test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Foundry Sunset, April 11th, 2019

12426282930

Comments

  • somtaawkharsomtaawkhar Member Posts: 5,913 Arc User
    edited March 13
    patrickngo wrote: »
    do terms like "Shoddy" and "Generic" mean anything to you? you sit there and defend the push to mediocrity as if it's a good thing, and you do it a LOT. Don't you even have standards? don't you want this game you seem to love (though not so much as you love the developer studio) to be outstanding? to be unique? to be, oh, I don't know, special?
    Yes, they do. Which is exactly why I am glad the Genesis system was removed, and understand why the Foundry is getting removed as well. Both qualified as shoddy and generic systems.

    UGC systems like The Foundry aren't unique. Nexus Mods, one of the largest databses of mods on the internet, has over 600 games registered on its site. Even then, they are missing games like Garry's Mod, which has its own mod database site. But again, even when it comes to the largest of these games, the UGC community for them only works because they are single player games, that have long since stopped updating, giving the UGC community the ability to build on a consistent and stable platform. These communities thrive IN SPITE OF the developers, not because of them. Even Bethesda just throws out the CK and goes "here ya go, you'll get no real help from us!". None of them have to deal with the problems of being a constantly updating MMO, which means the tools, and the things made with them, will constantly break. Not to mention the nature of video game development, which necessitates the licensing of many third party tools which can't be included in the UGC tools since the company making the UGC tools doesn't have the legal right to distribute said third party software, leaving said tools, and the things made with them, crippled.

    And still, even when it comes to Bethesda games, which hold the crown by miles on Nexus mods, said communities still only make up a small 10-15% minority of the game's playerbase. Even after Bethesda got mods on consoles the community barely grew because the overwhelming majority of game players simply don't care, and never will care, about UGC in the first place. Which is why game devs spend little if any times making it easy for them, even when they are top dogs like Bethesda are. Garry's mod only survives, and stays successful, like it is because the ENTIRE game is built around it, and thus can focus all of its efforts on supporting that niche.

    The ultimate fact of the matter is that neither Cryptic, nor anyone else, could ever give the Foundry the support it needed to thrive while attached to a constantly updating MMO like STO. Because every chance any devs gets to fix something, and they have the choice between UGC systems, or basically anything else, the anything else will always win because there is a massively higher chance that any dollar spent on that anything else will benefit more people then supporting the UGC. Keeping these systems in doesn't make STO any more unique then any other MMO, it just means it has more broken parts attached onto it.

    For the Foundry to truly be able to succeed it would require having its own game built around it, so the devs can actually focus on supporting it all the time, instead of being forced to actively not support it since its attached to another game entirely like STO, where supporting the main bulk of STO is always the better decision. And I would love to see a game like that TBH.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    Exploration? is advertised. With the removal of Foundry, the last vestige of an attempt to claim to honoring that one, goes with it.
    Utterly and entirely false. You do as much exploration as they did in the TV shows just by playing the main missions.
  • rhazedurilerhazedurile Member Posts: 55 Arc User
    There is another solution, Cryptic could change their mind and thoroughly get behind the foundry. The response from the community would be overwhelmingly favourable I am sure, the goodwill and support, both in spreading the word that Cryptic are devs who listen to their playerbase and who now realise what a terrible mistake removing this would be for the long term health of the game, and financial support as the players switch the funding taps back on. However, I doubt that will happen. I would say though, it seems Cryptic have gone very quiet since last week, not many new announcements or general news, unless I missed it, I really don't think they expected this level of backlash, some of course, but not this much.

    While I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, the truth is that isn't how business works and will not happen. Once a decision like this has been made, the ONLY thing that will change it is irrefutable proof that this will have a strongly negative impact on revenue - enough to change the math of resource allocation. Something like a large group of whales (100+ maybe, not sure how many this game has) signing their names to a petition to reverse the decision and committing not to spend until it is. Maybe a coordinated boycott/no logins for a week to prove seriousness?

    That then turns into a waiting game, and the group will need to maintain their commitment, resisting whatever lure is brought forth (zen discount, special event, something) as response to prove they can't be bought off/distracted.

    I don't foresee that happening, though I would be happy to be proven wrong.

    This is a far better worded version of what I was stating a few pages back. To change the course of a business, hit the bottom line. Well said.
    dZWjlSs.jpg
  • koihimenakamurakoihimenakamura Member Posts: 121 Arc User
    patrickngo wrote: »

    how about spending a bit less man-hours on things that don't need work because they already work, and instead, sinking that time into working on things that have been neglected while they've been rearranging click boxes and sliders in the UI??

    The team working on that is not the team that would be working on the foundry, for example.

    how about instead of 'investing' in copy-paste Rep systems with spiralling powercreep and cycles of introduce/nerf/introduce powercreep, how about instead of spending months on lockbox content and dumbing down of systems, they put it toward the things they advertised?

    FOUNDRY was advertised. Console players were even asking when Cryptic would deliver. (turns out, never).
    PvP is advertised. It's an unworkable mess.
    Exploration? is advertised. With the removal of Foundry, the last vestige of an attempt to claim to honoring that one, goes with it.

    10 years ago. Exploration is done via missions now, and while I don't think that fits your definition, it is to me. (Incidentally, I remember the old exploration system. That wasn't exploration. I can't speak for others, but I really only did it for the daily mission that was available back then.)

    The Foundy served well, for how long it was around. But I can fully understand them going 'this is consuming more resources than it needs to, and we don't have the resources or people left to fix it.' Speaking as a hobbyist programmer, it's far too easy to fall into code debt and no longer have the ability to redeem it.
  • pendra37#5088 pendra37 Member Posts: 29 Arc User
    edited March 13

    It is odd that it is always the OTHER team that is working. It seems they only have an other team.
  • somtaawkharsomtaawkhar Member Posts: 5,913 Arc User
    Oh yeah, the ending of the Iconian line was absolutely cringe worthy. It was set up like you will have a choice at one point. Until the very end, I was waiting for the "Unload the quantum torpedoes on my position!" option, but nothing. Yeah, silly me thinking STO may present a Mass Effect choice. No, this is not an adventure, this is a railroad and you do what Cryptic expects you to do.
    Going on an adventure does not necessitate making choices. Especially in an MMO, where the constantly updating nature of it means no dev can spend the time to create a million different ending possibles for quests(Not like Mass Effect did it either)

    This is ESPECIALLY true in the case of the Iconians, were nuking them from orbit would create a temporal paradox that, if anything, would just cause you to fail the mission and be forced to replay that section until you didn't. IIRC, they did that with B'vat during the Specters arc, and so many people complained about accidentally killing B'vat and being forced to replay that part that Cryptic made it impossible to actually kill him.
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,403 Arc User
    patrickngo wrote: »

    how about spending a bit less man-hours on things that don't need work because they already work, and instead, sinking that time into working on things that have been neglected while they've been rearranging click boxes and sliders in the UI??

    how about instead of 'investing' in copy-paste Rep systems with spiralling powercreep and cycles of introduce/nerf/introduce powercreep, how about instead of spending months on lockbox content and dumbing down of systems, they put it toward the things they advertised?
    Because these are the features that
    a) Get players to actually play the game regularly and eventually spend money on.


    b) are stuff that primarily involves the game designers and artists, not the programmers.
    Apparently, maintaining the Foundry is something that involves Cryptic's programmers a lot more than its designers, but it's not like some other new features that designers are working on don't need programming help, too.
    If certain tasks need resources from multiple specialties, you need all of them available to actually do it, and if one task draws needed resources from somewhere else, things get difficult - you don't want part of the team sit on its hand as they wait for something else to be finished. And if those waiting tasks and team members actually work on the stuff that actually pays the bill (and allows the Perfect World leadership to swim in money), then the thing that doesn't pay the bills as well might have to be given up.
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • koihimenakamurakoihimenakamura Member Posts: 121 Arc User
    It is odd that it is always the OTHER team that is working. It seems they only have an other team.

    They probably have only two or three programmer teams? I dunno, I don't work for Cryptic, but IIRC, upthread they mentioned the foundry had to be a core team, whereas a UI/UX overhaul is just going to require a STO programmer. I'm not super sure why they overhauled the character creation segment when the entire game could use a UX sweep, but maybe they're working on it system by system.

    .. won't hold my breath though.
  • mattachinemattachine Member Posts: 484 Arc User
    The foundry was and is the only thing left that I like in their games. First they removed the Exploration now the only thing left that gave us variation for the endless grind they are trying to push down out throats. I'm not interested. I would rather have an offline version of the game whit the foundry intact so those missions could be downloaded and shared between players. At least as an option. Call it the Holodeck version of the game. I would totally hack and reverse engineer it if I could, only to have for my own pleasure. No, pouring resources on UI redesigns that is for some stupid reason worth it in their opinion. I couldn't care less about all the UI redesigns.
  • vegeta50024vegeta50024 Member Posts: 1,993 Arc User
    Let's keep the thread on the topic of the FOUNDRY, and not derail off into other systems of the game, please.

    Also, there are folks still suggesting "solutions". Many of these have already been answered in the OP transcript. Please read it, or watch the video, before posting about any more "solutions". You should quickly realize that the shutdown is the solution. I hate to say that, and I don't mean to sound heartless about it, but #savethefoundry is not going to happen before April 11.

    You just made my mind go numb... What is the solution for the loss of Faction-specific content and exploration-oriented missions which the foundry allowed for?

    I think there are only 2 viable solutions that exist. 1) Either play the content that exists in the game the way it was meant or 2) take some time off the game and come back to it when the next content releases.
    It is odd that it is always the OTHER team that is working. It seems they only have an other team.

    They probably have only two or three programmer teams? I dunno, I don't work for Cryptic, but IIRC, upthread they mentioned the foundry had to be a core team, whereas a UI/UX overhaul is just going to require a STO programmer. I'm not super sure why they overhauled the character creation segment when the entire game could use a UX sweep, but maybe they're working on it system by system.

    .. won't hold my breath though.

    They started on the Character Creator UI because that was the easiest for Joanna to start on & she wanted to overhaul that one first. She's still new to the team so it'll take time for her to learn everything.
  • sirsitsalotsirsitsalot Member Posts: 1,673 Arc User
    Examination - The things that don't require programmers are what they are working on, while things like Foundry which would require programmers are being scrapped...

    Conclusion - Cryptic has no programmers working for them. Because if they did, and what is being updated and maintained doesn't require programmers, then there would be programmers free to work on things that need them, such as the Foundry and a new exploration system...
    I have no snarky remarks to make, at this time...
  • baddmoonrizinbaddmoonrizin Member Posts: 5,848 Community Moderator
    @sirsitsalot Try again, and try not to troll next time. Watch the video. Read the transcript. Get some knowledge. Kael has already stated that the programmers are working on several new things that will benefit all of Cryptic's games. Ignoring that fact and making such ignorant statements is willful trolling.
    GrWzQke.png
    Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator
    Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of PWE/Cryptic
    Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of PWE/Cryptic
    Contact Customer Support --> https://support.arcgames.com
    Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
    Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
    Want the latest information on Star Trek Online? Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
  • theraven2378theraven2378 Member Posts: 5,502 Arc User
    The Foundry was good while it lasted, there's other ways to amuse one's self in STO
    aBR1E4O.png
    I.S.S. Harbinger
    "The Harbinger of doom, Long Live the Empire"



  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 9,049 Arc User
    Smite them all!!!

    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!
    Judge Dan Haywood
  • koihimenakamurakoihimenakamura Member Posts: 121 Arc User
    Examination - The things that don't require programmers are what they are working on, while things like Foundry which would require programmers are being scrapped...

    Conclusion - Cryptic has no programmers working for them. Because if they did, and what is being updated and maintained doesn't require programmers, then there would be programmers free to work on things that need them, such as the Foundry and a new exploration system...

    That's totally false. Not all programmers are capable of the same skillset, and UGC is not a trivial skillset. (Nor is procedurally generated content.).
  • sirsitsalotsirsitsalot Member Posts: 1,673 Arc User
    @sirsitsalot Try again, and try not to troll next time. Watch the video. Read the transcript. Get some knowledge. Kael has already stated that the programmers are working on several new things that will benefit all of Cryptic's games. Ignoring that fact and making such ignorant statements is willful trolling.

    LoL… I see my sarcasm was completely missed. If they had a developer to work on the foundry, they would be working on the Foundry... And come ON people... Changing a user interface happens on the code level. It's not something that someone can just sit down and change on a whim.

    I want to clarify my position here. I understand that the foundry has to go away due to the reasons explained in detail. I accept that. What I have a hard time accepting is that this is being done with what seems like no regard for the individuals who have relied on the Foundry to provide them with the content which the developers are unable to produce based on the direction of focus. Namely exploration-themed missions, and missions designed to facilitate faction-specific missions.

    Unless the devs will be changing their focus and intend to begin developing continuing exploration-themed and faction-specific missions, then I believe that a smaller, but no less important segment of the player community will be neglected, and I see the loss of the Foundry as a lost opportunity for Cryptic to service that segment.

    This is the second system being removed from this game which fell into an unmanageable state due to long-term neglect. Had the explorations system been improved and expanded upon rather than abandoned, it likely would have drawn a lot more people to it, but it wasn't so it didn't and new players got lost in a square room that had only one door, and that was the reason we were given for its removal.

    The Foundry also would have had a far larger following, had it been improved and maintained from its beginning. Bugs had been reported for years that went unfixed. The Foundry listings in the game only showed a drop in the ocean of content. These alone made people not want to bother producing content because they never knew when it would be broken, or if people would even be able to find it. Not to mention, every time big changes were made to the core game, the Foundry went down for long periods of time. These are all issues that Cryptic caused and seemed to never attempt to resolve.

    So while I accept the decision, I find it disappointing that it had to come to this. It was a part of the game, like Exploration was part of the game, they both should have been treated as such given as much of a priority as any other feature. That they were not is terribly sad.
    I have no snarky remarks to make, at this time...
  • wylonuswylonus Member Posts: 470 Arc User
    arc/pwi still taking away classic format, they too away explorable cluster zones, took away Alpha Memory station, overhaul crafting materials and many players hate new format, then we had reboot and then Neverwinter got same treatment of losing classic foundery just like STO are facing to lose, we had skill restructure and for away team, and duty officers, they all had overhauled.
    neverwinter getting a major reboot in few more weeks, it just following same methods with STO's format. original lockboxes were easier to win epic prizes like 1 in 5 boxes ratio, and next update they add most terrible concept, adding "RNG" in almost in everything with combats, chance of looting and now, it doesnt feel like role-playing game, it feel like playing slot machine casino.

    NO ONE LIKES to play gambling! Belgium was the first country to ban online gambling, and USA's congress are planning to make online gambling illegal which involved with younger children playing, some cant control and could get parents go broke.

    Elderscrolls have a smarter format with lockboxes, they are only cosmetic, sold for the looks, and less RNG, only the best loots from bosses or elite chest rewards, but here STO and NWO are pretty bad that i heard someone spend 200-300 dollars and not got any newer ships or mounds. i remember NWO's first lockbox, chances was 1 in 5 chances, and now currently it feel like 1 in 250 tries or worse than that, some said 1 in 400 tries.
    ARC/PWI dont care about players, just become more greedy and upped the ante, House wins, not the players.

    first it was 1 in 5, and few patches later, it became 1 in 20 chances, each patch progressed, it became 1 in 400 chances, then what next? 1 in 1,000 chances?

    do us a favor, stop that RNG format and bring back a real role play! most characters in Neverwinter will become cookie cutter clones. ESO's format make you character unique due to choice of "champion points" tree line. STO's captain skill tree was better way but it fall short. not much choice for customizable captains.

    STO are ahead of NWO with skill tree, honestly NWO's reboot on skills feel like dead-ends.

    for STO, i want Alpha Memory back and explorable zones too because these cluster missions feels like unique.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 33,886 Arc User
    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 only good ones I've seen were ones where it was used very carefully, most importantly? No attempt at randomized stories.
    nagorak wrote: »
    In regards to #1, Cryptic never did enough in the first place to support the Foundry authors by actually supporting the tool. In the six years I was away from the game they seriously could never add a "next" button so you could see mission #51+ on the list? I can't even imagine that functionality taking more than about an hour to program--half a day at the very most (if it requires more time than that it says more about the code being a mess than anything else). And, yes, it certainly was mentioned as a problem. A lot of things were mentioned as being problems, but back then nothing was done, and it seems nothing much was done since then.
    There's a lot Cryptic could have done if they hadn't had to spend more time repeatedly fixing the Foundry than working to improve it.
    And still, even when it comes to Bethesda games, which hold the crown by miles on Nexus mods, said communities still only make up a small 10-15% minority of the game's playerbase. Even after Bethesda got mods on consoles the community barely grew because the overwhelming majority of game players simply don't care, and never will care, about UGC in the first place. Which is why game devs spend little if any times making it easy for them, even when they are top dogs like Bethesda are. Garry's mod only survives, and stays successful, like it is because the ENTIRE game is built around it, and thus can focus all of its efforts on supporting that niche.
    The best game I've ever seen in terms of modding support is Space Empires 5. What? never heard of it? Yeah, turns out mods are niche even among gamers. Problem with SE5 is that the base game had such serious balance issues that it's nearly unplayable and NEEDS mods to be fun to play. Which is probably why we didn't get a SE6... Most people play SE5 using what's called "Balance Mod". Yeah that does exactly what the name suggests. In fact many other modders built mods using BM as a base instead of the base game. There's one called "Warp 10" made by some weirdo obsessed with Star Trek named marhawkman…. :p
    Oh yeah, the ending of the Iconian line was absolutely cringe worthy. It was set up like you will have a choice at one point. Until the very end, I was waiting for the "Unload the quantum torpedoes on my position!" option, but nothing. Yeah, silly me thinking STO may present a Mass Effect choice. No, this is not an adventure, this is a railroad and you do what Cryptic expects you to do.
    Going on an adventure does not necessitate making choices. Especially in an MMO, where the constantly updating nature of it means no dev can spend the time to create a million different ending possibles for quests(Not like Mass Effect did it either)

    This is ESPECIALLY true in the case of the Iconians, were nuking them from orbit would create a temporal paradox that, if anything, would just cause you to fail the mission and be forced to replay that section until you didn't. IIRC, they did that with B'vat during the Specters arc, and so many people complained about accidentally killing B'vat and being forced to replay that part that Cryptic made it impossible to actually kill him.
    In the case of the Iconians, killing them in the past would have well, butterfly effected the galaxy as we know it into non-existence.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • thanatos9tthanatos9t Member Posts: 93 Arc User
    The only good ones I've seen were ones where it was used very carefully, most importantly? No attempt at randomized stories.
    They do still seem to have some procedural content in STO as certain TFO's randomize certain elements of the mission. Day's of Doom seems to randomize the enemies attacking the starbase, along with the nebula's visuals, and on the Battle of Procyon V the enemies seem to be random.

    Whether or not these are done in a similar way to the old Exploration missions is another question.

    "I walked away from the last great Time War. I marked the passing of the Time Lords. I saw the birth of the universe and watched as time ran out, moment by moment, until nothing remained. No time, no space. Just me!"
  • sirsitsalotsirsitsalot Member Posts: 1,673 Arc User
    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 only good ones I've seen were ones where it was used very carefully, most importantly? No attempt at randomized stories.

    This. I have championed a procedurally generated exploration system, and everyone keeps thinking I am talking about STORIES. And NOTHING I say will get it through their heads that I am talking about maps and events that need to occur. the STORIES would be ours to make. Once generated, a sector block would remain persistent, with whatever elements that are part of it playing into the rest of the game, with colonization and industrialization options. So someone finds a region loaded with weird anomalies. They are not a science vessel, so they report their discovery to command, and a pure research vessel can be dispatched (A science mission) to study the region. Or an asteroid field is discovered that is rich in raw materials needed to build structural modules needed for colonization. All of the stuff would be random, but the procedural generation rules would make sure that the random stuff is logical. New sector blocks would generate only when the current one has all discovery objectives and events completed. The result would be an ever-expanding gaming environment over time. And if designed right, the devs could drop overrides into the system, making sure that the next sector block that unlocks contains missions and stories. Or they can set it so that it deploys immediately. But letting it just be the next one would make it feel more organic. The idea is that the procedural stuff would present doable content with every element having meaning beyond just one's own personal experience. That is what the original exploration system COULD have become had they deemed it as important as any other part of the game. But they didn't so it wasn't and now its gone.

    Foundry could have been extended allowing dedicated authors to creat worlds and civilizations populated with characters and activities of their own design. So if I wanted to write a series about things going on with a specific civilization, I could create their star system, then their planetary system And start populating these spaces with the elements of an on-going story. And hey... if we had the sort of exploration mechanic I champion, wrapping exploration elements in foundry-created civilizations would put those civilization in the queue for sector block generation.

    Cryptic's biggest problem with approaching systems like exploration and the Foundry is that they seem to have a "fire and forget" mentality. They throw a system out there and never seem to revisit it later. It is what it is and on to the next thing.

    Imagine if Foundry also let us create Admiralty and Duty Officer assignments. Imagine if we could set up PvP events. Imagine if it had hooks into most if not all of the other systems.

    Now imagine that exploration had hooks for these things as well. All of these things are systems unto themselves.

    I cut my MMO gaming teeth on Ultima Online. Any system or feature introduced was done so in a way that it felt like parts of the whole experience, not just parts unto themselves. We all share this game, and yet our experiences in it are closed off from each other, unless we happen to be grouped. But nothing any of us does has any lasting effect on the gameworld as a whole.

    So we've been told that there may not be any more fleet holdings coming. Great. Let'sd make alliance holdings that EVERYONE can participate in regardless of fleet affiliation. Let us actuall build what will become a new social hub. Fleet participation in this will unlock different tiers in the related fleet stores. so the things fleets work towards with holdings would be a part of it, but nobody would be excluded. And when the new hub is completed, everyone who participated could honestly say, "I had a hand in building all of this."

    That sort of experience sticks with a player far longer than any pre-scripted mission or quest. And there would be an upkeep phase after completion so that there could be Doff and Admiralty assignments for on-going contributions to make sure that equipment and facilities do not fall into disrepair. And I don't mean assignments with that as the narrative, but rather have it actually happen. Enter the Exploration/Colonization/Industrialization system as the vehicle for obtaining what is needed to keep Alliance Holdings supplied and operational.

    Include crates of alliance holding resources in lock boxes for optional daily extra resources if one so desires.

    Oh... and in those hubs, Official story missions would unlock at progression points, each a one-shot mission followed by a daily that pays out something needed in further progression or upkeep of the hub. Put a hub on Cardassia, and every Cardassian character created after that would start there. Do something on Andoria like building a strategic command center as part of shoring up alliance defenses in the wake of all these extra-galactic and extra-dimensional incursions. New Andorians created after that hub's creation would start there. Do the same with all the other official playable species. With all those species with no currently available content on their homeworlds, if each were givien an alliance holding hub, then there is potentially another decade in player-driven content right there. And if that sort of engaging content were to be produced, then the Foundry would not be needed as an alternative to mindlessly repeating the same missions over and over between official content releases. And like I said, everyone who would participate in the progression and/or upkeep of a hub would feel a real connection to it, because their participation would have tangible meaning.
    I have no snarky remarks to make, at this time...
  • qqqqiiqqqqii Member Posts: 404 Arc User
    Just a quick heads-up that the "Create Content" button is still there, and functional, on the character select screen. Didn't go beyond the point of reaching the Foundry character creation screen, since I didn't want to test the potential of getting stuck in a lock/crash. Might want to remove that fairly soon, to avoid confusion.
  • somtaawkharsomtaawkhar Member Posts: 5,913 Arc User
    edited March 14
    Foundry could have been extended allowing dedicated authors to creat worlds and civilizations populated with characters and activities of their own design. So if I wanted to write a series about things going on with a specific civilization, I could create their star system, then their planetary system And start populating these spaces with the elements of an on-going story. And hey... if we had the sort of exploration mechanic I champion, wrapping exploration elements in foundry-created civilizations would put those civilization in the queue for sector block generation.
    With the way star systems are added into the game code for the game to recognize they are there, I doubt there would ever be a way for Foundry created systems to appear inside the randomly generated exploration system. One would need the official dev mission tools for such a thing, and we would never get those for tons of legal reasons.
    Cryptic's biggest problem with approaching systems like exploration and the Foundry is that they seem to have a "fire and forget" mentality. They throw a system out there and never seem to revisit it later. It is what it is and on to the next thing.
    That is because game developers tend to release something, and then watch to see how interested people are in it to determine if its worth further development. Cryptic didn't revisit it because it never generated the interest compared to things like fleet holdings, reps, specializations, etc. etc., all of which have been rather consistently updated because people showed intrest in them.
    Imagine if Foundry also let us create Admiralty and Duty Officer assignments. Imagine if we could set up PvP events. Imagine if it had hooks into most if not all of the other systems.

    Now imagine that exploration had hooks for these things as well. All of these things are systems unto themselves.
    This would be bad for a lot of reasons. Mainly, when you give players the chance to make anything, they immediately try to find, and exploit, every single loophole in the system to create low-effort/max-rewards content. Allowing people to create admiralty/doff assignments, or PVP ANYTHING, is just asking for exploit city. We have already see this with the dilithium, accolade, and endeavor, farming missions. Allowing this on Doffing and Admiralty would be an endless whack-a-mole.
    So we've been told that there may not be any more fleet holdings coming. Great. Let'sd make alliance holdings that EVERYONE can participate in regardless of fleet affiliation. Let us actuall build what will become a new social hub. Fleet participation in this will unlock different tiers in the related fleet stores. so the things fleets work towards with holdings would be a part of it, but nobody would be excluded. And when the new hub is completed, everyone who participated could honestly say, "I had a hand in building all of this."
    This would require people to care about social hubs. The main reason Cryptic stopped making them was because, no matter how much they put into them, everyone just used ESD, First City, and DS9. Making all the time and money put into them worthless. Why spend even more time and effort on this when its been proven people don't care?
    That sort of experience sticks with a player far longer than any pre-scripted mission or quest. And there would be an upkeep phase after completion so that there could be Doff and Admiralty assignments for on-going contributions to make sure that equipment and facilities do not fall into disrepair. And I don't mean assignments with that as the narrative, but rather have it actually happen. Enter the Exploration/Colonization/Industrialization system as the vehicle for obtaining what is needed to keep Alliance Holdings supplied and operational.

    Include crates of alliance holding resources in lock boxes for optional daily extra resources if one so desires.
    This would pretty much be the death kneel for a system like this. The one thing people hate more then anything is "upkeep" costs in MMOs. Mainly because upkeep costs tend to be massive since they are usually on guild halls, and the devs expect a lot of people to be in the guild. A server wide holding would require astronomical upkeep costs to balance it out, and that would just generate mountains of complaints about the grind. This also leads back in my previous statement about social hubs. Why would anyone use this, or bother with the upkeep costs, when they can just use ESD, First City, DS9, and all of the already existing fleet holdings, for the gear/services they want?
    Oh... and in those hubs, Official story missions would unlock at progression points, each a one-shot mission followed by a daily that pays out something needed in further progression or upkeep of the hub. Put a hub on Cardassia, and every Cardassian character created after that would start there. Do something on Andoria like building a strategic command center as part of shoring up alliance defenses in the wake of all these extra-galactic and extra-dimensional incursions. New Andorians created after that hub's creation would start there. Do the same with all the other official playable species. With all those species with no currently available content on their homeworlds, if each were givien an alliance holding hub, then there is potentially another decade in player-driven content right there. And if that sort of engaging content were to be produced, then the Foundry would not be needed as an alternative to mindlessly repeating the same missions over and over between official content releases. And like I said, everyone who would participate in the progression and/or upkeep of a hub would feel a real connection to it, because their participation would have tangible meaning.
    This kind of system just punishes people for playing anything other then Human, Klingon, or Romulan. Why would someone make a Cardassian or Andorian character to maintain the hub when so few people play those species that said hubs are unlikely to ever be consistently maintained compared to the hubs for the super-majority species like Humans, Klingons, and Romulans? This just drives people further away from other species since there are now more tangle rewards for playing human compared to now, where everyone just has the same everything, so you can chose what you want to play without feeling punished for it.

    Not to mention, if everyone started on different place that would necessitate unique tutorials for every single species. And that would mean there would have to be more tutorials then there are story mission in the game. That, or they would have to shuttle you off from that starting area 5 seconds after you got there to put you back into the already existing tutorial.
  • sirsitsalotsirsitsalot Member Posts: 1,673 Arc User
    edited March 14
    Foundry could have been extended allowing dedicated authors to creat worlds and civilizations populated with characters and activities of their own design. So if I wanted to write a series about things going on with a specific civilization, I could create their star system, then their planetary system And start populating these spaces with the elements of an on-going story. And hey... if we had the sort of exploration mechanic I champion, wrapping exploration elements in foundry-created civilizations would put those civilization in the queue for sector block generation.
    With the way star systems are added into the game code for the game to recognize they are there, I doubt there would ever be a way for Foundry created systems to appear inside the randomly generated exploration system. One would need the official dev mission tools for such a thing, and we would never get those for tons of legal reasons.

    I was not aware that you were a dev with an inside knowledge of how the code works.

    Foundry could have had it where if a mission was configured a certain way, it would turn certain flags on. When an exploration sector block is generated and it calls for a star system with certain conditions, it would check for Foundry star systems that meet the criteria. If none are met, then the system would generate one. If they are met, then the "door" for that star system would point to the chosen Foundry star system. Of couse, this functionality would have to be coded in, and assumes what MIGHT HAVE BEEN, had it been managed by a dev team that treated Foundry as an actual part of the game as a whole rather than some sort of neglected animal chained in a corner whose owners decided to just let die.
    Cryptic's biggest problem with approaching systems like exploration and the Foundry is that they seem to have a "fire and forget" mentality. They throw a system out there and never seem to revisit it later. It is what it is and on to the next thing.
    That is because game developers tend to release something, and then watch to see how interested people are in it to determine if its worth further development. Cryptic didn't revisit it because it never generated the interest compared to things like fleet holdings, reps, specializations, etc. etc., all of which have been rather consistently updated because people showed intrest in them.

    Of course they showed interest. Those were pretty much set up so they played like part of the game as a whole, while both Foundry and Exploration always felt like sideshow attractions. Had they been treated like "family" instead of TRIBBLE stepchildren, people would have engaged with them a lot more. What real purpose did exploration serve as pat of the whole? What purpose did Foundry serve as part of the whole? They didn't. They were just there and were not supported. How could they expect any kind of serious interest when no effort is made to keep things fresh. People had been reporting bugs related to Foundry since the foundry came out and they were never fixed. Same with exploration. They never bothered to treat either system with equal importance.
    Imagine if Foundry also let us create Admiralty and Duty Officer assignments. Imagine if we could set up PvP events. Imagine if it had hooks into most if not all of the other systems.

    Now imagine that exploration had hooks for these things as well. All of these things are systems unto themselves.
    This would be bad for a lot of reasons. Mainly, when you give players the chance to make anything, they immediately try to find, and exploit, every single loophole in the system to create low-effort/max-rewards content. Allowing people to create admiralty/doff assignments, or PVP ANYTHING, is just asking for exploit city. We have already see this with the dilithium, accolade, and endeavor, farming missions. Allowing this on Doffing and Admiralty would be an endless whack-a-mole.

    And why do you think people do this? Because there are so many boring grindfests in the game that people want to take the quickest route possible to achieve their goals. Maybe if the devs would quit with all the grinding treadmills and make the game FUN, it would be less of an issue. There will always be cheaters though. So the methods they use should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. It's extreme short-sightedness for a developer to not implement a feature or function on the ground that a handful of people might cheat. The rest will not.
    So we've been told that there may not be any more fleet holdings coming. Great. Let'sd make alliance holdings that EVERYONE can participate in regardless of fleet affiliation. Let us actuall build what will become a new social hub. Fleet participation in this will unlock different tiers in the related fleet stores. so the things fleets work towards with holdings would be a part of it, but nobody would be excluded. And when the new hub is completed, everyone who participated could honestly say, "I had a hand in building all of this."
    This would require people to care about social hubs. The main reason Cryptic stopped making them was because, no matter how much they put into them, everyone just used ESD, First City, and DS9. Making all the time and money put into them worthless. Why spend even more time and effort on this when its been proven people don't care?

    Well, they would care if the activities tied to a season's content are based there. What is the point in having social hubs, or outposts, if you don't need to interact with a mission giver in the area itself. So many things in this game are accessible from the UI. There's convenience and then there is the total removal of engagement with the gameworld. It's hard to feel invested in a gmeworld that requires little or no interaction.
    That sort of experience sticks with a player far longer than any pre-scripted mission or quest. And there would be an upkeep phase after completion so that there could be Doff and Admiralty assignments for on-going contributions to make sure that equipment and facilities do not fall into disrepair. And I don't mean assignments with that as the narrative, but rather have it actually happen. Enter the Exploration/Colonization/Industrialization system as the vehicle for obtaining what is needed to keep Alliance Holdings supplied and operational.

    Include crates of alliance holding resources in lock boxes for optional daily extra resources if one so desires.
    This would pretty much be the death kneel for a system like this. The one thing people hate more then anything is "upkeep" costs in MMOs. Mainly because upkeep costs tend to be massive since they are usually on guild halls, and the devs expect a lot of people to be in the guild. A server wide holding would require astronomical upkeep costs to balance it out, and that would just generate mountains of complaints about the grind. This also leads back in my previous statement about social hubs. Why would anyone use this, or bother with the upkeep costs, when they can just use ESD, First City, DS9, and all of the already existing fleet holdings, for the gear/services they want?

    Upkeep would not be that bad if there was a system of diminishing requirements in effect. The older that an alliance holding is, the more self-sufficient it would be. So the bulk of upkeep would occur with the newest holdings, where the bulk of the player base would be at endgame anyway.

    Upkeep on older holdings would give new players coming up through the related content would something to participate in that has purpose. And here's a novel idea for the Admiralty system. Trade routes that would allow the movement of upkeep resources from places they are stockpiled or constructed to where they are needed. Imagine that. An Admiral in STO actually doing what Admirals in Star Trek would do when they aren't visiting hero ships and pestering the hell out of their captains?
    Oh... and in those hubs, Official story missions would unlock at progression points, each a one-shot mission followed by a daily that pays out something needed in further progression or upkeep of the hub. Put a hub on Cardassia, and every Cardassian character created after that would start there. Do something on Andoria like building a strategic command center as part of shoring up alliance defenses in the wake of all these extra-galactic and extra-dimensional incursions. New Andorians created after that hub's creation would start there. Do the same with all the other official playable species. With all those species with no currently available content on their homeworlds, if each were givien an alliance holding hub, then there is potentially another decade in player-driven content right there. And if that sort of engaging content were to be produced, then the Foundry would not be needed as an alternative to mindlessly repeating the same missions over and over between official content releases. And like I said, everyone who would participate in the progression and/or upkeep of a hub would feel a real connection to it, because their participation would have tangible meaning.
    This kind of system just punishes people for playing anything other then Human, Klingon, or Romulan. Why would someone make a Cardassian or Andorian character to maintain the hub when so few people play those species that said hubs are unlikely to ever be consistently maintained compared to the hubs for the super-majority species like Humans, Klingons, and Romulans? This just drives people further away from other species since there are now more tangle rewards for playing human compared to now, where everyone just has the same everything, so you can chose what you want to play without feeling punished for it.

    Overall progression and upkeep costs could scale based on various sets of metrics. For example, upkeep for a Cardassian holding would be in line with how many unique accounts actually play as cardassians. This would keep the costs reasonable.

    Not to mention, if everyone started on different place that would necessitate unique tutorials for every single species. And that would mean there would have to be more tutorials then there are story mission in the game. That, or they would have to shuttle you off from that starting area 5 seconds after you got there to put you back into the already existing tutorial.[/quote]

    That could be eliminated if you start on your species homeworld if you skip the tutorial.

    Se you have made up your mind to dump on anything someone suggests that isn't in line with what Cryptic is doing. And every reason you give why something is a bad idea is something that, with a little imagination, can be mitigated. All it takes is a dedicated team of developers with a desire to see their game become more than just an exercise in mediocrity. If Cryptic isn't that sort of team, then that is their own fault.

    Oh well.
    I have no snarky remarks to make, at this time...
  • sirsitsalotsirsitsalot Member Posts: 1,673 Arc User

    Se you have made up your mind to dump on anything someone suggests that isn't in line with what Cryptic is doing. And every reason you give why something is a bad idea is something that, with a little imagination, can be mitigated. All it takes is a dedicated team of developers with a desire to see their game become more than just an exercise in mediocrity. If Cryptic isn't that sort of team, then that is their own fault.

    Oh well.

    Don't waste your time answering him, it is as you say.

    As for your ideas above, awesome, really love that way of thinking, sadly I believe it's beyond the budget and abilities of the current custodians of this licence, not beyond their imagination, I'm sure the devs would love to do something like that, but I bet it would require a lot of coders, artists, writers and therefore money, but let's see, hopefully they are paying attention.

    I have no doubt that nothing like this will happen. I was mostly trying to suggest things that could have been with both Exploration and Foundry. That's all that can be discussed at this point.

    The truth of the matter is that it doesn't really matter. At one time STO meant so much more to me. But now...

    ...It's only pixels.

    I have no snarky remarks to make, at this time...
  • vegeta50024vegeta50024 Member Posts: 1,993 Arc User
    edited March 15
    Foundry could have been extended allowing dedicated authors to creat worlds and civilizations populated with characters and activities of their own design. So if I wanted to write a series about things going on with a specific civilization, I could create their star system, then their planetary system And start populating these spaces with the elements of an on-going story. And hey... if we had the sort of exploration mechanic I champion, wrapping exploration elements in foundry-created civilizations would put those civilization in the queue for sector block generation.
    With the way star systems are added into the game code for the game to recognize they are there, I doubt there would ever be a way for Foundry created systems to appear inside the randomly generated exploration system. One would need the official dev mission tools for such a thing, and we would never get those for tons of legal reasons.

    I was not aware that you were a dev with an inside knowledge of how the code works.

    Foundry could have had it where if a mission was configured a certain way, it would turn certain flags on. When an exploration sector block is generated and it calls for a star system with certain conditions, it would check for Foundry star systems that meet the criteria. If none are met, then the system would generate one. If they are met, then the "door" for that star system would point to the chosen Foundry star system. Of couse, this functionality would have to be coded in, and assumes what MIGHT HAVE BEEN, had it been managed by a dev team that treated Foundry as an actual part of the game as a whole rather than some sort of neglected animal chained in a corner whose owners decided to just let die.

    Question is, when you're talking an exploration sector block, are you talking about a permanently generated area, or one that is only generated for someone whom is looking to play a Foundry mission in that area? The former would mean that it would have to stay around for all players and it would technically be already "discovered" while the latter would make it so that players could always have that sense of discovery.
    Of course they showed interest. Those were pretty much set up so they played like part of the game as a whole, while both Foundry and Exploration always felt like sideshow attractions. Had they been treated like "family" instead of TRIBBLE stepchildren, people would have engaged with them a lot more. What real purpose did exploration serve as pat of the whole? What purpose did Foundry serve as part of the whole? They didn't. They were just there and were not supported. How could they expect any kind of serious interest when no effort is made to keep things fresh. People had been reporting bugs related to Foundry since the foundry came out and they were never fixed. Same with exploration. They never bothered to treat either system with equal importance.

    The Foundry we can think of one of those tools that they likely built in their spare time and meant to come back to it if they felt that more people wanted the focus on the Foundry. Sadly, most of the focus when it came to the foundry was people looking to build missions that satisfied people's need of getting the most amount of rewards for least amount of story that could be fit into the mission in order for the rewards to qualify.
    And why do you think people do this? Because there are so many boring grindfests in the game that people want to take the quickest route possible to achieve their goals. Maybe if the devs would quit with all the grinding treadmills and make the game FUN, it would be less of an issue. There will always be cheaters though. So the methods they use should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. It's extreme short-sightedness for a developer to not implement a feature or function on the ground that a handful of people might cheat. The rest will not.

    I don't know about you, but when it comes to some of the Featured TFOs that they brought out, I enjoyed them quite a bit. Normally I'm not one whom queues up for ground TFOs, but Pahvo Dissension is one I'd queue up for once they bring it out, simply because you never know which 3 routes the game will choose. Battle of the Binary Stars is one I'd queue up for, just to see my ship in an unreleased Discovery ship skin.
    Well, they would care if the activities tied to a season's content are based there. What is the point in having social hubs, or outposts, if you don't need to interact with a mission giver in the area itself. So many things in this game are accessible from the UI. There's convenience and then there is the total removal of engagement with the gameworld. It's hard to feel invested in a gmeworld that requires little or no interaction.

    They used to have social hubs designed around a season's content. When they launched Season 8, we had Dyson Joint command center, while in Delta Rising, they introduced Delta Quadrant Command. This was the last time we had an actual hub created. With the activity focused in the Alpha Quadrant, we had Deep Space 9 already in the game as a hub for that area.

    The issue though with creating a new social area is that you'll need to make sure that people will bother using it. I'd say that DS9 is a popular location since you can do everything in that area, but it also happens to be the only hub in the area. However, it's also a canon area.
    Upkeep would not be that bad if there was a system of diminishing requirements in effect. The older that an alliance holding is, the more self-sufficient it would be. So the bulk of upkeep would occur with the newest holdings, where the bulk of the player base would be at endgame anyway.

    Upkeep on older holdings would give new players coming up through the related content would something to participate in that has purpose. And here's a novel idea for the Admiralty system. Trade routes that would allow the movement of upkeep resources from places they are stockpiled or constructed to where they are needed. Imagine that. An Admiral in STO actually doing what Admirals in Star Trek would do when they aren't visiting hero ships and pestering the hell out of their captains?

    The upkeep would only be a good idea in my opinion if it was easy enough for everyone to do, but not easy enough that only one person was required to do it.
    Overall progression and upkeep costs could scale based on various sets of metrics. For example, upkeep for a Cardassian holding would be in line with how many unique accounts actually play as cardassians. This would keep the costs reasonable.

    Not to mention, if everyone started on different place that would necessitate unique tutorials for every single species. And that would mean there would have to be more tutorials then there are story mission in the game. That, or they would have to shuttle you off from that starting area 5 seconds after you got there to put you back into the already existing tutorial.

    That could be eliminated if you start on your species homeworld if you skip the tutorial.

    Se you have made up your mind to dump on anything someone suggests that isn't in line with what Cryptic is doing. And every reason you give why something is a bad idea is something that, with a little imagination, can be mitigated. All it takes is a dedicated team of developers with a desire to see their game become more than just an exercise in mediocrity. If Cryptic isn't that sort of team, then that is their own fault.

    Oh well.[/quote]

    What about for new players whom do not have an option to skip the tutorial?

    What about for players that don't have a homeworld in the game yet? Some examples:

    Federation: Bolians, Benzites, Pakleds, Caitians and Rigelians do not have a homeworld currently on the map, while Saurians, Trill, Betazoids, Ferengi, Cardassians, and Tellarites do have have a homeworld, but currently it's nothing more than a point on the map that can't be visited.

    Klingons present a problem considering that while they do have Qo'noS, due to them being flagged as Federation, they cannot exactly start there.

    Klingons: Nausicaans, Gorn, and Letheans do not currently have a homeworld on any map. Orions, Ferasans, Trill, and Cardassians do have a homeworld, but like Federation characters that have them, they're just points on the map.

    Jem'hadar: They never technically state where they are from. I imagine they'd have to invent a "birthing pod" site.

    Aliens represent a challenge considering that they don't have a homeworld. I guess they could default to Earth.

    Then there's an obvious problem when it comes to Cardassians. They exist on both sides like Klingons, but how would they get handled by the game? NPCs would have to be neutral to both.
  • sirsitsalotsirsitsalot Member Posts: 1,673 Arc User
    Foundry could have been extended allowing dedicated authors to creat worlds and civilizations populated with characters and activities of their own design. So if I wanted to write a series about things going on with a specific civilization, I could create their star system, then their planetary system And start populating these spaces with the elements of an on-going story. And hey... if we had the sort of exploration mechanic I champion, wrapping exploration elements in foundry-created civilizations would put those civilization in the queue for sector block generation.
    With the way star systems are added into the game code for the game to recognize they are there, I doubt there would ever be a way for Foundry created systems to appear inside the randomly generated exploration system. One would need the official dev mission tools for such a thing, and we would never get those for tons of legal reasons.

    I was not aware that you were a dev with an inside knowledge of how the code works.

    Foundry could have had it where if a mission was configured a certain way, it would turn certain flags on. When an exploration sector block is generated and it calls for a star system with certain conditions, it would check for Foundry star systems that meet the criteria. If none are met, then the system would generate one. If they are met, then the "door" for that star system would point to the chosen Foundry star system. Of couse, this functionality would have to be coded in, and assumes what MIGHT HAVE BEEN, had it been managed by a dev team that treated Foundry as an actual part of the game as a whole rather than some sort of neglected animal chained in a corner whose owners decided to just let die.

    Question is, when you're talking an exploration sector block, are you talking about a permanently generated area, or one that is only generated for someone whom is looking to play a Foundry mission in that area? The former would mean that it would have to stay around for all players and it would technically be already "discovered" while the latter would make it so that players could always have that sense of discovery.
    Cryptic's biggest problem with approaching systems like exploration and the Foundry is that they seem to have a "fire and forget" mentality. They throw a system out there and never seem to revisit it later. It is what it is and on to the next thing.
    That is because game developers tend to release something, and then watch to see how interested people are in it to determine if its worth further development. Cryptic didn't revisit it because it never generated the interest compared to things like fleet holdings, reps, specializations, etc. etc., all of which have been rather consistently updated because people showed intrest in them.

    Of course they showed interest. Those were pretty much set up so they played like part of the game as a whole, while both Foundry and Exploration always felt like sideshow attractions. Had they been treated like "family" instead of TRIBBLE stepchildren, people would have engaged with them a lot more. What real purpose did exploration serve as pat of the whole? What purpose did Foundry serve as part of the whole? They didn't. They were just there and were not supported. How could they expect any kind of serious interest when no effort is made to keep things fresh. People had been reporting bugs related to Foundry since the foundry came out and they were never fixed. Same with exploration. They never bothered to treat either system with equal importance.

    The Foundry we can think of one of those tools that they likely built in their spare time and meant to come back to it if they felt that more people wanted the focus on the Foundry. Sadly, most of the focus when it came to the foundry was people looking to build missions that satisfied people's need of getting the most amount of rewards for least amount of story that could be fit into the mission in order for the rewards to qualify.
    Imagine if Foundry also let us create Admiralty and Duty Officer assignments. Imagine if we could set up PvP events. Imagine if it had hooks into most if not all of the other systems.

    Now imagine that exploration had hooks for these things as well. All of these things are systems unto themselves.
    This would be bad for a lot of reasons. Mainly, when you give players the chance to make anything, they immediately try to find, and exploit, every single loophole in the system to create low-effort/max-rewards content. Allowing people to create admiralty/doff assignments, or PVP ANYTHING, is just asking for exploit city. We have already see this with the dilithium, accolade, and endeavor, farming missions. Allowing this on Doffing and Admiralty would be an endless whack-a-mole.

    And why do you think people do this? Because there are so many boring grindfests in the game that people want to take the quickest route possible to achieve their goals. Maybe if the devs would quit with all the grinding treadmills and make the game FUN, it would be less of an issue. There will always be cheaters though. So the methods they use should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. It's extreme short-sightedness for a developer to not implement a feature or function on the ground that a handful of people might cheat. The rest will not.[/quote]

    I don't know about you, but when it comes to some of the Featured TFOs that they brought out, I enjoyed them quite a bit. Normally I'm not one whom queues up for ground TFOs, but Pahvo Dissension is one I'd queue up for once they bring it out, simply because you never know which 3 routes the game will choose. Battle of the Binary Stars is one I'd queue up for, just to see my ship in an unreleased Discovery ship skin.
    So we've been told that there may not be any more fleet holdings coming. Great. Let'sd make alliance holdings that EVERYONE can participate in regardless of fleet affiliation. Let us actuall build what will become a new social hub. Fleet participation in this will unlock different tiers in the related fleet stores. so the things fleets work towards with holdings would be a part of it, but nobody would be excluded. And when the new hub is completed, everyone who participated could honestly say, "I had a hand in building all of this."
    This would require people to care about social hubs. The main reason Cryptic stopped making them was because, no matter how much they put into them, everyone just used ESD, First City, and DS9. Making all the time and money put into them worthless. Why spend even more time and effort on this when its been proven people don't care?

    Well, they would care if the activities tied to a season's content are based there. What is the point in having social hubs, or outposts, if you don't need to interact with a mission giver in the area itself. So many things in this game are accessible from the UI. There's convenience and then there is the total removal of engagement with the gameworld. It's hard to feel invested in a gmeworld that requires little or no interaction.[/quote]

    They used to have social hubs designed around a season's content. When they launched Season 8, we had Dyson Joint command center, while in Delta Rising, they introduced Delta Quadrant Command. This was the last time we had an actual hub created. With the activity focused in the Alpha Quadrant, we had Deep Space 9 already in the game as a hub for that area.

    The issue though with creating a new social area is that you'll need to make sure that people will bother using it. I'd say that DS9 is a popular location since you can do everything in that area, but it also happens to be the only hub in the area. However, it's also a canon area.
    That sort of experience sticks with a player far longer than any pre-scripted mission or quest. And there would be an upkeep phase after completion so that there could be Doff and Admiralty assignments for on-going contributions to make sure that equipment and facilities do not fall into disrepair. And I don't mean assignments with that as the narrative, but rather have it actually happen. Enter the Exploration/Colonization/Industrialization system as the vehicle for obtaining what is needed to keep Alliance Holdings supplied and operational.

    Include crates of alliance holding resources in lock boxes for optional daily extra resources if one so desires.
    This would pretty much be the death kneel for a system like this. The one thing people hate more then anything is "upkeep" costs in MMOs. Mainly because upkeep costs tend to be massive since they are usually on guild halls, and the devs expect a lot of people to be in the guild. A server wide holding would require astronomical upkeep costs to balance it out, and that would just generate mountains of complaints about the grind. This also leads back in my previous statement about social hubs. Why would anyone use this, or bother with the upkeep costs, when they can just use ESD, First City, DS9, and all of the already existing fleet holdings, for the gear/services they want?

    Upkeep would not be that bad if there was a system of diminishing requirements in effect. The older that an alliance holding is, the more self-sufficient it would be. So the bulk of upkeep would occur with the newest holdings, where the bulk of the player base would be at endgame anyway.

    Upkeep on older holdings would give new players coming up through the related content would something to participate in that has purpose. And here's a novel idea for the Admiralty system. Trade routes that would allow the movement of upkeep resources from places they are stockpiled or constructed to where they are needed. Imagine that. An Admiral in STO actually doing what Admirals in Star Trek would do when they aren't visiting hero ships and pestering the hell out of their captains? [/quote]

    The upkeep would only be a good idea in my opinion if it was easy enough for everyone to do, but not easy enough that only one person was required to do it.
    Oh... and in those hubs, Official story missions would unlock at progression points, each a one-shot mission followed by a daily that pays out something needed in further progression or upkeep of the hub. Put a hub on Cardassia, and every Cardassian character created after that would start there. Do something on Andoria like building a strategic command center as part of shoring up alliance defenses in the wake of all these extra-galactic and extra-dimensional incursions. New Andorians created after that hub's creation would start there. Do the same with all the other official playable species. With all those species with no currently available content on their homeworlds, if each were givien an alliance holding hub, then there is potentially another decade in player-driven content right there. And if that sort of engaging content were to be produced, then the Foundry would not be needed as an alternative to mindlessly repeating the same missions over and over between official content releases. And like I said, everyone who would participate in the progression and/or upkeep of a hub would feel a real connection to it, because their participation would have tangible meaning.
    This kind of system just punishes people for playing anything other then Human, Klingon, or Romulan. Why would someone make a Cardassian or Andorian character to maintain the hub when so few people play those species that said hubs are unlikely to ever be consistently maintained compared to the hubs for the super-majority species like Humans, Klingons, and Romulans? This just drives people further away from other species since there are now more tangle rewards for playing human compared to now, where everyone just has the same everything, so you can chose what you want to play without feeling punished for it.[/quote]

    Overall progression and upkeep costs could scale based on various sets of metrics. For example, upkeep for a Cardassian holding would be in line with how many unique accounts actually play as cardassians. This would keep the costs reasonable.

    Not to mention, if everyone started on different place that would necessitate unique tutorials for every single species. And that would mean there would have to be more tutorials then there are story mission in the game. That, or they would have to shuttle you off from that starting area 5 seconds after you got there to put you back into the already existing tutorial.[/quote]

    That could be eliminated if you start on your species homeworld if you skip the tutorial.

    Se you have made up your mind to dump on anything someone suggests that isn't in line with what Cryptic is doing. And every reason you give why something is a bad idea is something that, with a little imagination, can be mitigated. All it takes is a dedicated team of developers with a desire to see their game become more than just an exercise in mediocrity. If Cryptic isn't that sort of team, then that is their own fault.

    Oh well.[/quote]

    What about for new players whom do not have an option to skip the tutorial?

    What about for players that don't have a homeworld in the game yet? Some examples:

    Federation: Bolians, Benzites, Pakleds, Caitians and Rigelians do not have a homeworld currently on the map, while Saurians, Trill, Betazoids, Ferengi, Cardassians, and Tellarites do have have a homeworld, but currently it's nothing more than a point on the map that can't be visited.

    Klingons present a problem considering that while they do have Qo'noS, due to them being flagged as Federation, they cannot exactly start there.

    Klingons: Nausicaans, Gorn, and Letheans do not currently have a homeworld on any map. Orions, Ferasans, Trill, and Cardassians do have a homeworld, but like Federation characters that have them, they're just points on the map.

    Jem'hadar: They never technically state where they are from. I imagine they'd have to invent a "birthing pod" site.

    Aliens represent a challenge considering that they don't have a homeworld. I guess they could default to Earth.

    Then there's an obvious problem when it comes to Cardassians. They exist on both sides like Klingons, but how would they get handled by the game? NPCs would have to be neutral to both. [/quote]

    I don't care anymore.
    I have no snarky remarks to make, at this time...
  • vegeta50024vegeta50024 Member Posts: 1,993 Arc User
    edited March 15
    I don't care anymore.

    Well then, I guess this particular topic can be put to rest.
This discussion has been closed.