What is the one thing you are most looking forward to in Season 3? Mission Replay
What is the one thing you are most disappointed is not being included? Foundry on Holodeck
What do you plan on doing with your time tomorrow while the servers are down? I will be too busy with other things to notice.
How did you rate STO when released? How will you rate it after Season 3? Why? I think I would say it is 7 when released and 8.5 now. Season 3 isnt the only factor in my increasing the rating. They have done a significant amount of additions this year from all the new ships, increasing the rank, addition of missions, weekly series, etc...
What is the one thing you are most looking forward to in Season 3? The Foundry open beta.
What is the one thing you are most disappointed is not being included? Ground combat re-vamp.
What do you plan on doing with your time tomorrow while the servers are down? Working on university projects.
How did you rate STO when released? How will you rate it after Season 3? Why? At release, 5/10. Why? It's not really multiplayer if the vast majority of the player base would rather use their AI team mates to get to max level. After season 3, 6.85/10. Why? The Foundry open beta, sector space re-vamp, still no effort to make the game encourage multiplayer to reach max level, crafting system still up in the air, it's still just a space combat sim with no thought given to exploration or diplomacy.
I don't mean to appear overly harsh but to give it 7/10 at this stage would be too generous in my opinion. Ask me again after the end of Q1, 2011
Also, I'll just point out these are my ratings on the game itself and in no way reflect my rating of how hard the developers are working. I give them a hearty 9/10 for all they've done so far.
The Foundry open beta has been going on for nearly a week now on Tribble. You can go there and test it any time you want.
I have been, but that's what I was looking forward to most out of Season 3
The reality is, as long as the game is soloable up to max level, I've no real interest in playing it, so I'd rather author missions. I get more interaction with other players in the forums than I do in the game itself and that's something I think should be addressed to stand a chance at larger commercial success of the game.
The reality is, as long as the game is soloable up to max level, I've no real interest in playing it, so I'd rather author missions.
I'm basically the opposite. I've always seen Star Trek as a solo-focused idea: one ship, one crew, one problem only they can solve. I'd have no interest in it if 99.9% of it required me to team. Not that I dislike teaming - I do that with my friends and Fleetmates all the time. I just don't like the idea that I must team in order to complete objectives. I hate that in so many MMOs that you have to have the tank, the healer, the dps guy, etc or you can't succeed.
Sorry in advance for the wall of text, but if I were writing a review for a magazine, I would make a point to include this very important issue when discussing playability:
Originally Posted by Cosmic_One
I hate that in so many MMOs that you have to have the tank, the healer, the dps guy, etc or you can't succeed.
Unfortunately that is the successful MMO formula. It's tried, it's tested and it works very well. And don't forget, of course, that most successful MMOs which use this formula also have a healthy amount of soloable content which requires no grouping at all to complete.
I have no interest in single player games anymore. I see them as a complete waste of time. To justify my many hours spent each week gaming as somewhat of a social experience, with ventrilo and headsets bringing voice communication into the mix, I'll only play games where I know I have the realistic prospect of teaming up with 5 or 6 friends, or even total strangers, to go and have at the game world as a team, whether that's the usual 1 tank, 1 healer, 1 whatever else, or a combo that doesn't fit the cookie cutter, like 4 tanks, 2 healers, or whatever, because, like you, I don't like the standard 1 of every class. STO seems to be so much more advanced than that, but it doesn't seem to realise it, which is really depressing when I think of what it could be.
In a game where you really need 2 of each class to have at it and have a technically intricate battle (2 tactical, 2 engineers and 2 science) I find it literally astounding that the team size is limited to 5. How short-sighted of the developers to not realise that a turret-dropping engineer needs a turret fixing buddy, and a healing science officer needs a damaging science team mate, and a martial artist tac officer needs his grenade toting counterpart. It strikes me that even the players filling these roles don't realise they would have a much more enriched experience by doubling up to get best use of all the available kits. All this relates to ground combat, of course, so 50% of the game.
My point is, the possibilities are endless when you have to factor other people into the equation, but when everything boils down to pre-programmed AI, I just have to say "No, that's not a game I'd enjoy. Thanks, but no." A more vindictive man might sue Cryptic for a refund of the lifetime subscription citing false advertising, because the game is not massively multiplayer at all. It's a single player game with a co-operative mode and a chat window in the corner.
Thankfully the community is a really nice bunch of people for the most part, and that's probably the main thing that's prevented me from E-Baying my lifetime subscription recently.
Not until Monday. Foundry's closed "for the rest of the week", remember? (I doubt that it'll be activated on Sunday, but I'd be pleasantly surprised if it did happen.)
Gym "Unless there's a new convention that the new week starts on Thursdays now..." Quirk
Thanks for the info. I haven't been following it. I'm too busy testing other games right now to focus my attention on the Foundry. STO's my for-fun game not the one I want to test at this point in time.