Author Topic: Star Trek Online thread  (Read 169159 times)

Offline JimmyB76

  • Posts: 6423
  • Cookies: 421
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1860 on: July 29, 2010, 01:25:00 PM »
So they dropped the price of the game to 20 bucks.  Should I download it and give it a try?
is that $20 per month?  or per year?

Offline DJ Curtis

  • Ship Builder
  • Posts: 1964
  • Cookies: 1410
  • I make ships.
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1861 on: July 29, 2010, 01:50:21 PM »
to buy it out right and get the first month.

Offline Villain

  • Posts: 1480
  • Cookies: 71
  • The artist formerly known as Prime
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1862 on: July 29, 2010, 01:53:34 PM »
That'd be the actual box/digital download, the sub is (Going by the average mmo cost) $15/mo. If it were $20 yearly I'd call it a fair price, though.  :funny Remember you get a free month with mmo purchases but still have to pay for one up front.

DJ: It all depends. Have you played any MMO's before? Big RTS fan? Space handles essentially like commanding a single unit in an RTS game, where ground handles like the old EQ2/SWG combat (The norm for most mmo's, save for the more recent APB, which handles exactly like GTA3/4). Through personal observation watching friends play I've found like all large comunities if you aren't going to play with familiars Pick Up Groups are a pain (You'd be surprised how many times in various MMO's I've had to ditch a team because nobody knows what their class/job/profession/AT/Ship type does)

What you should do first is grab a guest pass from someone here if they're willing to give it out, and try the (albeit extremely short) demo. It should be enough to help you decide if it really isn't your game or if a month of play will keep you entertained.


"The design is clearly ancient... Launched hundreds of thousands of years ago."

Quote from: JimmyB76
der-ner-ner-ner-ner ..... der-ner-ner-ner-ner .....
---
Quote from: Rick Sternbach, on the topic of the Galor Class' length
...Probably not, but the number I get(379.6m) could be considered ?original intent,? a term that I think I will be using from now on, and ?canon? be damned.

Offline DJ Curtis

  • Ship Builder
  • Posts: 1964
  • Cookies: 1410
  • I make ships.
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1863 on: July 29, 2010, 02:09:42 PM »
anybody have said Guest pass they'd be willing to part with?

Offline Daystar70

  • Posts: 543
  • Cookies: 10
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1864 on: July 29, 2010, 04:58:10 PM »
DJ i think itd be awesome if u tried it. This is NOW finally shaping in to the trek game people wanted at launch, and with User generated content coming in season 3, its heading towards greaat times.

Offline Morgan

  • Moderator
  • Posts: 1340
  • Cookies: 65535
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1865 on: July 29, 2010, 08:02:29 PM »
whats up with the lack of lcars on the helm and ops station when showing the bc galaxy bridge?
ya tis a shame...  if it werent like that, and the bridges and interiors were designed to be "canon" size, then i might actually gain an interest in playing STO...  being as they are, tho, cancels out that interest entirely for me...  ah well...
No offense but isn't that kind of a trivial reason for not trying it out? Seems kind of nit-picky to be honest *ducks*. I can personally hate the interior sizes too, but that's just MMO's, it's not exclusive to STO.

I'm avoiding it solely because the reviews I've seen make the price seem unreasonable. I've said it before and I'll say it again - if I'm gonna bust $200 for a game it needs to be great, not just OK. That doesn't mean that I'm saying STO sucks, it's just not worth the price in my view.

Offline Darkthunder

  • Vice Administrator
  • Posts: 2321
  • Cookies: 1527
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1866 on: July 29, 2010, 10:08:17 PM »
No offense but isn't that kind of a trivial reason for not trying it out? Seems kind of nit-picky to be honest *ducks*. I can personally hate the interior sizes too, but that's just MMO's, it's not exclusive to STO.

On this point I agree with JimmyB76 100%. While yes, it's true that the "oversized interiors" are not limited to STO, in most MMOs involving a "ground-based" avatar and interiors, they do make the two actually seem to fit each other. In certain angles on the new "Gen Galaxy" type bridge in STO, it looks fine (such as when viewing the bridge from the viewscreen towards the Captains chair. Whereas in other areas, the bridge looks grossly oversized. Such as seeing the "tactical officer" behind the tactical console. Looks to be a good 10-20 meters to get around the "arch".

In general, Star Trek fans have always been very picky about something i'd like to call, DETAILS. Since the developers decided that "Gosh darnit, maybe we should have playable interiors since it seems to be a big part of Star Trek", the least they can strive for is to actually adhere to canon and make stuff actually LOOK canon. I'm surprised that CBS hasn't stepped in yet and made Cryptic fix the glaring errors with alot of the canon materials.

Case in point:

If Cryptic had set the game 30-40 years past canon (post-Nemesis), and went with 100% NEW content, in the form of characters, locales, ship designs etc, there would be very little if any complaints about such minutae as "DETAILS". But since they decided to INCLUDE canon materials such as the Galaxy class, Intrepid class etc, they should actually try and make them as CANON as possible.

Just look at the various mods the BC community has been putting out over the years, and you'll see that the creative efforts of this community far outweighs the efforts of the Cryptic development staff. Ofcourse, i'm sure someone will mention "Well this is an MMO, so you have to use lower detail models yaddah yaddah..."

My point being: NO YOU DONT. In any decently programmed game these days, you have a system known as "Level of detail" which should be able to automatically use lower/higher detailed models and textures and even effects depending on the distance from the players camera. You should easily be able to have "super high" detailed models and textures when you are seeing objects up close and personal, and "super low" detailed models and textures at greater distances.

Every single version of the "Unreal Engine" (currently Unreal Engine 3), has been very thoroughly optimized to support a wide range of computer setups (sound familiar to the MMO high detail nay-sayers?). And still able to run at a nice framerate and nice detail.

EDIT: Sticking within the topic of STO and MMOs in general: The closest comparison one can make, is to the MMO Eve Online. While Eve currently doesn't have playable interiors (will change in the future), Eve's space graphics are FAR superior to STO. When I still played Eve Online, I was running on medium/high graphics and it looked REALLY nice. These days, I have a better computer setup, and when trying to play STO at any higher than Medium, will result in very low framerate and sometimes even "skipping" graphics. Neither STO or ChO (Champions Online) are particularly well optimized at current, and I believe this to be a flaw in the engine itself, and thus very hard to remedy.

In short:
- Eve Online has dozens if not hundreds of ships onscreen and looks super-detailed, and runs fine on a wide range of hardware setups.
- Star Trek Online has dozens if not hundreds of ships onscreen and looks alot less detailed, and has issues running on higher graphic details.
Official BCC Discord · https://discord.gg/nJAx4HNQ2G
Ad Astra Per Aspera

Offline Tuskin38

  • Posts: 2476
  • Cookies: 111
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1867 on: July 29, 2010, 11:39:40 PM »
I hit VA one a couple hours ago, woot

Dark what are your specs? I can run STO On max everything.

Offline JimmyB76

  • Posts: 6423
  • Cookies: 421
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1868 on: July 30, 2010, 07:38:44 AM »
No offense but isn't that kind of a trivial reason for not trying it out? Seems kind of nit-picky to be honest *ducks*. I can personally hate the interior sizes too, but that's just MMO's, it's not exclusive to STO.

I'm avoiding it solely because the reviews I've seen make the price seem unreasonable. I've said it before and I'll say it again - if I'm gonna bust $200 for a game it needs to be great, not just OK. That doesn't mean that I'm saying STO sucks, it's just not worth the price in my view.
for me, i am moreso about interiors than anything else...  i prefer bridges (and such) moreso than ships lol  if the bridges and the rest of interiors were as close to canon as they could be, that would really shift my position on the whole game...  sure it is nitpicky, but thats what i like most about trek...  i could live with the weird ships and other "external" aspects of the game that arent all that great or all that trek-like if the interiors were more accurate...  thats just my personal preference...
and while im not really familiar with MMOs in general, i dont think it is true that all MMO interiors (no matter the game) are ten times larger than they would be in reality...
and i do agree with the point of the expensive price...  thats just waaaaay too much cash for something i would only be like 60% interested in lol

Offline FarShot

  • That guy with good ideas...
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 2470
  • Cookies: 787
  • I'm actually making stuff! :D
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1869 on: July 30, 2010, 07:58:41 AM »
Don't forget that you're also paying to play with whoever you want to play with.  Multiplayer on steroids.

Offline Daystar70

  • Posts: 543
  • Cookies: 10
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1870 on: July 30, 2010, 09:35:07 AM »
For me i will try and explain what the difference is playing MMO trek vs multiplayer BC or something. Last night i was hanging out in the ventrilo of SSR (Sub Space Radio), drunk off my arse partying with a couple of female players and the DJ's, as they streamed their radio show, putting me and some others live on the air to talk about star trek online, and trek in general, we helped others level to vice admiral, or we pvp, sometimes we even roleplay our characters in chat, for example they did a roleplay interview with a vulcan player and one of the DJ's, DJ Gromm, roleplays his DJ persona as a Ferengi and he does one HELL of a great impression of a Ferengi. So, the community/social aspect of playing with tons of other trek fans and deciding " let's go kill Klingons" or whatever because we CAN is fun for me.

Offline Side 3

  • Posts: 66
  • Cookies: 1
  • All glory to the Haruhi-toad!
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1871 on: July 30, 2010, 09:54:25 AM »
Dark summed it all up perfectly. As for interiors in EVE, do you mean Dust 514?  :dance

Offline Darkthunder

  • Vice Administrator
  • Posts: 2321
  • Cookies: 1527
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1872 on: July 30, 2010, 02:50:47 PM »
Dark summed it all up perfectly. As for interiors in EVE, do you mean Dust 514?  :dance

No, I mean "Interiors in Eve". It's been a long ongoing development project to bring playable interiors into Eve Online. I forget the current name, but one of the unofficial names of said expansion to Eve was literally labeled as "walking in stations".
Official BCC Discord · https://discord.gg/nJAx4HNQ2G
Ad Astra Per Aspera

Offline Side 3

  • Posts: 66
  • Cookies: 1
  • All glory to the Haruhi-toad!
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1873 on: July 31, 2010, 02:47:06 AM »
All I know about D514 is that it was going to tie in with EVE (They didn't say just how much IIRC, at least not yet) But it was essentially the ground wars while EVE handled space, kinda figured interiors and D514 would correlate...

My bad.  :P

Offline DJ Curtis

  • Ship Builder
  • Posts: 1964
  • Cookies: 1410
  • I make ships.
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1874 on: August 01, 2010, 10:43:43 PM »
Well, I've played through the Demo.  Thanks, AcesHigh for the guest pass.  I like it enough i think, to buy the game and play for a month.  The ground aspect definitely needs work, and the space combat is very SFC like, though simpler.  All in all, it feels very trekish.  I'm going to download the full version and keep going.

Offline Daystar70

  • Posts: 543
  • Cookies: 10
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1875 on: August 01, 2010, 10:49:03 PM »
It definetly gets better as you advance. When you get it, if you need a fleet and/or just plain help leveling,add George Kane@chooch99 :P

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 #1876 on: August 01, 2010, 10:57:32 PM »
same goes here for the 9th fleet.
Canon is what people argue exists on ships that don't exist.

Offline Daystar70

  • Posts: 543
  • Cookies: 10
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1877 on: August 02, 2010, 12:38:52 AM »
That reminds me Nebula. I pvp a lot, and i am in a dedicated pvp fleet, we had some guests from 23rd or was it 123rd? i forget, come in vent one day,this was a top notch pvp fleet who people respect, when i mentioned various fleets i knew members of , i brought up 9th fleet and he was saying how respectable you guys are in pvp.

BTW i made this banner for my fleet, i am modifying it more to make the word" imperium fleet" POP more but this is a rough draft anyone have any opinions?

Offline Dawg81

  • Posts: 733
  • Cookies: 29
  • I am Dawg; Resistence is futile
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1878 on: August 02, 2010, 10:18:52 AM »
thats a very nice vulcan there for alll theri logic they sure do have fine ladies

Offline Villain

  • Posts: 1480
  • Cookies: 71
  • The artist formerly known as Prime
Re: Star Trek Online thread
« Reply #1879 on: August 02, 2010, 10:56:31 AM »
Can't call it scifi if it doesn't agitate the hardcore feminists.  :funny


"The design is clearly ancient... Launched hundreds of thousands of years ago."

Quote from: JimmyB76
der-ner-ner-ner-ner ..... der-ner-ner-ner-ner .....
---
Quote from: Rick Sternbach, on the topic of the Galor Class' length
...Probably not, but the number I get(379.6m) could be considered ?original intent,? a term that I think I will be using from now on, and ?canon? be damned.