete all phases in 1-1.5 hours at most. Not an "episode." These were meant to be like the Enterprise scanning gas content in the neutral zone before First Contact. Short, simple, and meant to give you more XP and loot before you continued the main stories... they just weren't short. Or enjoyable.

Of course, at this time, combat patrols had 7 to 12 groups in them. More if it was "scan X stations" as each station would be defended, and  there would be additional groups off to the side to lead you wrong directions. Additionally, there were no way points marked on the map. Or large circles saying where the enemies could be found.

And these were very, very, repetitive fights.

So, changes were made based on beta feed back. Excellent changes, some mentioned above:

The tricorder scan, which saves you from running around 45 minutes on a deserted planet looking for ONE fracking caccoon which you somehow missed... which looks identical to the other ones. And you couldn't really tell if you'd seen it or not yet because...

the glow effect was considerably weaker, and unnoticeable unless you were on top of it. To give you an example, in the tutorial during closed beta, I had trouble finding the console you were supposed to use to hail the ship. It was just that hard to see.

way points didn't exist early on. You had no idea where you needed to go. Scanning asteroids? Which ones? No idea. They were all about the same size and type with nothing to distinguish them. Sure, theres an asteroid field to orbit... but its a big orbit, and at full impulse you'd simple miss them.

map area markers similar to the above, and when they adjusted the patrols from 7-12 groups to 3-7, well, that left good chunks of space where there'd be nothing to find any more. Ever notice the random respawn points that seem to have no purpose? Well, they had a purpose. There used to be bad things not far off that would likely kill you.


To put this more in perspective, it took around 20 hours to go from levels 1 to 10 and get your second ship before the adjustments and changes that improved gameplay. This was assuming you were already somewhat familiar with the game mechanics, and had done some of the quests before. Compared to other MMO's that was tedious at the extreme. And that was just levels 1 to 10. 20 - 30 was harder and more tedious.

As it is now, I think theres a good balance. And it has come a very long way in the last few months... but yeah, it could use more polish. A lot more beyond t2... but thats coming.

If you think the combat is too easy, group with some one and do the patrols and missions solo. You'll have 2 to 5x the amount of enemies for you to beat on, or for you to get obliterated by over and over and over and over again. ;)

Offline Dawg81

  • Posts: 733
  • Cookies: 29
  • I am Dawg; Resistence is futile
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1361 on: February 08, 2010, 12:08:01 PM »
U guys wont believe it. I have just learned that P81 himself is flying STO and to top it off he has joined the 9th Fleet. And before anyone asks he is currently working on DC Universe. I would ask those familar with his work to greet him on the server or hop over to the 9th boards and welcome him back to trek gaming

Offline Nebula

  • BC elder / BCC Vice Admin
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 5499
  • Cookies: 1129
  • KM - Mod Team Member & BC - Elder (2002)
    • 9th fleet HQ
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1362 on: February 08, 2010, 12:23:00 PM »
you forgot about knox1711 as well...
Canon is what people argue exists on ships that don't exist.

Offline JimmyB76

  • Posts: 6423
  • Cookies: 421
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1363 on: February 08, 2010, 12:24:14 PM »
umm isnt P81 in fact Rick Knox? :P

Offline Spade

  • I'VE GOT TONE! FOX TWO! FOX TWO!
  • Posts: 41
  • Cookies: 12
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1364 on: February 08, 2010, 01:01:35 PM »
umm isnt P81 in fact Rick Knox? :P

LOL! Was about to say.  :P :D

Offline Nebula

  • BC elder / BCC Vice Admin
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 5499
  • Cookies: 1129
  • KM - Mod Team Member & BC - Elder (2002)
    • 9th fleet HQ
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1365 on: February 08, 2010, 02:44:33 PM »
umm isnt P81 in fact Rick Knox? :P

No, knox1711 and P81 are sep people... they just get confused a lot because knox1711 worked on and ported many of P81's ships...

go on and ask them over at the 9th fleet forums :P
Canon is what people argue exists on ships that don't exist.

Offline JimmyB76

  • Posts: 6423
  • Cookies: 421
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1366 on: February 08, 2010, 02:59:10 PM »
maybe i will... 
and maybe ill say that a certain spammer named Nebula is going around and telling everyone that they are the same person :arms: :P

Offline Dawg81

  • Posts: 733
  • Cookies: 29
  • I am Dawg; Resistence is futile
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1367 on: February 08, 2010, 03:19:45 PM »
ROFL

Offline Nebula

  • BC elder / BCC Vice Admin
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 5499
  • Cookies: 1129
  • KM - Mod Team Member & BC - Elder (2002)
    • 9th fleet HQ
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1368 on: February 08, 2010, 03:55:55 PM »
:roll hahaha
Canon is what people argue exists on ships that don't exist.

Offline Hellsgate

  • Administrator, "Star Trek: New Worlds"
  • Posts: 195
  • Cookies: 2
  • Administrator, "Star Trek: New Worlds"
    • =^=Star Trek: New Worlds=^=
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1369 on: February 09, 2010, 02:54:22 AM »
If At First You Don't Succeed, So Much For Skydiving.

Offline Spade

  • I'VE GOT TONE! FOX TWO! FOX TWO!
  • Posts: 41
  • Cookies: 12
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1370 on: February 09, 2010, 01:57:22 PM »
umm isnt P81 in fact Rick Knox? :P

No, knox1711 and P81 are sep people... they just get confused a lot because knox1711 worked on and ported many of P81's ships...

go on and ask them over at the 9th fleet forums :P

:eek

maybe i will... 
and maybe ill say that a certain spammer named Nebula is going around and telling everyone that they are the same person :arms: :P

I'll back up any thing you say Jimmy! :P :D

Offline Nebula

  • BC elder / BCC Vice Admin
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 5499
  • Cookies: 1129
  • KM - Mod Team Member & BC - Elder (2002)
    • 9th fleet HQ
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1371 on: February 09, 2010, 02:00:43 PM »
 :'(
Canon is what people argue exists on ships that don't exist.

Offline Dawg81

  • Posts: 733
  • Cookies: 29
  • I am Dawg; Resistence is futile
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1372 on: February 09, 2010, 02:12:35 PM »
Ill raise your Jimmy with a rear admiral of the 9th... OH THATS ME!!!! hahahahahahahaha
got your back Nebula

Offline Daystar70

  • Posts: 543
  • Cookies: 10
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1373 on: February 09, 2010, 11:57:39 PM »
Hells gate- AWESOME screenshots dude. Loving MY Excalibur class with "all good things " future Galaxy class bridge, Daystar-A. I am likely keeping this ship ahead and modifying but i may grab at commander, an Akira and at captain a Vigilant that would be my 3 ship wishlist at present- Excalibur(main ship modify as i go up),Akira,and Vigilant.

Offline Billz

  • Posts: 1697
  • Cookies: 45
  • Doctor who? ;)
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1374 on: February 10, 2010, 07:04:40 AM »
Those bridge textures on the previous page, would make baby Jesus cry.  :'(

looks better when you don't modify its textures -.-

Doubt it. There is just so much wrong with that Connie Refit model, that I don't even think its base textures could improve it.
Can't wait for 2014 to start.

Offline JimmyB76

  • Posts: 6423
  • Cookies: 421
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1375 on: February 10, 2010, 07:37:46 AM »
Those bridge textures on the previous page, would make baby Jesus cry.  :'(
lol cookied
ya they are pretty dreadful...  if they werent so shocking, i might even consider trying to ignore the other things i dont care for, and try it all out...  but seeing the bridge pics really turned me off to it...
but thats just my own personal opinion and nitpicks...

Offline martyr

  • Posts: 140
  • Cookies: 4
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1376 on: February 10, 2010, 09:45:40 AM »
you don't really spend time in the bridge anyway

Offline Voyager16

  • Modding is improving.
  • Posts: 310
  • Cookies: 9
  • KM - Mod Team Member
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1377 on: February 10, 2010, 10:43:58 AM »
Well I wont buy the game for a while.
Broke haha.

And I need to upgrade my gfx card & RAM I guess.
Because I had to play with every setting on low.
A bit lame.

Can you give me a guess how much I need to spend on a upgrade for RAM & gfx?

now on 1 gb RAM & ATI x1300pro.

Offline Nebula

  • BC elder / BCC Vice Admin
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 5499
  • Cookies: 1129
  • KM - Mod Team Member & BC - Elder (2002)
    • 9th fleet HQ
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1378 on: February 10, 2010, 10:45:15 AM »
need to know your motherboard first... then we can figure out what to do...
Canon is what people argue exists on ships that don't exist.

Offline Voyager16

  • Modding is improving.
  • Posts: 310
  • Cookies: 9
  • KM - Mod Team Member
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1379 on: February 10, 2010, 10:54:03 AM »
There you go.