akulapanam
10-28-2009, 06:30 PM
I’m pretty excited about Star Trek Online because, based on what I have seen so far, it’s shaping up to be a pretty good looking game. This might be the first MMOG I would be willing to pay for, right now I only play NavyField. However, I do have two questions or concerns that may or may not have already been addressed.
1) How dynamic is the Universe going to be? If the Klingons defeat the Federation in a major battle over world YYY will that world be under Klingon control? Also do we know how fleet battles are going work? Just guessing but maybe something along the lines of post a bulletin to gather fleet at a Starbase and then go as a horde to attack a system?
2) Does anyone else have concerns regarding the look and feel of the universe? I understand the reasoning behind the 2409 date choice; however some of the screenshots have me concerned about the appearance of ships in the game. I see two potential problems. First, one of the most important aspects about the game for me is being able to play the ship that I want. For $180 a year and with only about 30 or so cannon ship designs that could be viable in the era I would expect almost everyone to be in the game. Yet from screenshots I have only seen maybe 10 to 12 of those ships at most. This brings me to my second concern which is about the feel of the universe. Many of the screenshots I have seen have a variety of uncanon looking, low polygon, designs. If the universe is going to presume that Star Fleet has this many ship designs then it should at least cover all the existing ones. Given the timeframe, I understand the need for new classes but they should at least be rendered in more detail so that they blend better with what our minds fill in from the show. I would also prefer if a majority of the new designs looked like they fit the era well. Don’t get me wrong, I love the idea of being able to switch my Constellation into a Cheyenne I would just prefer the designs to have at least some degree of uniformity. IMHO this is one of the major distinctions between the Star Wars and Star Trek universe.
In anycase, I hope I’m wrong about the look and feel and number of canon designs. It’s not that it looks bad per se; it’s just that it could look better.
Finally, I have read a lot of posts about the closed beta test and I think I have a unique prospective. I’m the chief information officer for a firm that builds airline and airport business intelligence applications. Obviously, we have similar beta test needs from time to time because we run server side web applications that rely on reporting and database software that handles terabytes worth of data. To me the entire idea of selling closed beta access seems strange. When I first heard about the offer, apparently long after it had expired, I thought that Cryptic was actually using “beta” in a very loose way to infer early access to a stable test platform. However, some of the threads clearly indicate that Cryptic is indeed running a beta without even having a majority of the cluster setup for 24/7 access. If those posts are correct, this seems very contrary to accepted and established testing techniques. This is just my opinion, but if I were Cryptic I would want hardcore testers until I had a majority of my hardware online and a stable platform. The problem with selling “closed beta access” is that your testers who should be working for you suddenly become your customers. You also really want your open beta testers to be building positive momentum for the launch through social media. I don’t think the NDA mass closed beta accomplishes that. Even Microsoft developers tools released in CTP form undergo extensive internal testing before they are ever released into the wild. This is not an attack or bash on Cryptic, I just think the entire setup is strange. Perhaps, Cryptic is not effectively communicating what’s really going on. Also, I did not buy a CO subscription or even know that they offered that until the entire discussion came up.
1) How dynamic is the Universe going to be? If the Klingons defeat the Federation in a major battle over world YYY will that world be under Klingon control? Also do we know how fleet battles are going work? Just guessing but maybe something along the lines of post a bulletin to gather fleet at a Starbase and then go as a horde to attack a system?
2) Does anyone else have concerns regarding the look and feel of the universe? I understand the reasoning behind the 2409 date choice; however some of the screenshots have me concerned about the appearance of ships in the game. I see two potential problems. First, one of the most important aspects about the game for me is being able to play the ship that I want. For $180 a year and with only about 30 or so cannon ship designs that could be viable in the era I would expect almost everyone to be in the game. Yet from screenshots I have only seen maybe 10 to 12 of those ships at most. This brings me to my second concern which is about the feel of the universe. Many of the screenshots I have seen have a variety of uncanon looking, low polygon, designs. If the universe is going to presume that Star Fleet has this many ship designs then it should at least cover all the existing ones. Given the timeframe, I understand the need for new classes but they should at least be rendered in more detail so that they blend better with what our minds fill in from the show. I would also prefer if a majority of the new designs looked like they fit the era well. Don’t get me wrong, I love the idea of being able to switch my Constellation into a Cheyenne I would just prefer the designs to have at least some degree of uniformity. IMHO this is one of the major distinctions between the Star Wars and Star Trek universe.
In anycase, I hope I’m wrong about the look and feel and number of canon designs. It’s not that it looks bad per se; it’s just that it could look better.
Finally, I have read a lot of posts about the closed beta test and I think I have a unique prospective. I’m the chief information officer for a firm that builds airline and airport business intelligence applications. Obviously, we have similar beta test needs from time to time because we run server side web applications that rely on reporting and database software that handles terabytes worth of data. To me the entire idea of selling closed beta access seems strange. When I first heard about the offer, apparently long after it had expired, I thought that Cryptic was actually using “beta” in a very loose way to infer early access to a stable test platform. However, some of the threads clearly indicate that Cryptic is indeed running a beta without even having a majority of the cluster setup for 24/7 access. If those posts are correct, this seems very contrary to accepted and established testing techniques. This is just my opinion, but if I were Cryptic I would want hardcore testers until I had a majority of my hardware online and a stable platform. The problem with selling “closed beta access” is that your testers who should be working for you suddenly become your customers. You also really want your open beta testers to be building positive momentum for the launch through social media. I don’t think the NDA mass closed beta accomplishes that. Even Microsoft developers tools released in CTP form undergo extensive internal testing before they are ever released into the wild. This is not an attack or bash on Cryptic, I just think the entire setup is strange. Perhaps, Cryptic is not effectively communicating what’s really going on. Also, I did not buy a CO subscription or even know that they offered that until the entire discussion came up.