test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Cannot name a starbase? Seriously?
System
Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
According to Heretic, we will not be able to name our new starbase. This seems to be a major oversight and one I don't understand why is being allowed to exist. In fact, it seems kind of silly this isn't being implemented especially when you consider we can name:
This is one of those things that should just be standard. I, myself, made the mistake of assuming it was just part of the fleet starbase system (as I don't make it a habit to read every single post on this forum) and so I really don't understand why Cryptic is not doing it.
I'm not a programming expert by any means, but this makes no sense to me.
- character (with full bio)
- BOffs (with full bio)
- uniforms
- ships (with registry number)
- fleets (with information)
- fleet ranks
- fleet events
- fleet uniforms
- fleet bank tabs
- chat channels
- chat tabs
This is one of those things that should just be standard. I, myself, made the mistake of assuming it was just part of the fleet starbase system (as I don't make it a habit to read every single post on this forum) and so I really don't understand why Cryptic is not doing it.
I'm not a programming expert by any means, but this makes no sense to me.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Im not sure its an oversight as its something they want to add later. I really doubt this slipped their minds as they were coming up with it and probably more a tech reason (although it does seems an odd limitation if thats the case) or possibly they have to get some clearance as to what limitations you can place on the starbase.
calling it starbase 47 might infringe on the already existing names so it may be something they have to clear with CBS?
we cant yet rename our alien characters or boffs as they still show as listed as 'aliens' and thats been 2 years so who knows.
Hyping up fleet starbases and then we find out we can't name them? That's just silly.
It's not as if we're not going to give them names ourselves, whether we can show the name on our hull or not.
I'm not concerned with the name being on the hull, really. I'm concerned with the name being on the starbase UI. And when I think of launch issues, I think of dilithium being lost due to a task not properly completing. What I don't think of is not being able to slap text in a text box because they didn't provide one.
Agreed with you on all parts of this thread
We are going to "unofficially" name our starbase. But I'm flummoxed that naming it isn't even going to be an option.
How does using a user-defined name eat any more bandwidth than a randomly generated one. I figured naming it would be the first thing you do! And I still can't imagine it is harder to do than a random name generator.
string starbaseName;
cout << "Congrats you have unlocked a fleet starbase. What would you like to call it?";
cin >> starbaseName;
cout << starbaseName " is now ready for duty";
Gross oversimplification, sure. But seriously!
I'm certain most fleet share this sentiment.
I don't see why not. Nothing could be any worse than the USS Exitprise, USS IMA FIRIN' LAZOR, and U.S.S. Morning Wood. At least the starbase names would generally only be visible to the fleet that built it.
I think this was one of the things we were looking forward to. We are dreaming of controlling a starbase, we need the ability to name it!
Its hard to understand from a lay perspective how this could be: The programming can keep track of all sorts of inputs, projects, fleet donations etc.....
But apparently we can't store a simple text string? I have trouble understanding why that would be difficult to program or implement.
Of course, I have zero knowledge of programming....but it strikes me as very, very odd.
if a name is that important to you then fair enough you may do as you wish, but i find it highly unlikely that many people would not play the feature at all, simply because they cant name it.
it may be a desirable aspect of the system that is missing and it may even annoy a few people at the start, but at the end of the day its actually an incredibly minor addition when you look at the nuts and bolts of it, that i cant see that many people actually not playing because of it.
I agree. I'll play it either way. But it is such a minor addition it boggles the mind as to why it's not there.
I just do not get how the obvious things are completely misses by Cryptic?
Its as if Dan Stahl is telling marketing that Starbases are almost ready to ship, when instead, the skeleton system is almost ready to ship. Sure things will be added on after release, but its hardly encouraging when we look at the absence of DOFF commendation tier rewards and then expect to have a fully rounded starbase system soon after.
But that is still deep level programming and mechanics. What I want to know is how they missed surface level text boxes.
The way that the DOff system is structured, the statistics have no memory. It does not matter if a DOff has been on 20 failed assignments in a row. His/her chance of success for the next mission is entirely governed by the Traits and Quality of the DOff and the others assigned to the mission.
The recommendation system works based off of the only two factors that impact assignment success, then gives you the 3 DOffs who are nearly optimal for the task, but not necessarily the best. There has to be some room for player optimization.
I admit that I don't care for ship names to be so out of character, but they're still the individual ship controlled by an individual player.
Fleet Starbases don't belong to anyone but the fleet itself. If EVERY. LAST. PLAYER. Got his or her own starbase all to themselves, then they should be able to name it whatever they want, just the same as they can with their ships. I think that Cryptic wants to make sure that the single starbase that is shared by all manner of people in a fleet- be it 1 or 100, should have a bit more of a professional name that nobody will be offended by.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a bad thing if people should be allowed to name starbases, but something about this makes me see the other side of the coin as the better reasoning. Playing the Devil's advocate, as they say.
Well in all fairness its a matter of frugally distributing what resources are available. Time spent ensuring the whole framework of the feature is solid is probably better than trying to check off a list of superficial surface level stuff which will not keep criticism at bay later on. But thats a double-edged sword.
Its also probable that they really want people to earn every and all customization options (which is fine) - I personally think they are still uncertain on the future of interiors and its casting a shadow on a lot of other things. The lack of a unique bridge for the Armitage is why I'm speculating at this (its like they aren't even sure how the bridges we have already bought will even feature in an interior update - so better not add more!).
I digress, like the DOFF system, Starbases have also adopted roadblocks whereby the players are delayed significantly from getting too far ahead too quickly. Its not just to maintain feature longevity on the whole, but to also provide time for the Devs to further fill out the feature in the higher tiers - while we're all consumed with fleet drama starting off. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this approach, per se. But if unexpected events create delays in development we can end up getting past these new roadblocks and finding ourselves ahead of the developers (DOFF rewards 2.0). Thats when the lack of naming options will really get people's teeth grinding. I personally believe that most people prefer to unlock stuff going forward, rather than retroactively unlock rewards that should have been in place long before.
Realistically, if they absolutely can't squeeze it in on release, they will have things like Naming your Starbase and applying a fleet emblem to the exterior as unlocks for the higher tiers - it gives them time to develop such things properly, while letting us chew away on the bone they threw us for a while.
On the one hand, I completely agree that it's silly for the fleet not to be able to name their starbase. One would think that there would be a system in place to allow for that, either by arbitrary naming through the fleet owner, or a voting system that allows for the Fleet to be heard. A personalized starbase name helps to... I dunno... For me, it would help to make it really feel like it was our own, rather than renting it out from the Federation. xD
Now on the other hand, I can also see why it'd be odd to have starbase names. Just thinking it over myself right now, I can't think of any starbases that actually have a name. They have designations like "Deep Space" or "Space Station" followed by a number. Ya know, Deep Space 9, Station K-7, etc... I mean, even the biggest and most well known station is just called "Earth Space Dock".
So personally, I'd love to have personalized names for the fleet starbase. But logically or canonly, or however you want to classify it, any new starbase would get a designation and number. At least that's my thoughts on that.
That doesn't mean "no" it means "maybe". The maybe is dependent on schedule, technical issues, UI resource restrictions and a number of other things.
That sounds fair, I just have a hard time imagining adding the ability to name a star base requiring that much time to implement.
Heretic, I love your work. The DOff system is more than I had hoped for when the game launched. Fantastic stuff.
Please understand that "We would like..." has also been used for customizable interior maps, crew uniforms, DOffs appearing on interior maps, and various other features. Now some of these features are more reasonable than others, but some of them have also been on the request block for over 2 years. You can't blame a player for effectively hearing "no" even if that is not the explicit answer.