Talk:Star Trek Online

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Star Trek Online article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find video game sources: "Star Trek Online" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Archives: 1: 45 days

Star Trek Online received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Video games Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

"Massively"

I continually have to remove the "massive" reference in Star Trek Online because the game does not meet the definition of an MMORPG. Star Trek Online is in the same realm as Guild Wars due to the instancing, and you will notice that Guild Wars is also not called a "massively" multiplayed online game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.101.175 (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a source to support this assertion? I note that Guild Wars is in Category:Massively multiplayer online games. IGN called it an MMO [1], as does the publisher [2], and the developer [3]. We go by what the sources say, not what we personally believe. However, if you have a reliable source that discusses this, I think it would be a good addition to the article. Gamespot touched on it [4] but didn't go so far as to revoke it's "massively" status due to the instancing. –xeno^talk 21:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

copied from User talk:Xeno to centralize discussion and get more opinions on this. –xeno^talk 21:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an MMORPG, it's described as an MMORPG, it's sold as an MMORPG, that it's not massive is the IP addresses own opinion and does not seem to be borne out by the rest of the world. Guild Wars is not described as an MMORPG because the developers choose not to describe it in that way, not because it doesn't meet the definition. Star Trek is not different than WoW or any other MMORPG. Yes it uses instancing, but you can still interact with thousands online. Canterbury Tail talk 22:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

24.14.x.x commented at my talk page that they were unable to find sources to back up the claim so they would stop making the change and comment here if they do find said sources. –xeno^talk 22:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only reliable division is between single-player and multi-player. There does not exist an universally accepted definition of "massively" (such as half a dozen players or a hundred players or tens of thousands of players). So the only good definition of what is an MMO is what the developer calls it (as long as it's not blatantly obvious the dev is lying, in which case it should be easy to find a reliable source to quote on this.) You (and this isn't directed to anyone in particular) might not think there are enough players for it to earn the "massively" title, but such personal opinion has no place on Wikipedia. CapnZapp (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back when playing multiplayer games involved LAN parties, there was usually a hard limit of 4 (Doom), 8 (Warcraft II) or rarely 16 players. But then MMORPGs came out allowing essentially unlimited numbers of players to connect at a time. In reality, there probably is a cap on the total number of players, but it's not a cap that's meant to be reached. Since then, games have come out that have caps that are much larger than the 16 that was once common, but not "unlimited" in the sense of MMOs. But that doesn't mean that there aren't games that are clearly "massively multiplayer"; there are, and Star Trek Online is clearly among them. Powers ^T 13:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

30 Years after Nemesis?

I'm presently doing research on it, but I beleive that 30 years after nemesis in the tag was the original goal of the game before the release on J.J. Abram's Star Trek as there is definately in the game a design pattern based off of that enterprise and Vulcan is completely destroyed in this game.

This MMORPG is based in the alternate timeline put forward by that movie.

Lucky Foot (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No the game is set in the mainstream Star Trek universe, not the new alternative one. And Vulcan isn't destroyed, you can go visit it and walk around on it. Romulus is destroyed, as is correct for the mainstream universe, it wouldn't be destroyed in the alternative one. The Enterprise design in the game is very obviously based off the standard Enterprise design from Star Trek I-VI, not the new movie.

If still in doubt, see this page, and this one. Canterbury Tail talk 11:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding (pre-order buyer here) that the Universe was placed 30 years in to the future of the Alternate timeline. I'm pretty sure that's what the little booklet that came with it said; I'll check when I get home. Would I need to upload pics or something validate my claim? 64.244.102.2 (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's very definitely in the original timeline. Romulus has been destroyed, as per the original timeline, and its destruction plays a big part of the storyline. Also you can go and walk around Vulcan if you like. There is no evidence in the game to suggest it's the alternative timeline. The ships are original timeline, the history everything. Canterbury Tail talk 11:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made mention of the original timeline in the Gameplay section to leave no doubt among readers. I also added a lot of content ("Be bold") in gameplay to describe it more accurately post-Season 2. I play a lot, but I don't have all the 100% correct information in front of me. (Editing Wikipedia at work.) So, feel free to prune/correct as you all see fit. 209.180.155.12 (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated

I updated the page, specifically the table on Seasons. Because of this I removed the infobox stating that the page was out of date.

I also added a section on The Foundry, a new gameplay feature that's on the test server, and I cleaned up some minor mistakes and typos. Seanr451 (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am editing the Foundry Portion due to me being an active player and KNOWING that the foundry has went live on Holodeck Lordchaotic (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. The Foundry went to the live server (Holodeck) on March 28th, 2011. And because I just know that someone will delete all of this because we haven't cited a source [5] There's a source. Seanr451 (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season 4?

Can someone provide some info re the season 4 release? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.216.49.250 (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Dan Stahl, STO's Executive Producer, "Season 4 is going to be somewhere between June-July." Seanr451 (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I just updated the Season chart with the info that they're shooting for a July 7th release of Season 4. Seanr451 (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sold to Perfect World

Someone should add information on the sale of Cryptic and thus STO to the chinese company that owns the Perfect World chinese mmo. -2s1m — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Suns One Moon (talk • contribs) 19:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Accusitinion of Cryptic Studios by PWI was completed on 8/18/11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.155.113 (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the information about Cryptic Studios being purchased by Atari and then sold to Perfect World should be added to the Wikipedia article about Cryptic Studios, and not added to this article, which is solely about Star Trek Online. - Seanr451 (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Stahl

Should it be mentioned, or atleast parts updated, about the termination of Executive Producer Dan Stahl on Sep 20th 2011? http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/09/20/dan-stahl-leaving-cryptic-star-trek-online/ Dewy DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Klingon Faction

Where it says the Klingon faction is reached at level 25, it actually unlocks at level 20. In the upcoming Season 7 (releasing sometime next month) it is suggested that the level requirement is being removed.