test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Foundry Sunset, April 11th, 2019

1212224262730

Comments

  • sirsitsalotsirsitsalot Member Posts: 1,647 Arc User
    I'd suggest others who feel similarly take the same approach. The bottom line is the only way dissatisfaction with a service will be felt.

    There is one danger here. Yes, just not paying isn't good enough. As I understand it, PWE bases its decisions on total revenue form ALL of their games, and unless their global revenue drops

    Have you got a source for that? I would be amazed if they didn't consider the performance of each title individually.

    I remember someone posting about it a while back, during one of those other times where something happened and people were talking about boycotting STO. If it proves to be incorrect, then I will gladly eat virtual crow.
    I have no snarky remarks to make, at this time...
  • sirsitsalotsirsitsalot Member Posts: 1,647 Arc User
    edited March 12
    And that take us very nicely back to why the Foundry is/was so important and so unique.
    Indeed!
    I have no snarky remarks to make, at this time...
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 33,743 Arc User
    C. Cryptic is actively working on several of them(Weston is going back and fixing the cutscenes and other animation problems like people standing on chairs)
    Well he's going to be busy, but at least it's something.
    Also Weston has been doing animations for CO too.
    -The 100,00 fleet admirals things is typical MMO separation of gameplay and story. Wow, ESO, GW2, all have this exact same thing. How do you expect a multiplayer game with a story to play out?
    Because it is indicative of a poorly thought out progression system from day one. What they should do, and could still do it, is make the maximum rank Captain and possibly a higher rank for fleet leaders although I care not about the latter point. This is the reason you don't see 10 million Dovakins running around Tamriel.
    That's easy to explain! It's a simple fundamental change to the game development approach. Skyrim is a SINGLE PLAYER RPG, not an MMO. It's like asking why there's only one High Summoner in Final Fantasy X or X-2. For plot reasons, Yuna is the only person alive with the power to fill that role. Yes, she does that in FFX-2, though in a different way and for different reasons.
    and Voyager, neither of which have anything to do with space exploration, are still Trek shows.
    Voyager had no exploration? lol wut?
    As for me, with the loss of the Foundry, my revenue stream for this game is closed. I'm sure I'll log in from time to time to check out new content, but the primary attraction of this game for me is gone. The ability to create my stories, and see the stories of others kept me coming back. The new ships kept me interested in creating new adventures with those new ships for me and my friends. Without that, I have no reason to spend money on the game.

    I'd suggest others who feel similarly take the same approach. The bottom line is the only way dissatisfaction with a service will be felt.
    I don't see how that's going to help in any way.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • somtaawkharsomtaawkhar Member Posts: 5,893 Arc User
    Voyager had no exploration? lol wut?
    No, I said Voyager had nothing to do with it.

    Voyager's mission wasn't exploration of the Delta Quadrant, nor were they trying to explore the Delta Quadrant. Voyager was trying to get home, and that was the actual point of the show, watching these people try to get home. The "exploration" of the Delta Quadrant was just an unavoidable consequence of trying to get home.

    This compared to ENT, TOS, and TNG, who were out to explore, as that was part of their missions.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 33,743 Arc User
    Voyager had no exploration? lol wut?
    No, I said Voyager had nothing to do with it.

    Voyager's mission wasn't exploration of the Delta Quadrant, nor were they trying to explore the Delta Quadrant. Voyager was trying to get home, and that was the actual point of the show, watching these people try to get home. The "exploration" of the Delta Quadrant was just an unavoidable consequence of trying to get home.

    This compared to ENT, TOS, and TNG, who were out to explore, as that was part of their missions.
    Hmm fair point I guess.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • nrobbiecnrobbiec Member Posts: 681 Arc User
    > @mattjohnsonva said:
    >
    > And that take us very nicely back to why the Foundry is/was so important and so unique.

    If were truly important, and by important I mean to the longevity of the game looking at it objectively, then it would have a quantifiable impact on the amount of users and revenue coming in. It is clear from the decision that this is not the case, no company would knowingly do something detrimental to it's own profits (even EA and Bethesda thought what they were doing would bring money in).

    This is not to detract from the importance the foundry had on its dedicated community. Just that said community was never large enough to sustain the game by itself.
  • sirsitsalotsirsitsalot Member Posts: 1,647 Arc User
    nrobbiec wrote: »
    > @mattjohnsonva said:
    >
    > And that take us very nicely back to why the Foundry is/was so important and so unique.

    If were truly important, and by important I mean to the longevity of the game looking at it objectively, then it would have a quantifiable impact on the amount of users and revenue coming in. It is clear from the decision that this is not the case, no company would knowingly do something detrimental to it's own profits (even EA and Bethesda thought what they were doing would bring money in).

    This is not to detract from the importance the foundry had on its dedicated community. Just that said community was never large enough to sustain the game by itself.

    The thing is that those who are most upset by the decision are part of the potential customer base. Cryptic has marginalized them, first by neglect, and now by total removal of a feature that subset considered to be important.

    Pay attention here. The people who considered the explorations system to be important were marginalized, first by neglect and then by total removal of the feature they considered to be important... See a pattern?

    The people who consider PvP to be important have been marginalized, thus far by neglect... See where I am going?

    The people who consider the fleet system to be important have been marginalized thus far by neglect, though they have gotten fleet holdings, but those can be partially monetized by spending Zen on the morr than signigicant Dilithium amounts needed to complete projects. At least it's a bone being thrown to them. But how long until Cryptic can no longer be bothered to add new holdings. Cause they sure don't seem to be in any hurry to produce fleet-specific content...

    Cryptic has established a precedent with the outright removal of two systems now. I think it likely that more will follow. It isn't a conspiracy theory when there are now multiple occurrences of the removal of gameplay systems.
    I have no snarky remarks to make, at this time...
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 8,872 Arc User
    Not a conspiracy at all.

    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!
    Judge Dan Haywood
  • somtaawkharsomtaawkhar Member Posts: 5,893 Arc User
    Cryptic has established a precedent with the outright removal of two systems now. I think it likely that more will follow. It isn't a conspiracy theory when there are now multiple occurrences of the removal of gameplay systems.
    The two systems Cryptic has removed were systematically broken and non functional, with little in the way to be able to fix them, or at least make them profitable.

    Fleets fit none of those criteria. And Cryptic has already talked about, while they might not make another fleet holding, they will likely create another kind of project or systems for fleets to continue to contribute to.
  • sirsitsalotsirsitsalot Member Posts: 1,647 Arc User
    edited March 12
    Cryptic has established a precedent with the outright removal of two systems now. I think it likely that more will follow. It isn't a conspiracy theory when there are now multiple occurrences of the removal of gameplay systems.
    The two systems Cryptic has removed were systematically broken and non functional, with little in the way to be able to fix them, or at least make them profitable.

    They didn't bother to even try to fix exploration. And if they didn't have the talent, AKA the manpower, to put forth the effort, well that's what HIRING PEOPLE is for. And don't you dare tell me that it would have been to expensive. PWE has been raking in the money on lockbox keys alone. More than enough to DOUBLE the size of the STO team if they wanted to. But no. It was esier for them to just gut the exploration system. Oh but they said they wwould be looking into replacing it. And that replacement was implemented on Neverary 32 2016.5.

    They didn't bother even trying to fix the Foundry. And if they didn't have the manpower, then they could have hired someone. PWE bla bla bla… I will give them one thing.... At least they didn't say they have plans to replace it when they really don't, so I guess they did learn SOMETHING.
    Fleets fit none of those criteria. And Cryptic has already talked about, while they might not make another fleet holding, they will likely create another kind of project or systems for fleets to continue to contribute to.

    They do at least throw fleets a bone. So like I said, if it goes it will brobably be a couple of years.

    But PvP? That's ripe for removal. It's been broken for a long time and has seen no attention. Just like exploration. Just like Foundry. If it is still a part of this game in any meaningful way one year from now, I will gladly issue a formal apology for making "baseless assumptions". But at the moment, based on two systems having been removed after receiving no attention for an extended period, it is safe to assume that PvP will be the next to go. And let us not forget that the TOS era content had no KDF side. And let us also not forget that the Discovery Era content has no KDF side. Both of these eras would make the most sense to have KDF faction support as conditions between the UFP and KDF in both eras are hostile. Both were opportunities to revitalize PvP… Opportunities decisively not taken.

    And like I said, when it is removed, the faction system can go with it, and starting content can just be based on which species a player chooses. Who cares whether or not there are people in the community that are longing for PvP to be fixed and improved, right? "But the people who really cared about PvP are already gone!" Yeah… A lot of them are. What, you don't think that a significant number of them will come back if PvP were to be revitalized?

    STO has the potential to be so much more, but is constantly becoming less and less... That does not instill a great deal of confidence.
    I have no snarky remarks to make, at this time...
  • protoneousprotoneous Member Posts: 1,019 Arc User
    edited March 12
    Cryptic has established a precedent with the outright removal of two systems now. I think it likely that more will follow. It isn't a conspiracy theory when there are now multiple occurrences of the removal of gameplay systems.
    The two systems Cryptic has removed were systematically broken and non functional, with little in the way to be able to fix them, or at least make them profitable.

    Fleets fit none of those criteria. And Cryptic has already talked about, while they might not make another fleet holding, they will likely create another kind of project or systems for fleets to continue to contribute to.
    It takes 3 points to define a plane... or a trend. PvP is for all intents and purposes is gone. That would be 3. No further fleet holdings would be 4.

    After enjoying playing this game for close to a decade (and having taken note of many trends and behaviors over time), I really hope Cryptic is able to prove sirsitsalot wrong. This is not necessarily a criticism of them, as people with jobs usually answer to those that own the business.

    Sometimes taking a 'defend at any cost' approach just lengthens a thread :wink: But we're all entitled to an opinion and this is darn near the only PvP left... enjoy yourself.
    If they can remove a system or feature that one group enjoyed, they can also remove the system or feature that you enjoy...
    STO has the potential to be so much more
    Indeed.
  • sirsitsalotsirsitsalot Member Posts: 1,647 Arc User
    protoneous wrote: »
    After enjoying playing this game for close to a decade (and having taken note of many trends and behaviors over time), I really hope Cryptic is able to prove sirsitsalot wrong.

    And believe me, I want to be proven wrong. I want it so badly. Nothing would make me happier. I want STO to be the best game it can possibly be. I've wanted that since it was announced. I've been a part of this community for as long as there has been a community to be a part of. I am still here in spite of the bad news about the Foundry. I will not stop telling it like I see it. If someone wants me to tell things a different way, then they need to show me something different.

    But yeah... I really hope I am wrong.

    I will say this much: STO is not a failure. If it were, it would not have lasted nearly as long as it has. Mediocrity does not mean failure. But just think... If it has been successful in mediocrity, would it not be even more successful if it actually were to fully strive for the greatness I know it could be? I think so... But at the end of the day, Cryptic's paychecks are signed by PWE, and it has to be PWE who decides if striving for full potential is worth investing in. It doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks. So long as PWE is content with the way things are, not a single thing will be done. It's the nature of the corporate publisher beast. It stinks, but...

    ...there it is.
    I have no snarky remarks to make, at this time...
  • somtaawkharsomtaawkhar Member Posts: 5,893 Arc User
    edited March 12
    They didn't bother to even try to fix exploration. And if they didn't have the talent, AKA the manpower, to put forth the effort, well that's what HIRING PEOPLE is for. And don't you dare tell me that it would have been to expensive. PWE has been raking in the money on lockbox keys alone. More than enough to DOUBLE the size of the STO team if they wanted to. But no. It was esier for them to just gut the exploration system. Oh but they said they wwould be looking into replacing it. And that replacement was implemented on Neverary 32 2016.5.
    Fixing exploration would be impossible for technology reasons beyond Cryptic's, or anyone's really, control.

    Random/procedural generated content is, and will be for a long time now, garbage. Even if they fixed all the problems the old system had, like spawning inside the ground, the missions would still not only not be exploration, but also still not be even as complex as those one off Federation only patrols from the game's launch era. If they introduced even basic sanity checks to prevent things like "Third Borg Dynasty", and prevent species from spawning in clusters they shouldn't logically be in, the missions would not only still be not exploration, and still not be complex, but there would also only be about 1/3 of them, meaning you would burn through all the possible combinations even faster then you could before.

    Random/procedural generated content can barely get terrain and animals looking right(look at No Man's Sky, a game built entirely around it), let alone trying to mix and match species, planets, and narrative hooks, to form something resembling a cohesive story in one mission, not to mention over a series of missions. True exploration would require a level of narrative and level design that can only really be achieved by actual humans. Even then, they could spend a year working on it, and come up with a singular "exploration" story arc of like 8-10 missions that you play once, and are done with. It wouldn't be a "system" that you can play for hours on end with endless, or even very many, possibilities.

    Hiring more people doesn't solve a fundamental problem of technology that limits everyone, not just Cryptic. This is why most game developers have long since given up on trying to use such systems for anything beyond basic things like "Speed Tree" to quicken the process of placing a lot of trees on an already built map. Or, in the case of Minecraft, the game doesn't even try to pretend it make sense and is like "just go along with it, its a crafting/building game with no real plot, story, or reason"

    Would it be nice to have a new exploration system? Sure. If I thought they could do it would I want them to? Yes. However, I don't expect Cryptic, or any other dev for that matter, to pull the rabbit out of the hat that game devs have been looking for unsuccessfully for 20+ years now.
    They didn't bother even trying to fix the Foundry. And if they didn't have the manpower, then they could have hired someone. PWE bla bla bla… I will give them one thing.... At least they didn't say they have plans to replace it when they really don't, so I guess they did learn SOMETHING.
    Except the whole reason they are removing the Foundry is because they have spent so much time trying to fix it, and it just breaks worse every update.
    But PvP? That's ripe for removal. It's been broken for a long time and has seen no attention. Just like exploration. Just like Foundry. If it is still a part of this game in any meaningful way one year from now, I will gladly issue a formal apology for making "baseless assumptions". But at the moment, based on two systems having been removed after receiving no attention for an extended period, it is safe to assume that PvP will be the next to go.
    Sure, I could see it being axed entirely.
    And let us not forget that the TOS era content had no KDF side. And let us also not forget that the Discovery Era content has no KDF side. Both of these eras would make the most sense to have KDF faction support as conditions between the UFP and KDF in both eras are hostile. Both were opportunities to revitalize PvP… Opportunities decisively not taken.
    They already explained why there is no TOS or DSC KDF side. Specifically, we know so little about what the Klingons were doing during the TOS or DSC Eras beyond "they attacked each other and the Federation" that there wasn't enough content for them to build a story arc off of. Klingons appeared in 5 episodes of TOS, and 4 of them were the exact same plot repeated "Klingons try to manipulate a primitive world into joining them instead of the Federation, and Kirk stops them". We have no real idea of what internal Klingon politics were like in the era, no real information in TOS, or later shows, what the culture was like in that era, no real information on what they did besides attack the Federation a few times. Nothing. Discovery just came out and gave us all of "they were fighting each other to death because Klingons". Not exactly a deep mine to draw from there.

    Like the decision or not, Cryptic has firmly, for the last 9 years, based STO almost entirely off of callbacks, and dangling plot threads, from Trek canon. They have spent very little time making up 100% wholly original ideas outside of the Deferi, and Lukari. They simply don't feel like its their place to make these things up. I also doubt they want to now that there is Discovery, and an upcoming Section 31 show, set in this period that could provide more for them to work on later. As well as the Lower Decks animated series, a kid centric animated series, and a possible Starfleet Academy teen drama show, whose time periods are unknown, but could also be the Disco/TOS era and thus provide more information.

    Not to mention, DISC and TOS era Klingon factions would do little to change the PVP situation since they would invariably find their way to 2409, become part of the current Klingon Empire who are allied with the Federation, and fight alongside the Federation like the 2409 Klingons do.
    And like I said, when it is removed, the faction system can go with it, and starting content can just be based on which species a player chooses. Who cares whether or not there are people in the community that are longing for PvP to be fixed and improved, right? "But the people who really cared about PvP are already gone!" Yeah… A lot of them are. What, you don't think that a significant number of them will come back if PvP were to be revitalized?
    As I have said before, the faction system is tied far deeper into the code then PVP, nor is PVP the main reason why the faction system is still in place now. Even if PVP got cut out, there's still a mountains worth of code involving the Fed/Klingon faction split that would still need to be changed that they wouldn't do it for the same reasons they haven't done it yet.
    STO has the potential to be so much more, but is constantly becoming less and less... That does not instill a great deal of confidence.
    I see it as the exact opposite honestly.

    Cryptic trying to hold onto ideas, mechanics, and concepts, neither they, nor basically anyone else for that matter, are able to profit on, maintain, or bring up to a decent level, just drags the game down the longer they are there. The game could be so much more then it is now had they not spent time on these things in the first place. The game is made LESS by keeping these things in when they don't work, and can't really ever be made to work, and becomes more when they get rid of these things, and spend more time on working on things that can.

    True, meaningful, large scale, exploration is a tech issue that no one has solved. And user generated content can only survive in games that either aren't always updating, and thus breaking it(Bethesda Games), or in games that are built entirely around the idea from the get-go(Garry's Mod). And in the case of Bethesda games, it survives DESPITE Bethesda, not because of them. Bethesda does whatever is best for the game, regardless of what it does to modding, and offers little to no support on it either. Trying to keep UGC in a constantly updating MMO like STO is essentially requires trying to maintain two games at once, which is an obvious failing venture. Especially when most gamers in general don't care about user generated content, thus meaning the UGC aspects always get neglected.

    PVP being TRIBBLE is all on Cryptic though, and it could be fixed. Though that just leads back into the age old chicken/egg argument where no one plays PVP because its garbage, but Cryptic doesn't work on PVP because no one has interest in it.
    Post edited by somtaawkhar on
  • somtaawkharsomtaawkhar Member Posts: 5,893 Arc User
    edited March 12
    protoneous wrote: »
    It takes 3 points to define a plane... or a trend. PvP is for all intents and purposes is gone. That would be 3. No further fleet holdings would be 4.
    I would like to make it clear that Cryptic's comment about "possibly no further fleet holdings" was made in the context that the reason why they are unlikely to do so is because the development team's ideas on progression systems has moved beyond that kind of model.

    The dev who made the remark also said in the same discussion that, if they don't make another fleet holding, they will likely introduce a new something to allow fleet members to keep donating to the fleet. The comment was not made in the context of "we are done adding onto fleets" but in the context of "we have moved on from that way of adding onto fleets"
  • protoneousprotoneous Member Posts: 1,019 Arc User
    protoneous wrote: »
    After enjoying playing this game for close to a decade (and having taken note of many trends and behaviors over time), I really hope Cryptic is able to prove sirsitsalot wrong.

    And believe me, I want to be proven wrong. I want it so badly. Nothing would make me happier. I want STO to be the best game it can possibly be. I've wanted that since it was announced. I've been a part of this community for as long as there has been a community to be a part of. I am still here in spite of the bad news about the Foundry. I will not stop telling it like I see it. If someone wants me to tell things a different way, then they need to show me something different.

    But yeah... I really hope I am wrong.

    I will say this much: STO is not a failure. If it were, it would not have lasted nearly as long as it has. Mediocrity does not mean failure. But just think... If it has been successful in mediocrity, would it not be even more successful if it actually were to fully strive for the greatness I know it could be? I think so...
    Remember those old telephone answering machines that used a small magnetic tape cartridge? It was a looped tape so all the machine could say was the same thing over and over again.
  • foxman00foxman00 Member Posts: 466 Arc User
    protoneous wrote: »
    It takes 3 points to define a plane... or a trend. PvP is for all intents and purposes is gone. That would be 3. No further fleet holdings would be 4.
    I would like to make it clear that Cryptic's comment about "possibly no further fleet holdings" was made in the context that the reason why they are unlikely to do so is because the development team's ideas on progression systems has moved beyond that kind of model.

    The dev who made the remark also said in the same discussion that, if they don't make another fleet holding, they will likely introduce a new something to allow fleet members to keep donating to the fleet. The comment was not made in the context of "we are done adding onto fleets" but in the context of "we have moved on from that way of adding onto fleets"

    I also think that we have what 5 - 6 fleet holdings now? Released over almost 7 years now. I feel cryptic are well aware that established fleets could potentially handle a new fleet holding, maybe, after this colony. However, I also feel that they are aware that trying to make a new fleet now, is a lot of work if said fleet is aiming for those holdings to be maxed out.

    Sure, people can use armada system and invites. But that doesn't really solve the problem. The problem being, that like the reputation system, once you have added a lot to said system over the years, it reaches a point where it is too much.

    So, I am sure they are researching ways to still add to fleets, but also generate PLO (Player Log On's), but also potentially allow another monetary stream for cryptic, but still keeps the essence of the great F2P model Cryptic has.

    I am also sure, with this whole foundry stuff, cryptic did a ton of analysis over expenditure to profit margins of the foundry. As well as did analysis on potential ways to get profit from the foundry with new additions or systems. Sunsetting a system, I am sure was a decision not taken lightly by Cryptic or the CEO responsible for the decision.

    However, it was a decision that had to be made. While logic and emotion I am sure they took on board regarding this choice, in the end, you need to be logical when making these type of calls.

    Burden of Command, which is something most commanders and Star Trek Officers/Captains know well. Sometimes, you need to make the horrible call, and the impossible choice.
    Horizon-01.jpg
  • zorky63zorky63 Member Posts: 19 Arc User
    > @somtaawkhar said:
    > PVP being TRIBBLE is all on Cryptic though, and it could be fixed.

    I love how through pages and pages you go on and on about how this that and the other systems are bad or beyond fixing ..., but PVP ... sure, that old system (older than the Foundry), ya that could be fixed .

    So how about a No to that .
    Rebuild from scratch ? Perhaps .
    Is that likely ? As likely as STO 2.0 is.

    But you know what, never mind.
    I feel like I've been baited here . :)
    Please, by all means continue to tell us (unironically) that the Foundry removed is the best thing ever and the players love it ... x17 .
  • lagunadlagunad Member Posts: 198 Arc User
    Great.. since you obviously have it all figured out, why don't you just head on over to Cryptic's Careers page and dazzle them with your skills.

    Not giving up my career as a physics professor to go work for a video game company, sorry.

    The software system I work on is six million lines of source code, not counting comments or the stack of other libraries and frameworks it's built on top of.

    I don't even much care about the fate of the foundry, TBH (it's a nice, and unique, feature, but I've barely ever used it) - I just hate being fed dishonest BS.
  • nrobbiecnrobbiec Member Posts: 681 Arc User
    > @sirsitsalot said:
    > nrobbiec wrote: »
    >
    > > @mattjohnsonva said:
    > >
    > > And that take us very nicely back to why the Foundry is/was so important and so unique.
    >
    > If were truly important, and by important I mean to the longevity of the game looking at it objectively, then it would have a quantifiable impact on the amount of users and revenue coming in. It is clear from the decision that this is not the case, no company would knowingly do something detrimental to it's own profits (even EA and Bethesda thought what they were doing would bring money in).
    >
    > This is not to detract from the importance the foundry had on its dedicated community. Just that said community was never large enough to sustain the game by itself.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > The thing is that those who are most upset by the decision are part of the potential customer base. Cryptic has marginalized them, first by neglect, and now by total removal of a feature that subset considered to be important.
    >
    > Pay attention here. The people who considered the explorations system to be important were marginalized, first by neglect and then by total removal of the feature they considered to be important... See a pattern?
    >
    > The people who consider PvP to be important have been marginalized, thus far by neglect... See where I am going?
    >
    > The people who consider the fleet system to be important have been marginalized thus far by neglect, though they have gotten fleet holdings, but those can be partially monetized by spending Zen on the morr than signigicant Dilithium amounts needed to complete projects. At least it's a bone being thrown to them. But how long until Cryptic can no longer be bothered to add new holdings. Cause they sure don't seem to be in any hurry to produce fleet-specific content...
    >
    > Cryptic has established a precedent with the outright removal of two systems now. I think it likely that more will follow. It isn't a conspiracy theory when there are now multiple occurrences of the removal of gameplay systems.

    I really enjoyed the old exploration missions way back when. They were fun little diversions but added nothing when you really think about it. Officers also got lost on them all the time due to pathing and clipping issues.

    But this does lead back to the original point what difference did removing them make? Did the game die? No. Did it end up in any form of jeopardy? No.

    These things are ultimately just that, diversions. They're not the core of the game which is the story content.
  • pendra37#5088 pendra37 Member Posts: 29 Arc User
    Oh, you mean like the Foundry, thousands of interesting missions provided for free to Cryptic by humans. And they are scrapping it - a company with that level of ineptitude doesn't deserve to continue and certainly doesn't deserve my money.

    QFT. In the right hands, the Foundry is a treasure trove of content. Ok, the quality is uneven but that could have been remedied with a more stringent QC process. Add some better hooks to the game and you have gold. The three missions per system was a very good start to mesh the foundry missions more fluently into the game. I always felt that the mission search window, hidden deep withing the UI, was handicapping the entire experience.

  • nrobbiecnrobbiec Member Posts: 681 Arc User
    > @mattjohnsonva said:
    > nrobbiec wrote: »
    >
    >
    > These things are ultimately just that, diversions. They're not the core of the game which is the story content.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > That was hard to read, try using the quote button so it's clear where your contribution starts and others ends.
    >

    That was using the quote button miss sassy pants. On mobile it looks different.
  • pendra37#5088 pendra37 Member Posts: 29 Arc User
    edited March 12
    nrobbiec wrote: »
    I really enjoyed the old exploration missions way back when. They were fun little diversions but added nothing when you really think about it. Officers also got lost on them all the time due to pathing and clipping issues.

    But this does lead back to the original point what difference did removing them make? Did the game die? No. Did it end up in any form of jeopardy? No.

    These things are ultimately just that, diversions. They're not the core of the game which is the story content.

    The original "exploration" content was legendary. It was promised to be procedurally generated and different every time. Perfect Star Trek exploration and all. Not a diversion but the core experience, endgame and so on. Well it was flawed, to put it mildly. It all went like
    - Scan/Kill 1 thing
    - Scan/Kill 3 more things
    - Scan/kill 1 final thing.
    The maps were always the same. Plain space, outdoor in green and desert flavor, and empty caves/bases with the same layout.

    Then there were the bully planets. You entered and they treated you like dirt, gave you an ultimatum to bring 10 something or else. You complied and then they said, "Good, now be gone.".

    It was clear that Cryptic filled some generic data into a random generator and let it run. It spit out thousands of all the same missions. They didn't even test run them because there were plenty of missions that bugged out for one reason or another (like objectives being under the ground or at great heights).

    And the exploration boiled down to ships moving around in an empty fish tank, scanning POI-s, popping up in pre-determined locations. You could stand in one place and spam the same spot if you wanted to. Not exactly polished or refined content. Cutting this, practically X thousand small variations on the 5 rudimentary template missions was not a loss.
    Cutting thousands of unique, human made, very creative and painstakingly hand crafted unique missions is a loss. Whoever come up with removal of Foundry has clearly no vision and treats a gaming company like a factory that cranks out nuts and bolts by the truckloads.
    Post edited by pendra37#5088 on
  • thay8472thay8472 Member Posts: 5,818 Arc User
    Looks like the foundry exploit missions have made a sudden return.
  • pendra37#5088 pendra37 Member Posts: 29 Arc User
    I doubt that. The fish tank approach was a failure from start. We knew it, they knew it. It was an inspired idea to get around the rushed nature of the development. At that point, any possible content was badly needed to somehow hide how barren and bare bone the game was. Tribble breeding as highlighted content, how dumb that is?

    If I check other games who tried procedural content, I can't really tell one where it worked well. They ended up as boring, bland, shallow, repeating. For any good result, you have 100 bad ones. Now if someone test plays all the of them, take the better ones out, and then add the final touches by hand, well, that would work.

    The other problem was persistency. Random missions popped up randomly. You visited a random planet and you never ever heard from them again. It is like the exploration of a bucket of stones. You take one, look at it for a minute and toss it aside. The foundry and the mission chains solved this issue.

    If there was something better than the fish tank for exploration mission doors and hook the foundry better onto the game, that would solve the problem of the sameness of the "exploration". If I recall correctly, the presence of the Foundry was one of the force behind the removal of the "exploration" content.


  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,545 Arc User
    edited March 12
    .
    Oh, you mean like the Foundry, thousands of interesting missions provided for free to Cryptic by humans. And they are scrapping it - a company with that level of ineptitude doesn't deserve to continue and certainly doesn't deserve my money.

    QFT. In the right hands, the Foundry is a treasure trove of content. Ok, the quality is uneven but that could have been remedied with a more stringent QC process. Add some better hooks to the game and you have gold. The three missions per system was a very good start to mesh the foundry missions more fluently into the game. I always felt that the mission search window, hidden deep withing the UI, was handicapping the entire experience.

    It was and those points we in the community were raising for a very long time. However Cryptic was never able to capitalize on the Foundry beyond the volunteer updates, top 3 system, critical fixes, and CM-driven community events (Kael has done a lot for us but not all CM's incorporated the Foundry into their arsenal over the years.) They didn't make it an active development priority which (from my position) seems to have allowed it to slip further and further from their ability to manage. The more they waited, the more remote it became and the more impossible it was to maintain it over the long term.

    Cryptic made the best effort they could to save the Foundry, but (from my PoV now) long-term management at the highest level let their most unique and powerful asset slip by focusing the company instead on developing systems and content which followed the red queen principle in evolution (ie. perpetual effort to simply retain one's place. The Foundry, if it had been more supported, could have provided a way to mitigate for that.)

    Moving forward, there are lessons Cryptic can learn from Foundry authors and the place to start is their mission structure, progression, asset use, and use of character. They follow a formula and that could use more variation (now that the PC will be lacking for alternative content.) Ie. while direct substitutes or fixes for the Foundry system are not tenable for the foreseeable future there's nothing stopping you guys from developing missions in the style of the best Foundry content (varying the expected pattern) besides your priorities. At the very least, try mixing things up more.
    zorky63 wrote: »
    > @somtaawkhar said:
    > PVP being TRIBBLE is all on Cryptic though, and it could be fixed.

    I love how through pages and pages you go on and on about how this that and the other systems are bad or beyond fixing ..., but PVP ... sure, that old system (older than the Foundry), ya that could be fixed .

    Call it a matter of personal priorities. Note though: the problems facing exploration and PVP are not the same that are facing the Foundry now. Cryptic reached a point where they were literally unable to maintain the feature owing to challenges of its legacy code and how that was interacting with the game now (ie. becoming increasingly broken. Exploration (on the one hand) did not have these issues. Instead it was vestigial feature which requires a major design update to return to the game (1:1 return is not in the cards.) It's removal is more analogous to the removal of certain missions from renovated arcs or memory alpha (just at a larger scale) than it is the Foundry.

    See. blog: https://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/6002963
    Cryptic's been considering exploration 2.0 for a while but nothing achievable has yet been announced (it's a big design challenge.) Perhaps though with the top 3 system gone there will be more of an onus on Cryptic to develop more content to randomly populate sector blocks with, but that's the extent of exploration's connection to this thread.

    As for PVP, it's its own category. You can compare legacy issues and big fix priorities but there's additional layers of gameplay design issues which fundamentally restrict its potential application to STO. This is not a game built or balanced for competitive PVP multiplayer (though it may be used for the purpose thanks to a auxiliary deathmatch mode from an era in gaming when those were relatively common), whereas the Foundry was viable and complimentary to STO's core gameplay format when it was fully functional (keeping it functional being the core issue to this thread.)
    Post edited by duncanidaho11 on
    Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
    Last missions:
    Evolution's Smile [SSF:3-3]
    Epoch, Part 2 [AEI]
    Transcendence, Part 4
    Memorial Tour

    For the latest Tardigrades and other creative output: @Gorgonops_SSF
    Looking for something new to play? The interactive Foundry Mission Database has you covered.
This discussion has been closed.