I would continue to play my Lethan and Orion mercenaries and occasionally my Fed Sci for the RP since he is a STO extension of my present paper D&D character.
Primarily Fed, if the Romulans were in, I'd go with them. The whole Klink philosophy doesn't set well with me, it's not one I enjoy, so my one Liberated Borg Klingon was started the day I hit level 6 on my Fed main back in February of 2010, and only hit level 50 about a week ago so I could try out the Bortasqu'.
Dunno, maybe it was time in WoW that killed it for me, but whenever I'm in the First City, all I can hear in the back of my mind is, "FOR THE HORDE!!"
There is a critical omission to this poll. "Which faction do/would you play in the current state of the game?"
This question presupposes a change in game content that is very unlikely to exist. It suggests that play numbers could be "equal" if only content were "equal".
I play my fed probably once every two weeks or so, and for less than an hour, usually less than 30 minutes.
I dont like the Federation, its uppity, Riker was one of the only people that actually had "Federation Morals"
TNG (Lonely Among Us). the rest were exactly as Quark described them "Tolerant of others unless it was not in line with their moral code".
IMO both the Klingons and Romulans acted more human than humans, although Romulans were treated even more Xenophobic in the way they were written.
"You were born blind? and your parents let you live" (the commodore) from TNG was just another example of the uppity Federation point of storytelling.
I play Klingons because they are deliciously honest to their natures, and I would play Romulan instead of Klingon for the same reason (and the Romulan Psyche fits better with my own personality).
I play both now. I have one Fed of each flavor, and a Klingon Tac; I'd be willing to add a Gorn Eng, if they put in decent Gorn cruisers, not science boats. While they're at it, could they make plasma not suck? (I'm an old SFC player.)
I would love to see an independent Gorn faction myself. We have established in-game that there are separatist groups among them and there are numerous Gorn doffs for the Federation side so nothing about the game world would have to be changed. Making Gorn available as a playable Fed race, perhaps for C points, would also be very welcome.
The Gorn were my favorite race from ST but I just can't bring myself to play one as a Klingon slave...
I would play both equally (in a way) ... but there's more to it.
A bit of history here... Cryptic originally advertized two factions with complete content. But they had contractual obligations to launch, did not have time to complete KDF Story Advancement, and decided to make it a PvP Centric Faction. All out revolts erupted on the forums with whole Klingon Fleets leaving the game as they believe they were misled by Cryptic's advertisements and Dev talk.
Instead of joining those who were leaving because the KDF was incomplete I took the advice of more moderate players who said - "Just play Feds for now and give Cryptic time to complete the KDF". It has been a very long road since Closed Beta. The KDF has come a long way from being "Monster Play" to a faction which has much more story and PvE progression.
We're still not home yet and I don't think we ever will be. I've already spent my time playing Feds and all the content that faction has to offer. Which is why I voted Equally in the survey. I now pretty much only play KDF and buy only KDF items from the C-Store or Fed Items that give the KDF something as a bonus. It's the only way I can influence the data mining which Cryptic does to see how many players and spenders the KDF has.
I play both factions equally now since it's mostly just stfs and coop games are the only thing to do endgame anyway, but here's how I look at this. Ignoring all the non endgame stuff both factions are pretty close right now. FEs with their FED-centric dialogues notwithstanding.
The leveling process is pretty fast now, I helped out my friend on his new kdf during a mirror event and he leveled up to almost max just from an hours worth. So it's not about earlier missions to level up with.
I do believe the KDF need more content but not content that goes backwards, what I believe in is content like FEs but with actual real effort in offering two viewpoints on the mission and not simply copy pasting the FED text to the KDF. I mean really my KDF boff should be unconcerned by ethical dilemmas and other FED thinking.
@tinman56 The FEDs should have an option to align with Section 31, I like the anti-hero feel of the KDF as well and would love to have that mood for the FEDs as well. I refuse to play my FED like a boyscout.
Hah, I did the Section 31 devidian missions and at the end Drake was all like 'I know you don't agree with our methods, but we're necessary yadda yadda' and I was like... I completely agree with you what are you talking about.
A section 31 option would be awesome though actually, I always did like those missions more than the standard ones.
Interestingly, 60% of voters thus far would play KDF *at least* equally, if not more, if it had equal content. What Cryptic really needs to do is have an in game poll like this, because the question is not how many people are currently playing the KDF, but how many *would* play under different circumstances.
I primarily play KDF now. I guess I'm a sucker for the underdog. I would continue to regard the KDF as my main even if things were equal between the factions...which they are definitely not.
Interestingly, 60% of voters thus far would play KDF *at least* equally, if not more, if it had equal content. What Cryptic really needs to do is have an in game poll like this, because the question is not how many people are currently playing the KDF, but how many *would* play under different circumstances.
That kind of polling is notoriously hard to do. People are rarely honest, even with themselves, about what they would do.
But there have been representative polls taken at conventions and by a major polling firm that broke this down before.
Here's the grist of the issue:
Looking at this outside the box, faction is not what you are. It's something you have.
Games like Warcraft dictated what you have. It doesn't need to be dictated.
It's a fundamental flaw in STO's design, built by imitating very different genres and games.
Faction in Trek is, well... More like D&D alignment.
Lack of choice is agitating. People want choice.
Nobody says "build a Chaotic Neutral 1-50 leveling experience" in a D&D game.
The problem with STO is that they built the equivalent of a 1-50 "Lawful Good" campaign and 30-50 "Lawful Neutral" campaign. And they made the entire game a series of things where you're taking orders like a marine instead of acting like a Starship Captain.
Look at the plots of Trek episodes. Most DO NOT hinge on it being a Federation ship although branches of the story may reflect this. They didn't go there because Admiral Quinn told them to. The same story would apply to any ship Captain that happened across the same planet.
I could diagram the whole thing out but my theory behind this is something I'm working on getting published. There is a formula that works for narrative content design. It works across media. It will totally make the arguments of folks like David Jaffe, on one end, and Jennifer Hepler, on the other, obsolete. Once game designers see the formula, it will influence what and how they create.
I just can't really go into specifics without giving it away.
If you have played the KDF faction you are probably aware they do not have nearly as much storyline content as the Feds. Some say this is the reason they have fewer players, while others say that it is simply the nature of the IP the game is based on. This raises the question:
PS: please pass this poll along to your fleet so those who do not normally frequent the forums can give their feedback as well.
Here I am thinking that Polls are not allowed on this Forum . .
But to answer your quesiton in a different way. . I would much rather play as either Romulan or Terran Empire Faction. . If and when either would be availible, or will ever be.
I don't have the data. I take it on faith from Stahl that it exists... and Perpetual did a poll which you used to be fond of linking.
I dont think that was me, but from what I recall Perpetual's poll was worded kind of strangely. If anyone has a link I'd like to have another look at it to refresh my memory.
I dont think that was me, but from what I recall Perpetual's poll was worded kind of strangely. If anyone has a link I'd like to have another look at it to refresh my memory.
Ah, I found it. As I said, the faction question was worded very strangely:
Q:15: If you could play as any of the following opposing factions, which ONE would you choose?
Highlight is mine of course, but it is unclear if all of the people voting in that poll were voting for the faction they would want to play *as* or the faction they would want to play *against*. Here is an interesting comment from the Perpetual dev who wrote that blog entry:
In fact, these results would appear to contradict the overall conclusion that faction value is marginal. One explanation is in the wording of the question. We asked people to select their favorite opposing faction. I can only guess that this wording had the effect of swaying people away from the Federation. Still, this point clearly deserves more research.
Highlight is mine of course, but I'm not even sure what data that question is supposed to provide.
I think your reading into it too much. All of those factions listed are opposed to one another. Thats why Federation (Starfleet) is an option. They were not asking what faction would you like to play which would oppose Starfleet.
The point of that particular question was to identify if significantly more people would 'buy in' if the game was based around factions as opposed to a single faction approach, or a "no faction" approach as they put it (Starfleet). Either, or, not both.
I think your reading into it too much. All of those factions listed are opposed to one another. Thats why Federation (Starfleet) is an option. They were not asking what faction would you like to play which would oppose Starfleet.
The point of that particular question was to identify if significantly more people would 'buy in' if the game was based around factions as opposed to a single faction approach, or a "no faction" approach as they put it (Starfleet). Either, or, not both.
That is possible, but not entirely clear. I added a quote from the Dev who wrote that blog and it appears they were not entirely clear on what that meant either. But either way, the response to that question does *not* seem to prove any lack of KDF support like some seem to think it does.
It doesn't seem to prove much either way. For example, the race options they gave in another question are all pretty standard, but we see more Ferengi chosen than Other, yet, I consistently see far more Caitians than Ferengi in game. Anecdotal I know, but, if true, then why didn't that demographic vote for Other?
I think the restrictions in polls can often skew the results - for example, in your other poll on development priorities, I wanted to vote Exploration in particular (before it was an option) - but because it wasn't, I actually placed Other far lower on the ballot. So aside from how much weight one must give to the results of a poll in relation to the actual population, some consideration should also be given to how people's actual choices may differ greatly from their polled choices. Its all about asking the right questions and I wonder how different the poll in this topic would be if BOTH was not an option.
Comments
Qapla', Elric!
Who would want to be "Monster of the Week" or an Space Ogre/Orc. Which is what the Klingons are. Federation for life.
Dunno, maybe it was time in WoW that killed it for me, but whenever I'm in the First City, all I can hear in the back of my mind is, "FOR THE HORDE!!"
/shrug
This question presupposes a change in game content that is very unlikely to exist. It suggests that play numbers could be "equal" if only content were "equal".
Now if you ask that and omit KDF and add Romulan...Id say Romulan.
Qapla'!
/10 char
I dont like the Federation, its uppity, Riker was one of the only people that actually had "Federation Morals"
TNG (Lonely Among Us). the rest were exactly as Quark described them "Tolerant of others unless it was not in line with their moral code".
IMO both the Klingons and Romulans acted more human than humans, although Romulans were treated even more Xenophobic in the way they were written.
"You were born blind? and your parents let you live" (the commodore) from TNG was just another example of the uppity Federation point of storytelling.
I play Klingons because they are deliciously honest to their natures, and I would play Romulan instead of Klingon for the same reason (and the Romulan Psyche fits better with my own personality).
The Gorn were my favorite race from ST but I just can't bring myself to play one as a Klingon slave...
A bit of history here... Cryptic originally advertized two factions with complete content. But they had contractual obligations to launch, did not have time to complete KDF Story Advancement, and decided to make it a PvP Centric Faction. All out revolts erupted on the forums with whole Klingon Fleets leaving the game as they believe they were misled by Cryptic's advertisements and Dev talk.
Instead of joining those who were leaving because the KDF was incomplete I took the advice of more moderate players who said - "Just play Feds for now and give Cryptic time to complete the KDF". It has been a very long road since Closed Beta. The KDF has come a long way from being "Monster Play" to a faction which has much more story and PvE progression.
We're still not home yet and I don't think we ever will be. I've already spent my time playing Feds and all the content that faction has to offer. Which is why I voted Equally in the survey. I now pretty much only play KDF and buy only KDF items from the C-Store or Fed Items that give the KDF something as a bonus. It's the only way I can influence the data mining which Cryptic does to see how many players and spenders the KDF has.
Hah, I did the Section 31 devidian missions and at the end Drake was all like 'I know you don't agree with our methods, but we're necessary yadda yadda' and I was like... I completely agree with you what are you talking about.
A section 31 option would be awesome though actually, I always did like those missions more than the standard ones.
That kind of polling is notoriously hard to do. People are rarely honest, even with themselves, about what they would do.
But there have been representative polls taken at conventions and by a major polling firm that broke this down before.
Here's the grist of the issue:
Looking at this outside the box, faction is not what you are. It's something you have.
Games like Warcraft dictated what you have. It doesn't need to be dictated.
It's a fundamental flaw in STO's design, built by imitating very different genres and games.
Faction in Trek is, well... More like D&D alignment.
Lack of choice is agitating. People want choice.
Nobody says "build a Chaotic Neutral 1-50 leveling experience" in a D&D game.
The problem with STO is that they built the equivalent of a 1-50 "Lawful Good" campaign and 30-50 "Lawful Neutral" campaign. And they made the entire game a series of things where you're taking orders like a marine instead of acting like a Starship Captain.
Look at the plots of Trek episodes. Most DO NOT hinge on it being a Federation ship although branches of the story may reflect this. They didn't go there because Admiral Quinn told them to. The same story would apply to any ship Captain that happened across the same planet.
I could diagram the whole thing out but my theory behind this is something I'm working on getting published. There is a formula that works for narrative content design. It works across media. It will totally make the arguments of folks like David Jaffe, on one end, and Jennifer Hepler, on the other, obsolete. Once game designers see the formula, it will influence what and how they create.
I just can't really go into specifics without giving it away.
Please link to that data, I'd be very interested in reading it.
Here I am thinking that Polls are not allowed on this Forum . .
But to answer your quesiton in a different way. . I would much rather play as either Romulan or Terran Empire Faction. . If and when either would be availible, or will ever be.
I don't have the data. I take it on faith from Stahl that it exists... and Perpetual did a poll which you used to be fond of linking.
I dont think that was me, but from what I recall Perpetual's poll was worded kind of strangely. If anyone has a link I'd like to have another look at it to refresh my memory.
Ah, I found it. As I said, the faction question was worded very strangely:
http://gaming.trekcore.com/startrekonline/dd8.html
Highlight is mine of course, but it is unclear if all of the people voting in that poll were voting for the faction they would want to play *as* or the faction they would want to play *against*. Here is an interesting comment from the Perpetual dev who wrote that blog entry:
I think your reading into it too much. All of those factions listed are opposed to one another. Thats why Federation (Starfleet) is an option. They were not asking what faction would you like to play which would oppose Starfleet.
The point of that particular question was to identify if significantly more people would 'buy in' if the game was based around factions as opposed to a single faction approach, or a "no faction" approach as they put it (Starfleet). Either, or, not both.
Quite confusing.
That is possible, but not entirely clear. I added a quote from the Dev who wrote that blog and it appears they were not entirely clear on what that meant either. But either way, the response to that question does *not* seem to prove any lack of KDF support like some seem to think it does.
I think the restrictions in polls can often skew the results - for example, in your other poll on development priorities, I wanted to vote Exploration in particular (before it was an option) - but because it wasn't, I actually placed Other far lower on the ballot. So aside from how much weight one must give to the results of a poll in relation to the actual population, some consideration should also be given to how people's actual choices may differ greatly from their polled choices. Its all about asking the right questions and I wonder how different the poll in this topic would be if BOTH was not an option.