STO: Klingons are PvP-Powered Class

The Star Trek Online forums have thrown up news of a neat piece of design for Klingon characters. Weirdly, the link seems to work from some pages and not others, randomly taking you to their front page. Anyway, what it reveals is that Klingon’s will be PvP-focused, and while Federation classes can expect to advance through PvE missions, the Klingon player will need to do harm to his fellows if he means to progress: “Klingon Captains have the same number of skills available as their Federation counterparts, including the same professions. Your Klingon Captain can be a Science, Engineering or Tactical officer. However, they must advance through PvP, as they will not have access to the same amount of player-vs.-environment content as Federation players at launch.” I think that’s a neat idea, a kind of formalisation of role-playing in the content available to you.

Oh and what’s this? An invitation to the STO beta? I might have to investigate it for myself…


  1. Martin Coxall says:

    It is a good day for somebody else to die.

  2. deadacc29322 says:

    Fast forward a week or three from launch, and see Klingon guilds setting up dummy character combat brackets in order to pump their their people up to max K-level in under a week. Not to mention people just swapping kills as quickly as possible. That could be stopped by making the pvp reward scheme zero-sum or even harsher, but that encourages griefing, so…how does this work again?

  3. Torgen says:

    Again, the most imaginative spin on rushing a half-finished game out the door that I’ve seen.

    • Mateo says:

      Indeed, it just seems like they’re trying to spin the fact that they didn’t have the time/resources to create PvE content for the Klingons.

  4. Mordarke says:

    Their exclusive pre-order bonus list is .. impressive. Christ knows what half of it means.

  5. Tei says:

    So.. using nautical references, Klingons is the “Pirates” side. I think sounds Ok.
    Some games use something like that, but ships are expensive, so you (newbie or not) don’t want people to sink you…and other people sink you for profit. Maybe here is the difference, the Klingon will attack your ship because you are weak and you have not room in life, the Pirates will attack you too feed on you. But here you get a profit made of XP, so this will be more like “Klingon Pirates”, the not-civilized type of Klingons.

    • Torgen says:

      If they aren’t now, the Klingons will soon be limited on feeding on one another as PVE-centric players on the Federation side scream until the forums melt, over being “forced” into PVP.

  6. pignoli says:

    Damn, that is one ugly screenshot.

  7. Pantsman says:

    So far I’ve been utterly underwhelmed by what’s been shown for STO, but I must say that this is a pretty neat idea. It’s good to see the gameplay tied into the canon in ways like this.

    I still probably won’t play it though. :P

  8. Turtle says:

    “I think that’s a neat idea, a kind of formalisation of role-playing in the content available to you.”

    Beat idea? I’m surprised to see RPS fall for something which is so obviously (as others have pointed out) a desperate marketing attempt to spin the inability to produce enough klingon content for launch. The way they talk about klingon content “at launch” tells us quite a lot. More klingon content is likely to be patched out post launch – when they’ve been able to finish that part of the game.

    It would be great if they had the resources and political will to delay it until they’ve finished it.

  9. Heliocentric says:

    The only mmo with non shit combat is planetside, and even that is horribly broken in the hope of selling expansions.

    What can i say, this means you’ll have an elite few hardcore klingons at high level getting their stomp on at the loss of the fed players who even if skilled will be surrounded by a majority of leveled but stupid players.

    • luminosity says:

      I actually think WOW has a pretty impressive combat engine. It’s easy by default, but if you set yourself challenges (like soloing group quests), it can be really challenging and fun. It’s just a pity it’s tied to a grindy and repetitive game. I’d love to see someone else take the combat model they’ve developed and use it in a RPG with story, consequence, etc etc.

  10. DK says:

    Great innovation. Also known as Lord of the Rings Monsterplay coopted to cover for a race they didn’t have time to make any content for. As evidenced by the fact that the Klingons get a whole of four ships.


  11. shalrath says:

    Has anyone here considered that the fact they might not have enough resources isn’t an INDICTMENT of the entire goddamn game?

    Newsflash: Not every company has the 6 billion dollars or whatever is required to match World of Warcraft or whatever game you’re comparing it to. If I had to choose between small, interesting content and the promise of more later, or tonnes of uninteresting content, guess what I’d choose?

    Also consider there is a distinct possibility they chose PvP centric things for the Klingons because… that’s how the Klingons are. And having PvP as the centre of the missions doesn’t mean there’s no actual content – it means it’s based around PvP. There’s little to no difference between Kill 10 NPC’s and Kill 10 Enemy Players, so why are you all pretending this is some apocalypse where content has vanished and there’s nothing fun anymore.

    • Torgen says:

      While past performance is not always an indicator of future results, I am going on the evidence of past performance. You’re also setting up strawmen and hurling hyperbole.

      They should be flush with cash after releasing Champions Online since it did so well (according to Cryptic), in addition to the money they’re getting from the publisher and/or Paramount. They’re pushing an unfinished game to cash in on a holiday release, fanboy rantings aside.

    • Turtle says:

      Your newsflash about not being Blizzard; they weren’t Blizzard while planning the project either, allocating resources and deciding on the scope of the design. It shouldn’t be a shocking turn of events.

      Also, I seriously doubt that what they mean is that they have “pvp content” instead of “pve content” for the klingons as you suggest; pvp is player generated content and trying to package it into quest form is more often than not completly redundant (as long as you have decent mechanics driving the player conflict).

      It’s not that they are badguys; it has probably just taken longer than they expected, leading to cuts in content – and this is how marketing tries to spin in. And it’s the spin I dislike, finding it disrespectful to the potential customer base.

      Speculation aside, we’ll see how it turns out. I am still looking forward to the game.

    • shalrath says:

      “And it’s the spin I dislike, finding it disrespectful to the potential customer base.”

      So what are they going to say to this? “Sorry we cut a bunch of content, but PvP!”

      I’m just shocked people can’t see any way this could be a boon and isn’t just a cut.

  12. cube says:

    They’re pushing an unfinished game to cash in on a holiday release, fanboy rantings aside.”

    February is not a holiday release.

    • Vinraith says:

      @cube: It’s that crucial Valentine’s Day release window, it’s way bigger than Christmas you know.

  13. Torgen says:

    Oh, did it get pushed back? Then even less a reason to release half a game. I thought it was a New Years release.

    Even though I was one of the earliest people to register on the STO site, I stopped following it as it became clearer the direction it was going, and reading hands-on reports.

  14. We Fly Spitfires says:

    A Science Klingon Captain? Huh? Someone developer needs to learn their ST lore :)

  15. invisiblejesus says:

    To be fair, if they actually found a way to do this it could be really interesting and impressive. I think that’s where Jim’s coming from here. That said, I don’t expect much despite a couple friends’ insistence that it’s a fucking awesome game even in beta; they said the same about CO and wound up unhappy with it within 3 months of release. Besides that, my experience with PvP in MMOs (and I should point out I haven’t played Planetside) has been that the more they get right the more the game starts playing like TF2, leading me to wonder why I’m paying a monthly fee and not just playing TF2 for free and having more fun.

  16. Starky says:

    This is a cheap looking (in content, gameplay and graphics) rush job of a game…

    I’m fine with a low-medium budget MMO, that can’t compete with WoW or TOR, Blizzard and bioware both having bajillions to spend. It doesn’t matter what WoW started as, it only matters what it is NOW, companies don’t need to compete/compare to WoW 1.0 they compete with the current WoW, or not try to compete at all.

    So long as small/medium MMO doesn’t try to compete, and also charges reasonably for it I’m all for it.

    MMO makers need to get off this $15 a month (or £10 for us UKers) rubbish, and start looking into hybrid systems. More and more I’m starting to think that WoW is the only game that will ever have more than a million paying subscribers in the west (NA and/or EU), perhaps The old republic has a chance, but that is about it.

    I’d play more MMO’s, if they didn’t require subscriptions. I actually play zero MMO’s now having quit WoW, WAR and Heroes – never bothered with champions.

    Let me pay £3 a month, and offer some time/effort saving micro-transactions.
    £5 for a 20% XP increase for all my characters for a year
    £5 for a high level dungeon/quest hub unlocked for my character.

    Offer premium – optional content at reasonable prices and set the barrier to entry LOW.

    Hell, I’d play more MMO’s if they let me pay-as-you-go play them.

    A subscription, more than the money ties you to a game psychologically, makes you feel like you should be playing it all the time you can in order to get your moneys worth.

    Let me pay £10, then charge me 50p (taken off my credit) for 24 hours access. Or allow me to pay £10 a month for unlimited access.
    That way if I only want to play your game 2 nights a week for a few hours, it only costs me £4 a month.

    I’d still be playing MMO’s if they offered something like that.

    I can easily afford a subscription to several MMO’s, but I don’t see why I should pay the same rate as someone who plays 8 hours a day every day, when I maybe play 8 hours a fortnight.
    So I simply choose not to pay.

    I can’t be the only person who feels this way surely.

    • Zerotime says:

      When (on the extremely rare occasion that) I’m playing online against somebody, I’d prefer knowing that I was getting my ass kicked because they were better at the game than me, and not just because they’d hurled fistfulls of money at the game to get cool stuff.

      And besides, I already do that with motorbikes in real life.

    • Starky says:

      Did I mention anything that was game balance related? No – I’m very against paying extra for items or buffs in MMO’s.
      Besides people can already throw fistfuls of cash at a MMO and get better gear/items than you – usually from china.

      20% XP increase isn’t a buff, just a convenience, doesn’t make you any more powerful than any other player of your level.

      No What I am talking about is selling convenience, and content – look at what DDO is doing, I wish more MMO’s would do something like that, sadly I can’t even take advantage of DDO doing it given I am in the UK and it still uses a stupid subscription model.
      So an XP bonus is fine, a mount is fine (maybe even getting it from level 1 where others need to level up), anything that saves a person time and effort but doesn’t give them a statistical advantage or unbalance the game (so no uber weapons)

      In content, A new 5 man dungeon, a new battleground, a new raid instance all content that the company can charge for (perhaps only charge for early access, say £5/$8 for a new raid instance, but in 3 months time everyone gets it for free).

      People always default to the “people should not be able to buy epics” counter argument, while it’s a valid statement (one i agree with) it isn’t a valid argument against micro-transactions at all.

    • Torgen says:

      Straky, your reasoning is exactly why I started playing Dungeons & Dragons Online again, and was loving it until Borderlands stole my heart away. I’m about skagged out though, and will be going back to Stormreach again soon.

      The very nice thing about the micro transaction store is that, if I decide to pay to unlock something, it applies not only to all my characters across all servers, but also any future characters. And the ability to use accumulated points in the in-game store to buy a revive potion or whatever so you can finish a quest without incurring the re-entry penalty is a nice QoL touch.

  17. Inanimotioon says:

    So the Clingon are Horde and the Federation are Alliance.
    The Federation do all of the PvE while leveling and get good gear, while the Clingons just PvP and destroy the Federation. Then eventually the Federation learn how to PvP as well, and since they’ve collected all that good gear now destroy the Clingons until they can learn to PvP (which never happens).
    Yay WoW!

  18. Inanimotioon says:

    supposed to be “destory the Clingons until they can learn to PvE” not PvP…

  19. Gorgeras says:

    Everyone stop being so cynical(that’s my job as chief AIM), this could turn out to be one of those cases where less is more. If Cryptic are forced to take PvP development seriously out of necessity, we might finally get a decent semi-PvP MMO that isn’t EVE.

  20. P'Tok says:

    Seriously half of the comments here are full of BS. I am playing open beta as a klingon. Firstly

    The feds do PvP, infact because there is more of them the klingons tend to be outnumbered. The combat is fast and exciting but makes you think. Wow combat was 4,4,4,4,8, tab, 4,4,4,4,8.

    Why look at this like its some PR stunt, fact is the klingon content was a last minute choice. it was going to be just the federation to start with. The content for klingons is to be decided by the players themselves. Dont hear that often? blizzard ignored all player feedback in every aspect of wow.

    I find it really is 50/50… Some people moan and complain because a game has some features wow has… the other half moan because something is new and not at all like wow… all of it is pathetic.

    STO is a good game and has much more potential.. I only hope the pussys and whinners quit quickly so the game can be left to those who actually have a clue