I'll add what leaves me torn and what I see as Cryptic's constant source of trouble when it comes to communicating things:
Cryptic uses an iterative design approach and is production and technology oriented.
That makes Cryptic seem like a place I'd be interested in WORKING at but honestly turns me off heavily as a customer and is, I think, a bad approach for forging customer relationships or even communicating with customers.
As a CUSTOMER, I'd like Cryptic to drop all three of those planks.
As a customer what I want is:
A company that uses committed VISION oriented design approach and is marketing/service (rather than production) oriented and which values entertainment/storytelling over technology.
If it stops being fun or isn't what every designer wants, you slog through with an eye on the final VISION.You train and treat your employees as customer service reps or personalities who forge trustworthy and engaging relationships with the players and the source material rather than treating them as technicians/engineers/designers; the performer rather than the designer model is what I'm talking about. Finally, you consider mechanics as gimmicks and commit instead to creating material that focuses on narrative flow rather than gimmicks and emotional touchstones in content through polish/music/dialogue rather than new features brought on through code branch mergers and too clever by half game systems. More storyteller, less systems architect. (Also story != text. A carnival tunnel of love is a narrative too and is the basis for dungeon design in many other MMOs.)
The blue option is what Cryptic is in my eyes. I'd be fascinated and energized to work in that environment. But it has minimal appeal to me as a longterm customer. As a customer, what engages me is the green option.
And what does that have to do with this?
The disconcerting changes are iterative and create feelings of insecurity and unreliability in a userbase that is already spending real money on a virtual product.
The tendency towards production focus (ie. a software factory rather than a full service restaurant) causes Cryptic to replace content and tweak items solely because the new design is better from a design perspective, emphasizing quality of design over communications and relationship building.
This is again reflected in a technology focus. You're tightening bolts on how things are done rather than focusing on creating compelling emotional appeals. Again, narrative doesn't require text. I've got a friend who used to teach Disney's animators about narrative and worked on an ARG. Narrative can be a big part of PvP or UI design or combat scenario design or even corporate history and trajectory. Instead of focusing on how content or systems are assembled, focus on making the player feel special and engaged with the process.
As someone who has been a designer and an artist, I REALLY, REALLY get the appeal of how Cryptic operates. As a consumer and student of marketing and narrative, I don't think it's forward thinking, sustainable, or suitably relationship oriented. And I can point to a few dozen posts in this thread where your vocal consumers are saying, "It's the relationship, stupid." (To the tune of, "It's the economy, stupid." I don't think anybody at Cryptic is stupid.) But I think the culture needs to be reinvented. More Apple with its blissful tea ceremony product unboxing, less Microsoft with its overclocked, more advanced processors in a cardboard box. More Wonka, less Silicon Valley. More Quiznos, less Subway. More Starbuck's, less Dunkin Donuts. More Target as a consumer experience destination and less Wal-Mart as a merchandising powerhouse. More Pixar, less Warner Bros. Don't be a Jon Peters, be a Peter Jackson.
Tensions are high and this thread moves fast. But I HOPE, HOPE, HOPE somebody reads this and gets it. Cryptic's current course won't doom the company tomorrow or a year from now but I really, honestly, religiously believe that if somebody reads this manifesto and takes it to heart that Cryptic can be so much more. And the potential as an entertainment house, making hard and reliable commitments and exceeding them, that gets squandered on being a production studio, making enigmatic statements and wiki-ing game mechanics -- well... It drives your fans batty.
Anyone else noticed that they've pulled the entire facebook page?
I mean, all of it, every single post.
Na, its still there for me. They announced the fleet versions of the anniversary ships. But of course players are drilling them hard there too for this stupid decision.
All this would have been a non-issue if a solution for the removal of the FM reward had been slated to roll out at most two weeks from now.
But no, they couldn't even do that. Instead they set themselves up for a ****storm they know they can't correct until May. As if that wasn't bad enough, they aren't at liberty to discuss their own fixes, which they must know would potentially quiet the less bloodthirsty posters.
It's like they wanted everyone to rage. Everything about the execution of this is godawful.
What kills me is they put this stuff up on Tribble, get beaten up for the short-sighted decisions and the constant breaking of things that weren't previously broken, and then repeat the exact same mistake two days later when they roll the entire mess over to Holodeck.
Its like they want us to flay them - twice - for every stupid, boneheaded, short-sighted "solution" they come up with.
If that's how you like to take your beatings, Cryptic - I get the impression that the forum community is more than willing to oblige...but if it were me? I'd just get rid of Tribble. Everything you do there gets dumped onto Holodeck anyway... why not just eliminate the middle man and only take the one tongue lashing (that you ignore anyway) every week instead of two?
Or stop calling Tribble the test server and call it what it really is - the bug preview server.
Anyone else noticed that they've pulled the entire facebook page?
I mean, all of it, every single post.
Really D'Stahl?
Are you perhaps beginning to realise that this terrible decision is going to backfire on you?
Are you getting the point yet?
This isn't just a normal knee jerk reaction to change.
This is us telling you, you've got this terribly, appallingly wrong.
Months waiting for a solution isn't remotely good enough.
I reckon you have hours, maybe a day or two, before the damage becomes irreversible.
I know, right?
I'm fairly confident in about a week we'll get some news on a change to this whole thing. This is only the third time in three years they've gotten such universal negative feedback, and in both prior scenarios a fix was implemented relatively quickly.
For better or worse, Cryptic is at least consistent.
I love it when you rage handsome phaser dude - rage on!!
I've been called a Cryptic fantard in the past. And maybe that's true sometimes. But this handsome phaser dude has never had qualms about raging at what he feels is worth raging over.
Na, its still there for me. They announced the fleet versions of the anniversary ships. But of course players are drilling them hard there too for this stupid decision. This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies . ~syberghost.
Interesting, you're right. It says no posts to display on my tablet, but when accessed from my PC its still there.
This is probably going to be lost in this sea of rage, but;
I want to thank you for giving us this feedback to our feedback and communicating to us in this manner. It means a lot, and will continue to go a long way in strengthening this game and all your studio produces and the audience it reaches.
This is probably going to be lost in this sea of rage, but;
I want to thank you for giving us this feedback to our feedback and communicating to us in this manner. It means a lot, and will continue to go a long way in strengthening this game and all your studio produces and the audience it reaches.
Ummm... so... now I am confused. Serious post or troll post full of irony?
This is probably going to be lost in this sea of rage, but;
I want to thank you for giving us this feedback to our feedback and communicating to us in this manner. It means a lot, and will continue to go a long way in strengthening this game and all your studio produces and the audience it reaches.
I'd like to think I'm one of the calm ones here, and even if I disagree with several things Dan said, I'll give him credit for coming in here surely knowing in advance what he was walking in to. It's not like he actually had to do it.
Also boglejam73: your signature rules. And I actually liked that episode, because I'm that guy.
"We are smart." - Grebnedlog
Member of Alliance Central Command/boq botlhra'ghom
A few friends and I started playing STO in August. I am part of a 4 member fleet, both Fed and KDF. Both fleets are now at Tier 2. I can say that dilithium has never been an issue, fleet marks on the other hand... were. I'll bet that is the case with most small fleets as well. So either your data is wrong, or your making things up as you go.
Our fleets will stay at Tier 2. We have decided to stop with the starbase grind. We have no desire to be assimilated by a large fleet. There are other games we can play, that don't feel like going to a second job. In your advertising for STO, you need to put out a disclaimer in the fine print, something like, "STO is not for a small group of friends, or solo players. If this is you, you would be advised to look elsewhere for your fun." Fun... I guess that's something that fancy data you look at, doesn't take into account.
I'm fairly confident in about a week we'll get some news on a change to this whole thing. This is only the third time in three years they've gotten such universal negative feedback, and in both prior scenarios a fix was implemented relatively quickly.
For better or worse, Cryptic is at least consistent.
Well, its a tiny ray of hope.......but i think a week is too long.
If its left that long there will be damage.
Damage to Cryptics bottom line.
Its not just that this thing was done, but the way it was done.
A lot of players seem to feel they've gone too far this time.
There needs to be an apology and a fix in no more than 48 hours.
Even reverting to the old system while they craft a replacement would work.
All this would have been a non-issue if a solution for the removal of the FM reward had been slated to roll out at most two weeks from now.
But no, they couldn't even do that. Instead they set themselves up for a ****storm they know they can't correct until May. As if that wasn't bad enough, they aren't at liberty to discuss their own fixes, which they must know would potentially quiet the less bloodthirsty posters.
It's like they wanted everyone to rage. Everything about the execution of this is godawful.
really that is the only thing i am unhappy about.
we have no alternative to replace the FM that where taken out if there was i probably would not have cared
A few friends and I started playing STO in August. I am part of a 4 member fleet, both Fed and KDF. Both fleets are now at Tier 2. I can say that dilithium has never been an issue, fleet marks on the other hand... were. I'll bet that is the case with most small fleets as well. So either your data is wrong, or your making things up as you go.
I feel the same way. He keeps quoting metrics, yet we never see proof of such numbers. At this point, I am treating everything the company says as if it's from a politician. Unless you can back it up with real numbers / information we can look over, I am just going to assume it's all lies.
No, I am not who you think I am. I am someone different. I am instead a banana.
This is probably going to be lost in this sea of rage, but;
I want to thank you for giving us this feedback to our feedback and communicating to us in this manner. It means a lot, and will continue to go a long way in strengthening this game and all your studio produces and the audience it reaches.
You know, i said something similar in my first response on this thread. Standing before the community to explain the actions (no matter how ridiculous and flimsy the explanation) is the right way to go.
However, what has happened is still wrong. I can't excuse that, even if the manner of the damage control has stepped up from hiding behind poor old Branflakes.
In other words, the rightfully deserved small piece of praise is rightfully swallowed up by the righteous sea of rage at the original decision.
We understand that we could have introduced a handicap for small fleets into the design, but that solution could and would be exploited. In trying to find a way to exploit the system, we would end up having to create a wealth of rules and regulations behind how the handicap works and at the end of the day it is not in line with our goals of ensuring that top tier Fleet progression is a great accomplishment. (congrats btw to the Fleets that are just now hitting this tier!)
Being in a large fleet it's obvious that you are not properly representing the challenges to large fleets.
Getting FM and DIL is in no way at all a barrier to a large fleet. Projects are filled in just a few seconds and fleet mates are frustrated that they cannot donate at all unless they happen to be online when a project pops up and they have the fastest clicky fingers to possibly get in before someone else does. I've literally seen FM and DIL filled in 2 seconds.
Even the massive T5 project was filled in 15 minutes.
No, the ONLY thing slowing down large fleets is the built in ARTIFICIAL time delay in completing projects. From 16 hours to days and days.
If your goal was to make fleet progress natural and not ARTIFICIALLY challenging, you have failed miserably, at least for large fleets. Your large FM and DIL requirements aren't nearly large enough to be a challenge to the top fleets.
If your failed attempt also impacts smaller fleets, then you have limited them for no good reason, unless you want to acknowledge that you did indeed want to create ARTIFICIAL barriers.
Being in a large fleet it's obvious that you are not properly representing the challenges to large fleets.
Getting FM and DIL is in no way at all a barrier to a large fleet. Projects are filled in just a few seconds and fleet mates are frustrated that they cannot donate at all unless they happen to be online when a project pops up and they have the fastest clicky fingers to possibly get in before someone else does. I've literally seen FM and DIL filled in 2 seconds.
Even the massive T5 project was filled in 15 minutes.
No, the ONLY thing slowing down large fleets is the built in ARTIFICIAL time delay in completing projects. From 16 hours to days and days.
If your goal was to make fleet progress natural and not ARTIFICIALLY challenging, you have failed miserably, at least for large fleets. Your large FM and DIL requirements aren't nearly large enough to be a challenge to the top fleets.
If your failed attempt also impacts smaller fleets, then you have limited them for no good reason, unless you want to acknowledge that you did indeed want to create ARTIFICIAL barriers.
This is another teachable moment. Cryptic seems to have a problem communicating some important information to players and thus managing their expectations.
I was disturbed to find out that the 50 FM Foundry event award was an experiment/time-limited, always intended to end on the Anniversary, in an explanatory note after the change had been implemented. This fact needed to be communicated sooner than later to the player base to moderate their expectations. This subsequent mess, the reaction to a sudden change to a system some have become reliant on, is the alternative.
I understand that the entire game is subject to revision, and I actually like that.
However, when experimental, time-limited, substitutions (the Borg Reputation Passive proc),and temporary mechanics are introduced into the game, I believe, it is in Cryptic's best interest to inform the community when the change occurs instead of after the change has been rescinded/taken back. Or even worse when Cryptic never informs the community of a change. Doing otherwise can rightly or wrongly project reactionary and impulsive behaviors and leave clientele feeling manipulated, not respected and taken advantage of by the company.
In a recent podcast Mr. Stahl mentioned "Unmet expectations" lead to disappointments and complains. Moderate community expectations by communicating with them beforehand, not afterward.
I have two suggestions, which could/should be implemented at the earliest possible convenience;
1. Add Dilithium rewards (static amount) to every Cryptic-made mission in the game, including the Featured Episodes. These Dilithium rewards should be an average of what a player-made Foundry mission might yield. I was picking up 6-700 Dilithium on some Foundry missions earlier, while others were considerably less. An average of 480 Dilithium per Episode might not be a bad idea, and it would promote the usage of actually running YOUR missions as well as the Foundry content.
2. Add Fleet Mark rewards to every Fleet Action in the game. I understand Fleet Marks is a currency intended for Fleet activities, but as you well know, you don't even need to be in a fleet, to participate in "Fleet Actions" despite the name. And the current "Fleet Events" which were added in Season 6, may require you to be in a fleet, it does NOT require the entire group to be in the same fleet. Yet strangely, they reward Fleet Marks (but Fleet Actions currently -don't- reward Marks).
Both of these suggestions are in line with the changes coming.
First, both of these ideas are excellent steps in the right direction. If you already have something like this in the works, then that is indeed encouraging. (I would greatly have preferred you not remove fleet marks from Investigate Officer Reports until these changes were ready to be implemented as a replacement, but there's no point in complaining about that because you can't unscramble an egg.)
Second, in your original post, you said that the point of fleet marks is that they represent a fleet doing things together. To that end, why not add a direct reward to missions based on the number of fleet mates you are teamed with?
Let's call this version Option A:
Solo or PUG with no fellow Fleet Members: Normal rewards as appropriate for the mission type (dilithium, fleet marks, etc.)
Team with 1 Fleet Member: Normal rewards, plus each fleet member gets +5 extra fleet marks upon completion; Net Gain for Fleet: 10 extra fleet marks total
Team with 2 Fleet Members: Normal rewards, plus each fleet member gets +10 extra fleet marks upon completion; Net Gain for Fleet: 30 extra fleet marks total
Team with 3 Fleet Members: Normal rewards, plus each fleet member gets +15 extra fleet marks upon completion; Net Gain for Fleet: 60 extra fleet marks total
Team with 4 Fleet Members: Normal rewards, plus each fleet member gets +20 extra fleet marks upon completion; Net Gain for Fleet: 100 extra fleet marks total
This directly rewards fleets for doing things as a fleet, and it especially rewards those who are dedicated enough to regularly put together 5-person teams. Even a very small fleet can manage a few scheduled events when enough members are online, so they'll be able to benefit from this as well.
Comment: I chose this particular structure -- maxing out at +20 fleet marks per member -- because it would be a bit less than the average fleet mark payout for an average team across the Season Six fleet mark events; this is just an approximation on my part, but it seems like most people average somewhere in the 25 range in the long term. Many of us might average quite a bit more, but 25 seems about right for players as a whole.
Alternatively, Option B uses a "diminishing returns" model that still rewards fleet members for working together, but making the amount gained per extra member gradually reduce:
Solo or PUG with no Fellow Fleet Members: Normal rewards as appropriate for the mission type (dilithium, fleet marks, etc.)
Team with 1 Fellow Fleet Member: Normal rewards, plus each fleet member gets +8 extra fleet marks upon completion; Net Gain for Fleet: 16 extra fleet marks total
Team with 2 Fellow Fleet Members: Normal rewards, plus each fleet member gets +14 extra fleet marks upon completion; Net Gain for Fleet: 42 extra fleet marks total
Team with 3 Fellow Fleet Members: Normal rewards, plus each fleet member gets +18 extra fleet marks upon completion; Net Gain for Fleet: 72 extra fleet marks total
Team with 4 Fellow Fleet Members: Normal rewards, plus each fleet member gets +20 extra fleet marks upon completion; Net Gain for Fleet: 100 extra fleet marks total
Comment: This is a simple 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 sequence, which I doubled so it would yield the same +20 per player endpoint as the previous model.
The structure in Option B would help to reduce the gap between small and large fleets; a large fleet would rarely have trouble getting 5 members on a team together, but a small fleet might have trouble getting more than 2 to 3 together at a time on a regular basis. This would disproportionately reward having at least one fellow fleet member join you for a mission, but you'd still get the best reward by having a full team from the same fleet.
Third, if the point is to reward fleet members for doing things together, then this should apply across the board. If five fleet members decide to do a Foundry mission together, then by all means give them fleet marks as a reward (using Option A, Option B, or some other scheme you devise); the same would go for doing episode re-runs, fleet actions, PvP, and everything else.
Finally, and this is the most important and meaningful change you can make, you should carefully evaluate your logs to determine which fleet mark missions need to have their rewards adjusted. The reason everyone was doing Investigate Officer Reports over and over again is that they gained 50 fleet marks for an average of about 15 minutes of play, or a bit over 3 per minute; in contrast, very few fleet mark missions generate anything close to that unless you score exceptionally well (e.g. Starbase Blockade, No-Win Scenario).
Once you've compiled the basic data, this is a very easy calculation: Divide total number of fleet marks earned in a given mission by the total player-minutes spent in that mission. If you're not somewhere around that 3-and-change fleet marks per minute I mentioned above, you need to increase the rewards across the board to bring it in line. This particular calculation yields the simple mean, which has its limitations (see below), but it should at the very least identify major trouble spots right away.
For missions like Starbase Blockade and No-Win Scenario (whose fleet mark rewards increase in a non-linear progression), you should also at minimum look at the median fleet marks (not just the mean) earned as well. If the mean is substantially larger than the median, that's a problem! It means that most people are getting very little for their time, but a handful of highly skilled players are making off like bandits by maxing out the score. In cases like these, you'll want to increase the base rewards and decrease the rate at which rewards increase at higher tiers. (The goal here is for those who max out the score to still earn the same amount but for those who score lower to get a little more reward for their time.)
I would strongly recommend using more advanced statistical measures such as variance, standard deviation, breaking out results by quintile, etc. You almost certainly have a multi-modal distribution on all of these missions, and looking at a graph of players earning each range of fleet marks will help you identify these. At the very least, you should make sure the ratio of rewards between the top 5% and the bottom 5% is roughly equal across different missions.
In conclusion, there are plenty of ways to achieve what you're looking for that still rewards players fairly for the time they invest. Any or all of these would go a long way toward achieving that, and I hope your team will give this some serious thought.
So, between this thread and the one that was locked, we have almost 100 pages generated by this decision in just a few hours.
The vast majority (by which I mean virtually all of it) has been against this decision.
And not just a bit against......I mean, really walking away-never buying another game from this company-and I'm going to tell all my friends as well sort of rage.
I know we've been told that all the feedback is getting listened to, but I think its reasonable to ask for a response from cryptic now.
They're either going to admit the mistake and correct it, or they're going to ignore the community.
Further delay merely creates more animosity.
D'Stahl made a good start by beginning this thread, but he needs to finish the job....sooner rather than later.
Are you going to fix the error or are you going to lose a huge chunk of the player base needlessly?
Better to choose quickly so we know where we stand.
So, between this thread and the one that was locked, we have almost 100 pages generated by this decision in just a few hours.
The vast majority (by which I mean virtually all of it) has been against this decision.
And not just a bit against......I mean, really walking away-never buying another game from this company-and I'm going to tell all my friends as well sort of rage.
I know we've been told that all the feedback is getting listened to, but I think its reasonable to ask for a response from cryptic now.
They're either going to admit the mistake and correct it, or they're going to ignore the community.
Further delay merely creates more animosity.
D'Stahl made a good start by beginning this thread, but he needs to finish the job....sooner rather than later.
Are you going to fix the error or are you going to lose a huge chunk of the player base needlessly?
Better to choose quickly so we know where we stand.
^ this, as in the coming months was intending to spend abit on zen, but if nothing is going to be resolved/fix then ill spend the money getting my TOR account back up to snuff.
So, between this thread and the one that was locked, we have almost 100 pages generated by this decision in just a few hours.
The vast majority (by which I mean virtually all of it) has been against this decision.
And not just a bit against......I mean, really walking away-never buying another game from this company-and I'm going to tell all my friends as well sort of rage.
I know we've been told that all the feedback is getting listened to, but I think its reasonable to ask for a response from cryptic now.
They're either going to admit the mistake and correct it, or they're going to ignore the community.
Further delay merely creates more animosity.
D'Stahl made a good start by beginning this thread, but he needs to finish the job....sooner rather than later.
Are you going to fix the error or are you going to lose a huge chunk of the player base needlessly?
Better to choose quickly so we know where we stand.
It's pretty late in California. I doubt we hear anything from them till some time in the morning at the very least. I would suspect the afternoon after they have had time to either craft another "Sorry, but no dice" response or later in the day after they've decided to give in to the backlash and be a good little company and listen to the people that keep them employed.
No, I am not who you think I am. I am someone different. I am instead a banana.
It's pretty late in California. I doubt we hear anything from them till some time in the morning at the very least. I would suspect the afternoon after they have had time to either craft another "Sorry, but no dice" response or later in the day after they've decided to give in to the backlash and be a good little company and listen to the people that keep them employed.
- KDF Ambassador Syon vocalizing her objection to the discussions of possible peace talks with the UFP due to recent Borg and Undine activities.Hegh'bat, Stardate 66588.8
Given whats being said on these fora and the facebook page, i wonder if there's a little interesting phone call going on......something along the lines of 'you did what?!.....thats going to lose us money'
1. Fleets under 25 are going to have a hard time completing projects = by design.
Im sorry, but this is not acceptable, as a small fleet I am punished for CHOOSING not to have more than 5 people in there... no, thats just wrong.
I am in a 5 man fleet, we are legitimately trying to build the starbase, and yet we are looked at as a plague of some sort? How is this right?
I dont want my fleet merged, I choose to play with these other people because I know them and we dont have and BS drama going on and no one is out for themselves, we can work together, the way a fleet is supposed to.
The idea that a 5 man fleet is not good enough needs to be chucked out the window, I am insulted that Cryptic chooses to look at us this way.
[SIGPIC]InGame - @Darth_Tauri[/SIGPIC]
Joined - 9/2011
"You Best Make Peace With Your Dear & Fluffy Lord" - Malcolm Reynolds
Its interesting the surveys we've been getting are from PWE and not Cryptic. I don't think this is a coincidence...
Think maybe their worried the bad press from this Foundry debacle will roll over onto Neverwinter?
This is a PWE forum, so Bran and the rest of the mods work for PWE and not Cryptic. All they'd have to do is drop an e-mail to the right person at PWE...
Maybe this survey is showing PWE's unhappiness and that sh*ts started rolling downhill...
Its interesting the surveys we've been getting are from PWE and not Cryptic. I don't think this is a coincidence...
Think maybe their worried the bad press from this Foundry debacle will roll over onto Neverwinter?
This is a PWE forum, so Bran and the rest of the mods work for PWE and not Cryptic. All they'd have to do is drop an e-mail to the right person at PWE...
Maybe this survey is showing PWE's unhappiness and that sh*ts started rolling downhill...
Surveys? I want in, maybe if enough people tell PWE they are unhappy someone will go over to the Cryptic building and start pimp slapping these guys.
[SIGPIC]InGame - @Darth_Tauri[/SIGPIC]
Joined - 9/2011
"You Best Make Peace With Your Dear & Fluffy Lord" - Malcolm Reynolds
Comments
I mean, all of it, every single post.
Really D'Stahl?
Are you perhaps beginning to realise that this terrible decision is going to backfire on you?
Are you getting the point yet?
This isn't just a normal knee jerk reaction to change.
This is us telling you, you've got this terribly, appallingly wrong.
Months waiting for a solution isn't remotely good enough.
I reckon you have hours, maybe a day or two, before the damage becomes irreversible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylRqJapI0wQ
Better yet have a whole Fleet Mark week. A week where the rewards are doubled for all fleet mark activities...
It's a nice promotional thing...maybe a sale on services to boot...
Cryptic uses an iterative design approach and is production and technology oriented.
That makes Cryptic seem like a place I'd be interested in WORKING at but honestly turns me off heavily as a customer and is, I think, a bad approach for forging customer relationships or even communicating with customers.
As a CUSTOMER, I'd like Cryptic to drop all three of those planks.
As a customer what I want is:
A company that uses committed VISION oriented design approach and is marketing/service (rather than production) oriented and which values entertainment/storytelling over technology.
If it stops being fun or isn't what every designer wants, you slog through with an eye on the final VISION.You train and treat your employees as customer service reps or personalities who forge trustworthy and engaging relationships with the players and the source material rather than treating them as technicians/engineers/designers; the performer rather than the designer model is what I'm talking about. Finally, you consider mechanics as gimmicks and commit instead to creating material that focuses on narrative flow rather than gimmicks and emotional touchstones in content through polish/music/dialogue rather than new features brought on through code branch mergers and too clever by half game systems. More storyteller, less systems architect. (Also story != text. A carnival tunnel of love is a narrative too and is the basis for dungeon design in many other MMOs.)
The blue option is what Cryptic is in my eyes. I'd be fascinated and energized to work in that environment. But it has minimal appeal to me as a longterm customer. As a customer, what engages me is the green option.
And what does that have to do with this?
The disconcerting changes are iterative and create feelings of insecurity and unreliability in a userbase that is already spending real money on a virtual product.
The tendency towards production focus (ie. a software factory rather than a full service restaurant) causes Cryptic to replace content and tweak items solely because the new design is better from a design perspective, emphasizing quality of design over communications and relationship building.
This is again reflected in a technology focus. You're tightening bolts on how things are done rather than focusing on creating compelling emotional appeals. Again, narrative doesn't require text. I've got a friend who used to teach Disney's animators about narrative and worked on an ARG. Narrative can be a big part of PvP or UI design or combat scenario design or even corporate history and trajectory. Instead of focusing on how content or systems are assembled, focus on making the player feel special and engaged with the process.
As someone who has been a designer and an artist, I REALLY, REALLY get the appeal of how Cryptic operates. As a consumer and student of marketing and narrative, I don't think it's forward thinking, sustainable, or suitably relationship oriented. And I can point to a few dozen posts in this thread where your vocal consumers are saying, "It's the relationship, stupid." (To the tune of, "It's the economy, stupid." I don't think anybody at Cryptic is stupid.) But I think the culture needs to be reinvented. More Apple with its blissful tea ceremony product unboxing, less Microsoft with its overclocked, more advanced processors in a cardboard box. More Wonka, less Silicon Valley. More Quiznos, less Subway. More Starbuck's, less Dunkin Donuts. More Target as a consumer experience destination and less Wal-Mart as a merchandising powerhouse. More Pixar, less Warner Bros. Don't be a Jon Peters, be a Peter Jackson.
Tensions are high and this thread moves fast. But I HOPE, HOPE, HOPE somebody reads this and gets it. Cryptic's current course won't doom the company tomorrow or a year from now but I really, honestly, religiously believe that if somebody reads this manifesto and takes it to heart that Cryptic can be so much more. And the potential as an entertainment house, making hard and reliable commitments and exceeding them, that gets squandered on being a production studio, making enigmatic statements and wiki-ing game mechanics -- well... It drives your fans batty.
That is all.
Na, its still there for me. They announced the fleet versions of the anniversary ships. But of course players are drilling them hard there too for this stupid decision.
This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies . ~syberghost
What kills me is they put this stuff up on Tribble, get beaten up for the short-sighted decisions and the constant breaking of things that weren't previously broken, and then repeat the exact same mistake two days later when they roll the entire mess over to Holodeck.
Its like they want us to flay them - twice - for every stupid, boneheaded, short-sighted "solution" they come up with.
If that's how you like to take your beatings, Cryptic - I get the impression that the forum community is more than willing to oblige...but if it were me? I'd just get rid of Tribble. Everything you do there gets dumped onto Holodeck anyway... why not just eliminate the middle man and only take the one tongue lashing (that you ignore anyway) every week instead of two?
Or stop calling Tribble the test server and call it what it really is - the bug preview server.
I know, right?
I'm fairly confident in about a week we'll get some news on a change to this whole thing. This is only the third time in three years they've gotten such universal negative feedback, and in both prior scenarios a fix was implemented relatively quickly.
For better or worse, Cryptic is at least consistent.
I've been called a Cryptic fantard in the past. And maybe that's true sometimes. But this handsome phaser dude has never had qualms about raging at what he feels is worth raging over.
And so I rage on. And so I rage on...
I Support Disco | Disco is Love | Disco is Life
Interesting, you're right. It says no posts to display on my tablet, but when accessed from my PC its still there.
I want to thank you for giving us this feedback to our feedback and communicating to us in this manner. It means a lot, and will continue to go a long way in strengthening this game and all your studio produces and the audience it reaches.
Ummm... so... now I am confused. Serious post or troll post full of irony?
Either way - well played, sir.
I'd like to think I'm one of the calm ones here, and even if I disagree with several things Dan said, I'll give him credit for coming in here surely knowing in advance what he was walking in to. It's not like he actually had to do it.
Also boglejam73: your signature rules. And I actually liked that episode, because I'm that guy.
"We are smart." - Grebnedlog
Member of Alliance Central Command/boq botlhra'ghom
Our fleets will stay at Tier 2. We have decided to stop with the starbase grind. We have no desire to be assimilated by a large fleet. There are other games we can play, that don't feel like going to a second job. In your advertising for STO, you need to put out a disclaimer in the fine print, something like, "STO is not for a small group of friends, or solo players. If this is you, you would be advised to look elsewhere for your fun." Fun... I guess that's something that fancy data you look at, doesn't take into account.
Well, its a tiny ray of hope.......but i think a week is too long.
If its left that long there will be damage.
Damage to Cryptics bottom line.
Its not just that this thing was done, but the way it was done.
A lot of players seem to feel they've gone too far this time.
There needs to be an apology and a fix in no more than 48 hours.
Even reverting to the old system while they craft a replacement would work.
really that is the only thing i am unhappy about.
we have no alternative to replace the FM that where taken out if there was i probably would not have cared
I feel the same way. He keeps quoting metrics, yet we never see proof of such numbers. At this point, I am treating everything the company says as if it's from a politician. Unless you can back it up with real numbers / information we can look over, I am just going to assume it's all lies.
You know, i said something similar in my first response on this thread. Standing before the community to explain the actions (no matter how ridiculous and flimsy the explanation) is the right way to go.
However, what has happened is still wrong. I can't excuse that, even if the manner of the damage control has stepped up from hiding behind poor old Branflakes.
In other words, the rightfully deserved small piece of praise is rightfully swallowed up by the righteous sea of rage at the original decision.
Being in a large fleet it's obvious that you are not properly representing the challenges to large fleets.
Getting FM and DIL is in no way at all a barrier to a large fleet. Projects are filled in just a few seconds and fleet mates are frustrated that they cannot donate at all unless they happen to be online when a project pops up and they have the fastest clicky fingers to possibly get in before someone else does. I've literally seen FM and DIL filled in 2 seconds.
Even the massive T5 project was filled in 15 minutes.
No, the ONLY thing slowing down large fleets is the built in ARTIFICIAL time delay in completing projects. From 16 hours to days and days.
If your goal was to make fleet progress natural and not ARTIFICIALLY challenging, you have failed miserably, at least for large fleets. Your large FM and DIL requirements aren't nearly large enough to be a challenge to the top fleets.
If your failed attempt also impacts smaller fleets, then you have limited them for no good reason, unless you want to acknowledge that you did indeed want to create ARTIFICIAL barriers.
The Angry Bacon God is wise. And probably tasty.
I was disturbed to find out that the 50 FM Foundry event award was an experiment/time-limited, always intended to end on the Anniversary, in an explanatory note after the change had been implemented. This fact needed to be communicated sooner than later to the player base to moderate their expectations. This subsequent mess, the reaction to a sudden change to a system some have become reliant on, is the alternative.
I understand that the entire game is subject to revision, and I actually like that.
However, when experimental, time-limited, substitutions (the Borg Reputation Passive proc),and temporary mechanics are introduced into the game, I believe, it is in Cryptic's best interest to inform the community when the change occurs instead of after the change has been rescinded/taken back. Or even worse when Cryptic never informs the community of a change. Doing otherwise can rightly or wrongly project reactionary and impulsive behaviors and leave clientele feeling manipulated, not respected and taken advantage of by the company.
In a recent podcast Mr. Stahl mentioned "Unmet expectations" lead to disappointments and complains. Moderate community expectations by communicating with them beforehand, not afterward.
First, both of these ideas are excellent steps in the right direction. If you already have something like this in the works, then that is indeed encouraging. (I would greatly have preferred you not remove fleet marks from Investigate Officer Reports until these changes were ready to be implemented as a replacement, but there's no point in complaining about that because you can't unscramble an egg.)
Second, in your original post, you said that the point of fleet marks is that they represent a fleet doing things together. To that end, why not add a direct reward to missions based on the number of fleet mates you are teamed with?
Let's call this version Option A:
This directly rewards fleets for doing things as a fleet, and it especially rewards those who are dedicated enough to regularly put together 5-person teams. Even a very small fleet can manage a few scheduled events when enough members are online, so they'll be able to benefit from this as well.
Comment: I chose this particular structure -- maxing out at +20 fleet marks per member -- because it would be a bit less than the average fleet mark payout for an average team across the Season Six fleet mark events; this is just an approximation on my part, but it seems like most people average somewhere in the 25 range in the long term. Many of us might average quite a bit more, but 25 seems about right for players as a whole.
Alternatively, Option B uses a "diminishing returns" model that still rewards fleet members for working together, but making the amount gained per extra member gradually reduce:
Comment: This is a simple 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 sequence, which I doubled so it would yield the same +20 per player endpoint as the previous model.
The structure in Option B would help to reduce the gap between small and large fleets; a large fleet would rarely have trouble getting 5 members on a team together, but a small fleet might have trouble getting more than 2 to 3 together at a time on a regular basis. This would disproportionately reward having at least one fellow fleet member join you for a mission, but you'd still get the best reward by having a full team from the same fleet.
Third, if the point is to reward fleet members for doing things together, then this should apply across the board. If five fleet members decide to do a Foundry mission together, then by all means give them fleet marks as a reward (using Option A, Option B, or some other scheme you devise); the same would go for doing episode re-runs, fleet actions, PvP, and everything else.
Finally, and this is the most important and meaningful change you can make, you should carefully evaluate your logs to determine which fleet mark missions need to have their rewards adjusted. The reason everyone was doing Investigate Officer Reports over and over again is that they gained 50 fleet marks for an average of about 15 minutes of play, or a bit over 3 per minute; in contrast, very few fleet mark missions generate anything close to that unless you score exceptionally well (e.g. Starbase Blockade, No-Win Scenario).
Once you've compiled the basic data, this is a very easy calculation: Divide total number of fleet marks earned in a given mission by the total player-minutes spent in that mission. If you're not somewhere around that 3-and-change fleet marks per minute I mentioned above, you need to increase the rewards across the board to bring it in line. This particular calculation yields the simple mean, which has its limitations (see below), but it should at the very least identify major trouble spots right away.
For missions like Starbase Blockade and No-Win Scenario (whose fleet mark rewards increase in a non-linear progression), you should also at minimum look at the median fleet marks (not just the mean) earned as well. If the mean is substantially larger than the median, that's a problem! It means that most people are getting very little for their time, but a handful of highly skilled players are making off like bandits by maxing out the score. In cases like these, you'll want to increase the base rewards and decrease the rate at which rewards increase at higher tiers. (The goal here is for those who max out the score to still earn the same amount but for those who score lower to get a little more reward for their time.)
I would strongly recommend using more advanced statistical measures such as variance, standard deviation, breaking out results by quintile, etc. You almost certainly have a multi-modal distribution on all of these missions, and looking at a graph of players earning each range of fleet marks will help you identify these. At the very least, you should make sure the ratio of rewards between the top 5% and the bottom 5% is roughly equal across different missions.
In conclusion, there are plenty of ways to achieve what you're looking for that still rewards players fairly for the time they invest. Any or all of these would go a long way toward achieving that, and I hope your team will give this some serious thought.
The vast majority (by which I mean virtually all of it) has been against this decision.
And not just a bit against......I mean, really walking away-never buying another game from this company-and I'm going to tell all my friends as well sort of rage.
I know we've been told that all the feedback is getting listened to, but I think its reasonable to ask for a response from cryptic now.
They're either going to admit the mistake and correct it, or they're going to ignore the community.
Further delay merely creates more animosity.
D'Stahl made a good start by beginning this thread, but he needs to finish the job....sooner rather than later.
Are you going to fix the error or are you going to lose a huge chunk of the player base needlessly?
Better to choose quickly so we know where we stand.
^ this, as in the coming months was intending to spend abit on zen, but if nothing is going to be resolved/fix then ill spend the money getting my TOR account back up to snuff.
It's pretty late in California. I doubt we hear anything from them till some time in the morning at the very least. I would suspect the afternoon after they have had time to either craft another "Sorry, but no dice" response or later in the day after they've decided to give in to the backlash and be a good little company and listen to the people that keep them employed.
I wonder what time it is in China?
206pm.
:rolleyes:
Hmm... 现在是什么时候
- KDF Ambassador Syon vocalizing her objection to the discussions of possible peace talks with the UFP due to recent Borg and Undine activities. Hegh'bat, Stardate 66588.8
Given whats being said on these fora and the facebook page, i wonder if there's a little interesting phone call going on......something along the lines of 'you did what?!.....thats going to lose us money'
Im sorry, but this is not acceptable, as a small fleet I am punished for CHOOSING not to have more than 5 people in there... no, thats just wrong.
I am in a 5 man fleet, we are legitimately trying to build the starbase, and yet we are looked at as a plague of some sort? How is this right?
I dont want my fleet merged, I choose to play with these other people because I know them and we dont have and BS drama going on and no one is out for themselves, we can work together, the way a fleet is supposed to.
The idea that a 5 man fleet is not good enough needs to be chucked out the window, I am insulted that Cryptic chooses to look at us this way.
Joined - 9/2011
"You Best Make Peace With Your Dear & Fluffy Lord" - Malcolm Reynolds
Think maybe their worried the bad press from this Foundry debacle will roll over onto Neverwinter?
This is a PWE forum, so Bran and the rest of the mods work for PWE and not Cryptic. All they'd have to do is drop an e-mail to the right person at PWE...
Maybe this survey is showing PWE's unhappiness and that sh*ts started rolling downhill...
Surveys? I want in, maybe if enough people tell PWE they are unhappy someone will go over to the Cryptic building and start pimp slapping these guys.
Joined - 9/2011
"You Best Make Peace With Your Dear & Fluffy Lord" - Malcolm Reynolds