test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
The 16% Replication
System
Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
After listening to the latest Priority One and hearing our illustrious EPs thoughts on Klingon development again, I cant say as Im surprised. When he returned I was actually the first person to publically call that he would again lean shamelessly on the numbers argument he put forth in his last tenure to justify inaction. But you know, his statements in this latest interview got me thinking: these tests that have been run ad nauseum, what are they? What methodology precisely has been employed in Cryptics gathering of these numbers to bestow us with the now 16% label? I mean the quote is VERY specific
"We've done tests over and over again, it's going to be 16% of the player base. Cause that's what it is at Star Trek conventions, that's what it is in every other Star Trek game. It's a constant."
On conventions: so what methods were used at the Star Trek conventions? Survey? Ask around? A glance around beholding small clusters of batleth holding people or forehead ridges in a sea of Starfleet uniforms? What was the method that obtained the raw data? Personally Id really love an answer to this, studies and data gathering are a hobby of mine and Id love to replicate this study Cryptics apparently conducted. And Im being quite serious here, I would like to know how many conventions these studies spanned and what method was used to obtain the raw figures. According to Mr. Stahl theyve done it again and again as well so it should be quite simple to fill me in on the steps involved. Im a Masters student in developmental psychology research so studies arent a new concept to me. Ive participated in as many as five an academic year. So anyone from the Cryptic marketing research department wants to reply here or shoot me a PM, Id love to know the steps employed in the convention data gathering.
On games: to the best of my knowledge the only other online Star Trek game was Activisions ConQuest Online. So what does the scope every other Star Trek game cover? Like everyone from beginning of time? Lets assume for a moment that Mr. Stahl meant computer games. For giggles Ill throw in console games too, but its going to be a long list as the games on computer go back as far as the 1970s. So lets try to distill this into some basic figures
- Counting STO there are 49 titles available on PC since 1971, an additional 19 on console since 1979
- Of these titles, only 15 (or 31%) allowed the option of playing Klingons, and another 3 (6%) played them exclusively. Of the console games only 3 titles (16%) offered the option of playing Klingons.
- Putting together the Klingon only and optional Klingon numbers, PC games since 1979 have offered the Klingon experience 37% of the time.
With that in mind, where are the numbers coming from for every other Star Trek game? Other than the aforementioned two online titles, none of these game titles had an online component. Every other title was a stand alone, personal use, unit copy format. Even going off registration if people bothered to do that with their copies (I certainly never did) there was not likely a which faction will you be playing? question snuck in with the personal information requests. So of the other 13 titles where Klingons are offered as an option how is it any data exists on who preferred to play what? Are you polling your staff for their experiences with Star Trek games? Because thats not a viable sample as its not large enough to be representative of the population, and could be cause of a Type 1 error. So as with my above request for the conventions, please if possible share with me the details of your tests so they might be replicated. After all, if theyve continually come up with 16% for your studio theres surely no harm in outlining your studies for independent verification. The best way to disprove detractors to ones research is to ensure replication is easy to conduct and the results are constant.
"We've done tests over and over again, it's going to be 16% of the player base. Cause that's what it is at Star Trek conventions, that's what it is in every other Star Trek game. It's a constant."
On conventions: so what methods were used at the Star Trek conventions? Survey? Ask around? A glance around beholding small clusters of batleth holding people or forehead ridges in a sea of Starfleet uniforms? What was the method that obtained the raw data? Personally Id really love an answer to this, studies and data gathering are a hobby of mine and Id love to replicate this study Cryptics apparently conducted. And Im being quite serious here, I would like to know how many conventions these studies spanned and what method was used to obtain the raw figures. According to Mr. Stahl theyve done it again and again as well so it should be quite simple to fill me in on the steps involved. Im a Masters student in developmental psychology research so studies arent a new concept to me. Ive participated in as many as five an academic year. So anyone from the Cryptic marketing research department wants to reply here or shoot me a PM, Id love to know the steps employed in the convention data gathering.
On games: to the best of my knowledge the only other online Star Trek game was Activisions ConQuest Online. So what does the scope every other Star Trek game cover? Like everyone from beginning of time? Lets assume for a moment that Mr. Stahl meant computer games. For giggles Ill throw in console games too, but its going to be a long list as the games on computer go back as far as the 1970s. So lets try to distill this into some basic figures
- Counting STO there are 49 titles available on PC since 1971, an additional 19 on console since 1979
- Of these titles, only 15 (or 31%) allowed the option of playing Klingons, and another 3 (6%) played them exclusively. Of the console games only 3 titles (16%) offered the option of playing Klingons.
- Putting together the Klingon only and optional Klingon numbers, PC games since 1979 have offered the Klingon experience 37% of the time.
With that in mind, where are the numbers coming from for every other Star Trek game? Other than the aforementioned two online titles, none of these game titles had an online component. Every other title was a stand alone, personal use, unit copy format. Even going off registration if people bothered to do that with their copies (I certainly never did) there was not likely a which faction will you be playing? question snuck in with the personal information requests. So of the other 13 titles where Klingons are offered as an option how is it any data exists on who preferred to play what? Are you polling your staff for their experiences with Star Trek games? Because thats not a viable sample as its not large enough to be representative of the population, and could be cause of a Type 1 error. So as with my above request for the conventions, please if possible share with me the details of your tests so they might be replicated. After all, if theyve continually come up with 16% for your studio theres surely no harm in outlining your studies for independent verification. The best way to disprove detractors to ones research is to ensure replication is easy to conduct and the results are constant.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
So Cryptic bases their figures on wrong base data and is there for not holdable.
I have hopes for the next seasons, maybe not 7, maybe 8 or 9, but i do have hopes, the KDF is in serious need of completion and rounding up, as well as the game itself.
Also, I would say the fact that the majority of Trek games haven't even offered KDF is actually evidence in favor of Stahl's point: it is a minority interest among Trek fans. You really can't dispute that. Could it be as high as 25% instead of the 16% that Cryptic arrived at? Sure. But you aren't going to crunch the data and discover that there is the potential for equal balanced factions...
For a Klingon I need to make the armour, have somebody help me with my makeup. Being at a Convention in full make up and uniform isn't the easiest experience in the world.
I have a great deal of respect for the legions of Storm Troopers at conventions in Australia, it can be very hot here.
STOP
HAMMER TIME
could you imagine oblivion-powered star trek?
/I once was a captain like you until I took a disruptor to the knee
IMO they kinda screwed the pooch from the get go, I've seen so many people leave over the past two years that were KDF and/or PVP (around 30 on my friends list, last I checked) because of how the KDF / PVP was supported when launched / after launch.
If it's not the 16% thing it's the 'most of the players are at max level so that's where our focus is.'
It amuses me people still see Romulans as viable at all, given the track record of being able to keep up with bi-faction content. Can't continue making 2-faction's worth of content AND go back and fill in the gaps for the KDF? How do you suppose they'll be able to create 21 levels of Romulan gameplay while keeping up with 2 factions worth of content?
The game should be renamed as Star Fleet online and Cryptic should refund our monies spent since many of us only joined STO due to the lie that the KDF would be a fully playable faction.
R.I.P
"yes, I'd play a Romulan faction. I might never log in to my Klingon character, but I'd log in once or twice for a Romulan if I could have a D'deridex warbird. maybe."
IKS Korrasami (Fleet B'rel Bird of Prey Retrofit T5-U)
It is so sad.
Example:
2 county fairs are set up next to each other. ( you KNOW where I am going with this )
1. Fed County Fair has a ferris wheel, roller coasters, water rides, an arcade, lots of food and drink, free parking,
2. KDF County fair has bumper cars, and a sandbox.
Any idea why less people goto the 2nd one?
Fkkkkn excuses.
Cryptic says they doubled their team, and yet they still cant put 2 people on this. SMH
goodluck with getting ANY other factions.. and if so expect little to nothing to do
I feel the need to address this issue...
The Star Fleet Command series is arguably the best Star Trek game to have ever been published. The game was so successful that there were multiple titles in it: Star Fleet Command, Start Fleet Command 2: Empires at War, Star Fleet Command: Orion Pirates, Start Fleet Command III. I played them all.
The fleet numbers in the multiplayer Dynaverse games -- massive campaigns that could go on for months beween eight different races (Feds, Klingons, Romulans, Kzinti, Lyran, Hydran, ISC, Pirates) were very competitive. The Feds were often one of the largest factions...but the Klingons were a close second, and sometimes they outnumbered the Feds in some campaigns. Romulans usually came in 3rd...but were always a force to be reckoned with. In terms of winning campaigns...the Klingon faction - usually allied with the Lyrans or Kzinti and maybe the Romulans, tended to win just as often as the Federation-dominated faction. All in all though...I would have to give the edge to the Klingons...I do think they tended to win more often.
Within the game "environment" there were some very strong fleets. Klingon Black Fleet, Kzinti Assault Taskforce, SPQR, Xenocorp, 12th Fleet, and others.
Bottom line is that there is a number of Klingon fans out there...unfortunately though, many of them left STO about a year or so ago because they did not see a future for the Klingon faction...KBF is holding on...and we will stay until the game closes or there is no more KDF (like a merger alliance with the Feds...shudder!)
I've only just got it back, would be a shame to have to change that 18% to 16%...
Here before PWE (and hopefully) here long after PWE is gone.
What this game needs is PvP, NOT PWE.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I'm still very interested in the study data Mr. Stahl mentioned on the Priority One episode and would enjoy attempting to replicate the studies. So anyone from Cryptic who wants to get ahold of me with those studies steps (how many conventions, methods to count fans etc.) I'm still very interested.
If nothing else it'd be great extra credit research material for uni. So if someone from the Studio could get ahold of me via PM or here it'd be grand.
Thanks all.
They never had numbers or facts to begin with. They just reach into their "Jar of Random Excuses" that has a big "X" over the KDF symbol, to spout any justification to be lazy in KDF development.
They throw in the random, haplesss noob employee to say how much they love the KDF and will try to push their development whenever they can, but the simple truth is 2 years of neglect for the KDF (and PVP) shows where Cryptic truly lies.
Simply put: They're too busy milking the Feds for whatever they got, while they can.
The SFC series was indeed a great one. Going from Kirk's TMP timeframe to even TNG era (with SFC3). The scope was wide, varied, and the fleets felt and played differently. You definitely had points as to why you would want to play with the different factions.
Don't forget the part where you are forced to go through a portion the first fair to even get to the second fair's front door.
Dude, let me help you...
Find your TRIBBLE. Pull a number out of it. Reseach complete.
Do you really believe that a company this halfasstic does research?
If every player played a single kdf officer 100% of the time there would still be 50% fed characters because of the way the game is set up.
If half of the player base was klingon, you'd still be looking at only 25% klingon characters because of the need to keep a fed officer.
Maybe that 18% is more important than the braintrust over there thinks...
How they got their figures and numbers of how many would LIKE to play Klingon over Fed.
How many did they ask? If they asked at a ST convention, how many were in attendence total?
Of course, now that they castrated the Empire by forcing you to play as a Fed for 50% of the total ranks just to be allowed to even create a Klingon skews almost any data horribly.
If only the original words had come to pass:
August 10th, 2008 - At Gen Con Jack Emmert said: "Starfleet and Klingon. Yeah. So two factions, full PvE content."
You'd think they'd want to shut us up and have their proof displayed for all to see.
KBF CO
We are the Dead
join date Aug 2008
Sad thing is, they probably paid someone a lot of money to do that research.
Maybe just paying 1 xtra guy to make some more KDF mission content would have been a better investment.
Think how dedicated Klingon players would spread the word to their fanclubs, friends and online sites that there was a great game for Klingon fans too.
Think of the moneymaking possibilities.
KBF CO
We are the Dead
join date Aug 2008
The "16/18%" argument is just hot air, play the game, go check on the sectors, READ THE FORUMS, i know for SURE that a LOT MORE than 16/18% of the players are KDF or use mostly their KDF toon.
I think it is ridiculous that the KDF is not complete, personally i think it should be on the top priorities for Cryptyc and there are no real or valid excuses not to do it, plus a large portion of the players are Klingon and even more have both KDF and FED toons.
Also, i think it would be nice if the add more factions, but certainly that should be made AFTER they finish the KDF, putting the RSE now as another mini faction is just crazy.
They are bound by PWEs Cash grab over quality approach. The new Fed Carrier is a good example.
Cryptic is still making patches for it since it is bugged, but thy already sold. No testing done at all.
Cryptic was bound by Cryptic's lack of desire or intention to build the KDF faction that was stated and advertised long before any interaction with PWE was formed.
Al Rivera hates Klingons
Star Trek Online: Agents of Jack Emmert
All cloaks should be canon.
Oh I'm fully aware of this, I just figure it'd be telling if without attacking them or making any kind of accusation someone stepped up and politely offered to replicate the study and they silently refused via not answering. Fact is, the KDF is not what they would have you believe and we've actually conducted independent research to prove it.
In my original post I discredited the part of the statement "every other Star Trek game" by showing there's no way the data could've been gathered from any kind of sample size that was large enough to be reliable representative of the Star Trek fan base as a whole. I have given their conventions arguement due credit and simply politely asked for the study to be shared for replication, as that is how it works in acadamia. Silence has answered me (so far) thus rendering (for the time being) that part of their arguement invalid as well.
Meanwhile representatives of the KDF playerbase have participated in a online opinion poll/survey asking what we (the players) believe should be the developers developmental priority. I haven't looked at it recently but at last check of 400 responders 35% listed "further KDF development" as the top priority with that margin beating out the next three categories in the top priority column combined. We're not afraid to share our data publically, a shame Cryptic appears to be.
I don't understand why people are imitating Spud from Undergrads, but it just sounds dumb.
Thats what it is in every other star trek game? How does that factor in that many I'm not sure if most but many other trek games have more factions beyond the federation and klingons.
I own multiple trek games capable of online play and sto is the only one that does not have the options to play feds, klingons, and romulans. Not to mention all said games but one have more factions beyond the three.