Talk:Star Trek Online

Beta

Does anyone know when the beta will be aviable? It is already summer 2007 and I have not heard any word on it yet. Is it a closed beta first? Has it been delayed? Thanks a lot, mates!

• There will definitely be a closed beta, but that hasnt been announced yet either. Generally beta can occur anytime between a year to six months before release, Perpetual have indicated their aim to release by Christmas 2008 so beta could start this winter or next summer. --Caiman 11:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Any update on the beta?

• Nope

Anything new on the beta as of August 17, 2007? I have yet to see anything on any sites I visit.

• Nope --Caiman 18:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Anything as of Sunday, September 16, 2007?

They keep delaying it. It will likely be canceled if it is not already.

It's not really been delayed yet. Was never due to be released until 2008 at earliest. Ben W Bell talk 00:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, the game is about to be canceled! We were right!

Delayed

I think the timeline is wrong, according to a recent interview its only in preproduction and 1.5 years away. I don't really even believe that after looking at the attached drawings, what have these people been doing for the last couple years!?!? Interview: http://trekmovie.com/2007/03/12/interview-with-daron-stinnett-exec-producer-of-star-trek-online-mmorpg/ (linked from the games website)

• Not delayed, 4-5 years is a normal production cycle for an MMO. They're not in pre-production, we've already seen in-engine shots, they're definitely in full development now, really. 1.5 years from release includes a beta period, keep in mind. --Caiman 14:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

..Announcing a game release date 2 years away and then 2 years later stateing its 2 years away is delaying the game..

There's nothing off the timeline that thay've always said. They always said even a couple of years ago that they hoped to have some early closed beta testing towards the end of 2007. As far as I can tell from following this for a couple of years they are exactly where they claimed they would be. Ben W Bell talk 10:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

DirectX 10

Will Star Trek Online be based on DirectX 10 or DirectX 9? It seems that the product release date is so far in the future that it will be DirectX 10 based.

Let's just hope it isn't Vista-only. If so, that'll suck.216.249.145.232 23:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that, mate. I am thinknig that most games that come out during the 2007 and 2008 will be a combination of DirectX 10 (for the fancy new hardware) and DirectX 9 (for the older computers) kind of like Microsoft's Cyruis game or whatever it is.

Setting confusion

The setting on the Star Trek Online official website, it is roughly set 20 years after Star Trek: Nemesis, whereas here in Wikipedia states that it is set roughly 10 years after Nemesis. 10 or 20 years after that?

Star Trek Online is set 20 years after Nemesis, this was revealed at the Las Vegas Trek Convention where Perpetual held a Q&A session. A recount of the session can be found here.

2399

That puts the year at 2399. As time passes IRL, will it pass in parody with realtime, in game (so, second-for-second, minute-for-minute, and so on)? --Shultz 05:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Surely you mean "parity", but as for the answer, I don't know. 216.234.58.18 18:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Player Aging

Is there a minimum age for a player to start out at? Also, how fast does this player age? Does the player die at TODAY'S life expectancies (~age 70-105), or how many "years" longer do they live before passing on? Obviously future medical advances should be able to extend their life spans.

And what happens after the character dies of old age? The player would hate for all of his skills, ranks, and credentials to be lost. --Shultz 05:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I read the FAQ a while back, and it seems like aging is going to be implemented in much the same way as it was in Fable; that is, as a primarily cosmetic or "ego-boosting" feature. As your character gains rank and skills, he physically appears to age to reflect his accumulated experience, but his attributes (strength, constitution, whatever) and such remain unaffected. It's probably being done to prevent things like a teenage-looking character becoming an admiral, and to give those "hardcore" MMO gamers yet one more reason to bank-sit.

My perusal of the (admittedly limited) information on the game, as well as my own experience as a gamer, tell me that death by old age is unlikely. Permanent death, especially from something as mundane as aging, is a fairly sensitive topic among MMO gamers, and has never featured in any major MMORPG. It could happen, of course, but it is very doubtful. 68.14.76.151 08:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering that it's been established that humans can live to well over a 100(McCoy appears in the first episode of TNG, making him at least 120 years old and other references to life expectancy being over 100 by then) I don't think you have to worry about them dieing of old age. TJ Spyke 05:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a New Year, Ladies and Gentlemen

Added two of the three 'look development' shots Perpetual released on Tuesday, 02/21/06. Also edited the description to reflect the changes to professions, but this page needs an insanely major overhaul. I'm not being specific because literally everything could benefit from expansion, revision, or repair. Gpotter511@yahoo.com 06:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately you will need to 'be' more specific, as it's hard to tell what is out of date with the content based on a generalized claim. AFAIK, no new information about the game has been released to contradict/expand what we have, so unless there's a specific complaint, the {{update}} template should go. --RayaruB 13:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. You obviously know how the article could be improved, what's stopping you? jacoplane 13:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Time, right at this particular moment, but I'll be working on it tonight. :)

To be more specific, because that is fair, the article doesn't appear to reflect any information from the last two or three devblogs, doesn't include any information about the Star Trek production staff that has been brought aboard, and lacks proper categorization based upon what has been learned over the last few months. I appreciate the helpful comments, however, as I'm new to editing on the 'big show' that is Wikipedia.Gpotter511@yahoo.com 16:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Added a few new sections and updated a bit. Hope that helps. Horizon 05:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate link

The link for "Star Trek Online Dedicated Wiki" goes to the same place as "Star Trek Online Universe from STGU". Which one should we remove? ComputerSherpa 18:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the dedicated wiki link since it redirects to STGU. Best to keep the non-redirecting link in the list. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 19:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Links section

I attempted to reorganize the Links section; that edit was rolled back because it "did not comply with Wikipedia style guidelines". I followed the guidelines at WP:EL as closely as I could, and something needs to be done about the Links section--it's a disorganized mess. We have three links from STGU with no indication of how they relate to one another, two from STO.net, and one from Memory Alpha. If my categorization doesn't follow the style guidelines, then can someone come up with a system that does? 'Cause it's pretty ugly right now. --ComputerSherpa 23:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've cut them down to one link each, to their homepages, this will save the petty editing adding links to every other feature, all of which people can easily find from the homepages of each site.--Caiman 19:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Step in the right direction. Actually, though, I think some of the links had merit. Take for example this link--it basically mirrors this page but in much more depth than a Wikipedia article can or should have. I'm adding a third section--hopefully this will allow us to keep good information without turning this article into a linkfarm. --ComputerSherpa 20:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Out of date?

User:Caiman said in an edit summary, "Various parts of this article are still out of date." Perhaps if Caiman mentioned some of the parts that are out of date, we can work to correct that and remove the template? Powers 18:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• They were only small parts really, which have been rectified, in turn perhaps my statement was a little ambiguous as I was referring to information that exists but is not yet present too, which I am hoping to add. The majority of which comes from the new FAQ as well as various developer posts made on http://www.StarTrek-Online.net in the past month or so. This mainly revolves around the way ships will be operated, what ships are likely to appear, how players will progress through the command structure and a few other tidbits. I have though, removed the out of date notice for now. --Caiman 18:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Monthly Costs?

I am wondering if they will choose the traditional path of a montly fee, which keeps me away from these types of games, or go where Guild Wars went without a montly fee. Lord_Hawk 16:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• According to the FAQ, STO will have a monthly fee and it "will be competitive with other products of our genre". --ComputerSherpa 23:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Assignments?

Is anyone clear on how these work? do you choose them? or does the game give them to you? A friend and I are wondering, about that, and how the lliving conditions work. Also, can one be ON a station? --Trekkie84 06:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No one knows yet. We're probably a good six months (at least) from knowing much about details like that. Speculatively, it seems likely that assignments will come through a variety of methods; you will likely be able to choose from among several assignments, but some assignments will also probably be given to you directly (either by NPCs or by other players). Characters are almost definitely going to have their own living quarters, probably on a starbase, large starship, or planetary facility. Space stations (starbases) will almost definitely be in-game, but most missions will probably require going out in a ship. Powers 14:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I wasn't to sure if the info provided had answered that, a friend and I were wondering as we were reading if we would have been able to do Co-op and such (INstead of being put with people we don't know, hence the question about choosing) --Trekkie84 17:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Just wanting to be clear, as it is in the same area.... can you chosse WHERE you live? Or do people randomly get put on space stations/starships for their quarters? Sorry if that has been anwered, I know it's so far away before Beta Testing even happens, but I just wanted to know these things.--Trekkie84 21:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, no one knows. Rest assured, however, that they know that people will want to be able to choose with whom they play. Powers 01:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

a time known as the "En'ock tu Ch'enock,"

So what language is this in? Is it really what all Federation citizens call this time? Seems a bit inchoerent to me. We need some more explanation or detail around this. Ben W Bell talk 11:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In the lore, it's Andorian. Powers ^T 13:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a fictional story, and I imagine that the writers can call it that, even in the characters don't.PureSoldier 05:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a question

Would anyone be willing to bet/comment on whether once the game is up and running, it will take on a huge new look based on player-created and managed virtual communities, along the lines of Second Life and The Sims? I was thinking about this, amidst all the discussion of how much people will be able to pursue their own course, instead of being tied down by game mechanics. it seems to me that once the game starts, it will be extremely easy to find new planets and explorations which no one has ever done. you can do so simply by exploring the many player-created societies, planets, etc, which will probably begin to take form. What do you think of that possibility? see you. --Sm8900 22:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It'd be a neat idea, but it's not the direction Perpetual is taking. They intend to have a very story-driven game, and the challenge of having that mixed with extensive player-created content is not one they seem interested in tackling. Powers ^T 19:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Player Mount system?

Thanks for the new edits to the starship operation section, re the new "player mount" system. Appreciate the update and new information. However, could the person contributing that please explain? What is meant by this? Is this only for the initial stage of a player's starship? or is this how all starships will be handled in the game, from now on? If so, what happened to the idea of starship missions? What do the non-captain crewmen now do aboard a starship? thanks. --Sm8900 00:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• I updated it a little. The idea is that STO is not a starship simulator and for the most part won't concentrate on activities aboard player-owned ships, apparently though you'll be able to crew with 5 or 6 other players, while each player controls relevant overall ship functions relating to their department, etc. Given the amount of non-ship related activities PE intend to include, this seems to be a concious decision of de-emphasis --Caiman 18:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks. Glad to have you involved. Caiman, and Ben W Bell, what is the indication on this? Ben removed a statement that players will be unable to walk around the interior of their personal starships. However, I did see this indicated at one of the cited websites. Is there anything clear on this? This seems a significant detail, since that happens to be one of the main feature of most Star Trek episodes and lierary narratives. --Sm8900 14:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not been confirmed one way or another whether players will be able to wander around their own personal starships. It's been hinted that it will be possible, and I've not seen it categorically denied. Ben W Bell talk 15:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

sounds good. Appreciate the reply. Since I am a Wikipedian, and a professional, I will not express any personal views, and will simply say that if players are not able to explore their own starship, than it seems to me that the game would kind of stink --errrr, I mean that the entry will have to be updated. um, that's what i mean. :-) :-) See you. --Sm8900 15:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What's a player mount system? This seems like a really cool idea but how do you "mount" starships? I think that you can horses and pets but Star Trek Online should not have any of those as far as I know. Thanks?

Instancing

Edited the section on instancing to reflect that most of the game's missions will in fact not be instanced, as per the executive producer of STO on August 15th, 2007. Source has been included. - R

Release date source??

Uh, the estimated launch plan source speaks of Q1 2009 according to the article, but I can't find anything about that in the actual source. I searched for "2009", "first", and "1st" and came up with nothing. — Northgrove 20:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say that. The source states around the time of the next Star Trek film scheduled for December 25th 2008, but doesn't say whether it is later or earlier. Ben W Bell talk 21:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Cryptic Studios and STO?

Kotaku is reporting that NCSoft Developer Cryptic Studios could be the new home of STO:

w00t Studios says it has anonymous sources pointing to the new home of STO, who recently sold off rights to City of Heroes to owner NCsoft, who in turn created a new subsidiary with Cryptic staffers at its core.

[1] Kotaku Article --68.209.227.3 (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't add anything until it has been confirmed by a developer, be that Cryptic or someone else. --Resplendent (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. "Anonymous sources" are notoriously unreliable. I hope the news is true, but until either P2 or Cryptic says something it's just a rumor. ComputerSherpa (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it true that P2 no longer exists?? just want to ask. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

P2/Perpetual still exists, but is solely devoted to developing their PEP now. --Resplendent (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

P2 Entertainment is a seperate corporate entity to the now defunk Perpetual Entertainment. But it is semantics, the same management is in place with the same assets minus STO --Caiman (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Four years of fucking around.

And it's vapourware people. Just remember the developer and production company names and make sure you never buy their products again for shafting ST fans and the franchise. And remember to place a nightly curse that Klingon's might congeal from their rectums for pulling this thing. All jokes aside though, it was heading that way, the dev. was going too slow for a game, MMO or not, it doesn't take more than a year or two tops to crank out something impressive. They didn't have the money and didn't seriously committ to it as they should have to have launched it, which is why since 2006 on many forums I refered to the game as 'ST:Va' (Star Trek: Vapourware), it's just unfortunate they knew this for quite some time and continued to fuck fans around. 58.107.154.192 (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the whole just two years thing see this article (see Timo Kujansuu (prop) #2). It states that the Crysis team spent about two year (with other work) modeling one part of the game. This means that they most likely already had the game engine almost completed by the time they got to starting that modeling. Most AAA titles take about 5 years to develop, see the bottom of this article. ---Trekie9001 (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

True. True. Yeah, I figured that it would be canceled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.86.85 (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Saying that you can make an impressive MMO title in just 2 years is beyond retarded. A classic foolish assertion with no evidence. Most MMOs aren't impressive anyway and probably more MMOs have been canceled or failed than have even survived 2 years. I do agree though, that Perpetual probably can't be trusted. --Why put a signature when a bot will make one up for you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.232.7 (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Rename this entry and create a new one?

I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to rename this article "Star Trek Online (Perpetual Entertainment)" and start a new, compact (for now) article for "Star Trek Online" which contains all the new information going forward.

Surely a "Star Trek Online" of some kind will eventually see the light of day, even if it may not be for years. Once that happens, I think it would be a bad idea to simply continue to edit this article as if it is the same thing, eventually replacing all the info, screenshots, and timeline of the Perpetual project (especially since it is historically relevant with regards to the Paramount/Viacom split and the first-of-it's-kind CBS-Paramount licensing arrangement) with whatever new project assumes the title "Star Trek Online."

The new article could say "for the canceled game planned by Perpetual Entertainment by the same name, see "Star Trek Online (Perpetual Entertainment)"

I'm not up on the protocol for these kinds of changes, so I'll refrain from trying to make them myself.

Ideas? Opinions? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.241.150 (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd leave it how it is for now until we have more information on how the game will proceed (if at all). Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Leave it for now. If something else rises then we'll deal with it as and when it happens, but for now we don't know a new game will come out, or even if the same game will come out from someone else. Canterbury Tail talk 04:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Besides, assets were transferred to the new developer; until we know to what extent the game will use those assets, it's premature to assume it'll be a different game. Powers ^T 02:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Cryptic Studios mentioned again

"In January TrekMovie.com was the first to mention Cryptic Studios as the possible new home for the “Star Trek Online” MMORPG. Since then evidenced has mounted that Cryptic has the license, with the latest clue coming from sleuthing by board members of StarTrek-Games.com. Although Cryptic will still not officially acknowledge they are the new license holder, TrekMovie.com has independently confirmed with sources that they definitely are."

http://trekmovie.com/2008/03/13/cryptic-confirmed-as-new-developer-for-star-trek-online/

--68.209.227.3 (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)