I for one would like to thank the devs for bringing a little spice into the game with party poppers and party amps. A little disco never hurt anyone, infact it is still big in Europe. To say that these things cause players to do things they don't want to do is like saying the you don't like the cut scenes when your toon interacts with the storyline, its the game. So what your really driving at is that you don't like the game, and there is a simple fix for that. Don't play. If it is ruining your immersion then head off to your bridge for your rp or erp. They are social items in a social game, so stop being so anti-social. There are meds for that, consult your doctor.
the dance emote? the light ball ? the confetti falling ? any of the other players next to you that dont have the toggle activated that suddenly break into dance ? the NPC's all around who dance as well ? the 30m radius that it has? ......
The toggle would apply to the animation so that players in the radius of the dance ball can opt out of the dance. What is so difficult to understand about this? Or are you being obtuse on purpose?
I for one would like to thank the devs for bringing a little spice into the game with party poppers and party amps. A little disco never hurt anyone, infact it is still big in Europe. To say that these things cause players to do things they don't want to do is like saying the you don't like the cut scenes when your toon interacts with the storyline, its the game. So what your really driving at is that you don't like the game, and there is a simple fix for that. Don't play. If it is ruining your immersion then head off to your bridge for your rp or erp. They are social items in a social game, so stop being so anti-social. There are meds for that, consult your doctor.
It's nothing like saying you don't like the game. It's exactly what it is: We don't want silly people abusing these items because they get their jollies by intentionally disrupting other players' enjoyment of the game. The developers should provide an all-encompassing toggle which gives players the option to opt out of the "little spice" provided by these kinds of interactions.
No one should be able to impose their version of "fun" on anyone else. If you want to PvP, PvP. If you want to RP, RP. If you want to throw dance parties, throw dance parties. All of these activities stop being fun when they're imposed on people who don't want to partake. It's not a difficult concept.
Then I want the ability to toggle visuals...i don't want to see Borg set, or Aegis set visuals on ships...and I don't want to see anyone wearing TOS or TNG uniforms...so we must toggle that because it ruins my immersion.
I also want to toggle off Alien ships, and old TNG ships, and ships from TOS, they ruin my immersion as well, also toggle off Alien races because they look goofy and ruin my immersion....also toggle off other players they ruin my immersion as well with their running and jumping DON'T THEY KNOW RUNNING RUINS IMMERSION!!!
Then I want the ability to toggle visuals...i don't want to see Borg set, or Aegis set visuals on ships...and I don't want to see anyone wearing TOS or TNG uniforms...so we must toggle that because it ruins my immersion.
I also want to toggle off Alien ships, and old TNG ships, and ships from TOS, they ruin my immersion as well, also toggle off Alien races because they look goofy and ruin my immersion....also toggle off other players they ruin my immersion as well with their running and jumping DON'T THEY KNOW RUNNING RUINS IMMERSION!!!
Good for you. Now go start a thread for that.
EDIT: You know you've proved your point when the other side has to resort to extreme exaggeration just to stay engaged in the conversation. Heh.
The toggle would apply to the animation so that players in the radius of the dance ball can opt out of the dance. What is so difficult to understand about this? Or are you being obtuse on purpose?
not at all it is a serious inquiry of your intent.....
because if you are just the only one opting out....
what is going to happen to your psyche when a dozen other players and all the NPC's in a 30M radius suddenly burst into dance and a great ball of lights with graffitti pop up in a two minute exclamation of joy around you becasue they decided to not opt out and dont mind the non-invasive dance ???.....
is that going to placate your notion of "I don't want to be a part of this, let me opt out of the dance emote" ??
.
_______________________
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
not at all it is a serious inquiry of your intent.....
because if you are just the only one opting out....
and a dozen other players and all the NPC's in a 30M radius suddenly burst into dance and a great ball of lights with graffitti pop up in a two minute exclamation of joy .....
that is going to placate your notion of "I don't want to be a part of this, let me opt out of the dance emote" ??
.
Correct.
Let's say I'm playing out a scene with another roleplayer. His character was recently accused of conduct unbecoming, so my character--his CO--confronts him during some down time on the station. We're going back and forth, playing out the confrontation when all of the sudden JoeBoB45 decides he wants to disrupt our little scene just because he happens to dislike roleplayers. Not that we were disrupting his fun, mind you, since our roleplay was in PMs. So what does Joe do? He pulls out his disco ball and forces us to dance.
Just like that, he's ruined our scene and we're now forced to ignore it or walk away. In either case, our enjoyment has been ruined through no fault of our own.
The toggle would simply allow us to avoid the issue, and with zero confrontation between players. Joe pulls out his disco ball, but guess what? My friend and I had toggled social emotes off early in the evening so when the room starts dancing, we don't. Joe still gets to dance and we get to continue our scene without interruption.
I like to imagine that this sort of thing would already be in the game because the people at Cryptic are decent people who respect all of their players. But they probably don't have an easy way of implementation, so we're stuck complaining about these kinds of scenarios on the forum until something is done.
In the short term, it would be helpful if they stopped introducing more of these kinds of items until they can provide a toggle.
sure, I understand your hypothetical, lets continue with it
you are now free of the dance, you toggled it off ....but
why arent you raging about the other players and NPC's that also burst into dance around you ? all with a shining ball and confetti glowing in area of effect because they dont feel the need to toggle it off, they like it, or are indifferent to it..
your fine with that ?
_______________________
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
you are now free of the dance, you toggled it off ....but
why arent you raging about the other players and NPC's that also burst into dance around you ?
your fine with that ?
I'm perfectly fine with that.
As a roleplayer, I don't have control over any other character but my own (nor do I expect to). If I didn't want to see people dancing around me, if it was important to my scene, I wouldn't be at the club. My objection is to having my own character bust out the dance moves when it's not appropriate to my roleplay.
And having said that, I'd have no issue opting back in when my character decides to cut a rug during leave, etc--even if the disco ball owner's intent was to ruin my evening.
EDIT: To add, I don't think this is an unreasonable expectation or desire. It doesn't affect anyone's enjoyment who isn't out to cause disruption since the only people who would be bothered by other people not being forced to dance are themselves out to cause trouble.
EDIT: You know you've proved your point when the other side has to resort to extreme exaggeration just to stay engaged in the conversation. Heh.
It's not everyday that I see someone dodge, dismiss, and pat themselves on the back, all in a single post.
If you'd take a moment to actually consider neoakiraii's point, you might realize that if Cryptic takes the time and resources to cater specifically to one vocal minority, suddenly that opens the door to countless others.
It's not enough just to play backseat designer on the forums - someone actually has to code and test and implement that toggle of yours, and there are countless better things the developers could be doing, especially when the vast majority of their users either enjoy the disco balls or don't care.
It's not everyday that I see someone dodge, dismiss, and pat themselves on the back, all in a single post.
If you'd take a moment to actually consider neoakiraii's point, you might realize that if Cryptic takes the time and resources to cater specifically to one vocal minority, suddenly that opens the door to countless others.
It's not enough just to play backseat designer on the forums - someone actually has to code and test and implement that toggle of yours, and there are countless better things the developers could be doing, especially when the vast majority of their users either enjoy the disco balls or don't care.
By all means though, send Cryptic your resume.
There's a first time for everything.
I considered his point, buried deep under the sarcasm and nonconstructive baiting he presented it as. Of course the people using these disco balls are a minority too, so I guess since minorities--vocal or not--should be ignored, it wouldn't hurt you all if people were given the option to opt out of your dance fun times.
Here's the thing: One doesn't have to be a game designer to have an opinion about games. Nor does one require a job in the industry to know when an item is ripe for abuse. That's why these forums exist after all--to get input from players, the vast majority of whom Cryptic understands are not game professionals. It's an extremely tired and fallacious argument, the old "well you're just a backseat game developer so your opinion is worthless." Remember, it would also apply to any argument you use to counter my position, so I entreat you to choose your logic more carefully.
your character 'not' dancing is the only thing different from what the party amplifier is now in it's current state.
really....
that's worth being so quarrelsome ?
I'd ask the same of you. Is it really worth being so quarrelsome? If not, I wonder why you'd spend so much time trying to defend your position. Clearly you care enough about it to go back and forth with me, right?
People just want to enjoy the game in their own way without being subjected to poorly designed "social items" that have no regard for the players around them. It was a misstep by Cryptic. Threads like this one and the countless others on the subject are made with the hope that it will change future plans for similar items.
Again, is it really that unreasonable of a request?
Then I want the ability to toggle visuals...i don't want to see Borg set, or Aegis set visuals on ships...and I don't want to see anyone wearing TOS or TNG uniforms...so we must toggle that because it ruins my immersion.
I also want to toggle off Alien ships, and old TNG ships, and ships from TOS, they ruin my immersion as well, also toggle off Alien races because they look goofy and ruin my immersion....also toggle off other players they ruin my immersion as well with their running and jumping DON'T THEY KNOW RUNNING RUINS IMMERSION!!!
Ahh, but you toggling away my toons means you don't react to my character/ship, which ruins my immersion, so I need a toggle to de-toggle your toggles. Unless you have a toggle de-toggler toggle, so you can de-de-toggle your toggles. But then I would use my re-de-toggler...
neoakiraii is right on here - if we start doing this, where do we draw the line? These aren't even ridiculous examples, these are almost all things I've seen people actually request (toggling off running being the only exception). The fact is, it's not at all clear why RP is a more 'valid' way of playing the game than clowning around with the silly toys, or why RP should be considered such srs bznz that we have to 'protect' it.
It seems like many RP players want to have it both ways - they want to be able to use "public" spaces in game to perform and make us all their unwitting/unwilling audience, but they also want to make sure the smelly public can't interrupt their "art". I don't even mind RP as a rule, and I like things like character bios etc, but MAN it irks me when RP players act like they should have priority over the public domains in game.
Ahh, but you toggling away my toons means you don't react to my character/ship, which ruins my immersion, so I need a toggle to de-toggle your toggles. Unless you have a toggle de-toggler toggle, so you can de-de-toggle your toggles. But then I would use my re-de-toggler...
neoakiraii is right on here - if we start doing this, where do we draw the line? These aren't even ridiculous examples, these are almost all things I've seen people actually request (toggling off running being the only exception). The fact is, it's not at all clear why RP is a more 'valid' way of playing the game than clowning around with the silly toys, or why RP should be considered such srs bznz that we have to 'protect' it.
It seems like many RP players want to have it both ways - they want to be able to use "public" spaces in game to perform and make us all their unwitting/unwilling audience, but they also want to make sure the smelly public can't interrupt their "art". I don't even mind RP as a rule, and I like things like character bios etc, but MAN it irks me when RP players act like they should have priority over the public domains in game.
So much straw.
Slippery slopes are a logical fallacy, so I won't bother with the "where do we draw the line" argument. I will, however, engage you on the straw man...
Roleplayers don't want it both ways--they want just the one. They want their gameplay to be just as respected as your fun "with the silly toys." There is nothing inherently wrong about the disco balls except the fact that they can and are used to bother other players; in this case I'm coming from the position of a roleplayer, but it's not just roleplayers who can be bothered by this things.
Is it wrong to not want to be bothered by someone who only wants to interrupt your play? Is it wrong to ask the developers to put checks on these kinds of items so that there's no opportunity for irksome players to bother everyone else?
I'm sure there's some aspect of your gameplay that could be disrupted by another player, but chances are, there's already checks in place to prevent that. For example, many games with open-world PvP use PvP flagging so people who don't want to take part don't have to. Cryptic avoids the whole PvP issue completely by making it its own compartment within the game.
Or how about STF leavers? Or AFK leechers? At the root of those problems is the same issue being discussed here: stupid people doing stupid things. All we ask is that Cryptic consider giving us the option to avoid the stupid things.
EDIT: And since our request in no way shape or form impacts your own enjoyment of the game, I honestly have to wonder at the vehemence of your side's defense.
I considered his point, buried deep under the sarcasm and nonconstructive baiting he presented it as. Of course the people using these disco balls are a minority too, so I guess since minorities--vocal or not--should be ignored, it wouldn't hurt you all if people were given the option to opt out of your dance fun times.
Here's the thing: One doesn't have to be a game designer to have an opinion about games. Nor does one require a job in the industry to know when an item is ripe for abuse. That's why these forums exist after all--to get input from players, the vast majority of whom Cryptic understands are not game professionals. It's an extremely tired and fallacious argument, the old "well you're just a backseat game developer so your opinion is worthless." Remember, it would also apply to any argument you use to counter my position, so I entreat you to choose your logic more carefully.
First, you are misinterpreting the point. It's not that all minorities should be ignored, it's that what you are asking for is unreasonable precisely because it would open the doors to so many other 'reasonable' requests. This doesn't mean you shouldn't have a right to let Cryptic know that you don't like the item, but it is definitely unreasonable to expect them to place fixing your concern on a higher level than all the others.
Second, you are equivocating with regards to the word "ignore", used first in the sense of "disregard" and then second in the sense of "/ignore". There is a huge difference between disregarding a specific concern from a specific group, and creating an in-game system to wholesale remove the existence of certain players from the game. The fact that you conflate the two does you no favors in the persuasiveness department.
Third, you misunderstand your position in the argument re: evidence burden. You are correct that people who disagree with you are doing so on the basis of opinion, and not provable facts. That said, since those people are not arguing for change, they have no obligation to affirmatively prove anything - merely to demonstrate that you have failed to establish your case. Thus, while us showing how your position is a subjective opinion serves to undercut your position, turning that around against us does basically nothing to our central thesis that your opinion is not persuasive.
you aren't being quarrelsome 'and' passive aggressive now are you ?
tisk tisk..... :rolleyes:
Do I need to quote examples for you to realize just where it is happening the past few pages ? I'd rather not do that to be honest, but it's pretty blatant.
but FWIW.... I'm starting to think that you can't help it.
so on that note....I'm not gonna stick around in this thread anymore.
/end
_______________________
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
You'll have to forgive me if this whole conversation bores me. You see, this has all happened before, and (because MMO designers are a pretty arrogant bunch), this will all happen again.
I'm thinking of LOTRO and Turbine. They introduced forced-emotes, consumable items that force another player character to perform an emote. This should sound familiar. Some people got very angry at their characters being used in this way. This should sound familiar. Every so often, Turbine introduced additional forced emote items, and every time, the forums would catch on fire. Nonetheless, Turbine remained silent. This should sound familiar. Eventually, Turbine introduced a forced-emote toggle that made the player character using it immune to all such emotes.
Now all this played out quite some time ago. And it was utterly predictable, considering one of the lessons of MMO Design 101 is that players don't like losing control of their characters. Given the way things usually work around here, I expect STO will follow a similar course. We can probably look forward to another couple of cycles of this before Cryptic wises up and implements an opt-out. Until then, get used to seeing this same argument rehashed over and over and over and over and over.......
"Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
First, you are misinterpreting the point. It's not that all minorities should be ignored, it's that what you are asking for is unreasonable precisely because it would open the doors to so many other 'reasonable' requests. This doesn't mean you shouldn't have a right to let Cryptic know that you don't like the item, but it is definitely unreasonable to expect them to place fixing your concern on a higher level than all the others.
Second, you are equivocating with regards to the word "ignore", used first in the sense of "disregard" and then second in the sense of "/ignore". There is a huge difference between disregarding a specific concern from a specific group, and creating an in-game system to wholesale remove the existence of certain players from the game. The fact that you conflate the two does you no favors in the persuasiveness department.
Third, you misunderstand your position in the argument re: evidence burden. You are correct that people who disagree with you are doing so on the basis of opinion, and not provable facts. That said, since those people are not arguing for change, they have no obligation to affirmatively prove anything - merely to demonstrate that you have failed to establish your case. Thus, while us showing how your position is a subjective opinion serves to undercut your position, turning that around against us does basically nothing to our central thesis that your opinion is not persuasive.
To your first paragraph, I would again remind you that slippery slopes are logical fallacies. That being the case, it's not really an argument you can stand on.
Second, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. What I'm proposing in no way removes anyone from the game. It restores agency to players who are having it taken away by others.
To your final point, your side still have fail to provide a rational counter to this very simple fact: A toggle would in no way, shape, or form disrupt your gameplay.
you aren't being quarrelsome 'and' passive aggressive now are you ?
tisk tisk..... :rolleyes:
Do I need to quote examples for you to realize just where it is happening the past few pages ? I'd rather not do that to be honest, but it's pretty blatant.
but FWIW.... I'm starting to think that you can't help it.
so on that note....I'm not gonna stick around in this thread anymore.
/end
No worries, your completely transparent bowing out wasn't lost on me. Good luck in your future endeavors.
To your first paragraph, I would again remind you that slippery slopes are logical fallacies. That being the case, it's not really an argument you can stand on.
Except a) slippery slopes aren't automatically fallacious (a claim which I will defend just as soon as you earn your claim that they are), and
b) This isn't a straight slippery slope argument, it's also argument by analogy. A slippery slope argument proceeds by asserting that a seemingly reasonable first step will trigger an inevitable cascade to an absurd/undesirable end. This isn't that - it looks similar, but it actually operates by questioning your authority to place your specific concern ahead of many other analogous concerns. In other words, we're not just saying that the result could be bad, we're saying you have no right to place your interests ahead of all the other competing interests.
Second, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. What I'm proposing in no way removes anyone from the game. It restores agency to players who are having it taken away by others.
I'm saying you are trying to use wordplay to make your argument look clever. Also: What you are proposing looks like restoring agency from your perspective. From another perspective, it looks like you are seeking to belittle a behavior you find distasteful by demanding an overt game tool to stop it. AKA, you are removing someone else's agency by effectively saying them having silly fun is less important that your serious role play.
To your final point, your side still have fail to provide a rational counter to this very simple fact: A toggle would in no way, shape, or form disrupt your gameplay.
To this point I say: That will matter exactly when we start having to prove that a toggle is bad. We don't. We just have to demonstrate that you haven't sufficiently proven that it is good. And you haven't, since at best you can say the lack of one annoys you, but you can't even demonstrate why we should care enough to justify the dev time to code it, and certainly why we should care about it more than we care about the other issues that are competing for the same attention.
I'm RPing Dukat if he were President of the U.S, I have to be extremist and crazy;)
To late for crazy extremist president...we got Obama already
(Now for a shameless campaign add )
America is the land of the free and home of the brave , where men are men and women are men and the streets are paved with..asphalt.
A place where you can take you and your family outside for a family outing only to be shot at by kids with machine guns.
Yes in this great country of ours we need strong leadership and a strong guiding hand to show us the way to TRUE prosperity and there is only one man that can do that....Gul Dukat
So in 2016 vote for Gul Dukat and bring true order and servitude to every home
Except a) slippery slopes aren't automatically fallacious (a claim which I will defend just as soon as you earn your claim that they are), and
b) This isn't a straight slippery slope argument, it's also argument by analogy. A slippery slope argument proceeds by asserting that a seemingly reasonable first step will trigger an inevitable cascade to an absurd/undesirable end. This isn't that - it looks similar, but it actually operates by questioning your authority to place your specific concern ahead of many other analogous concerns. In other words, we're not just saying that the result could be bad, we're saying you have no right to place your interests ahead of all the other competing interests.
I'm saying you are trying to use wordplay to make your argument look clever. Also: What you are proposing looks like restoring agency from your perspective. From another perspective, it looks like you are seeking to belittle a behavior you find distasteful by demanding an overt game tool to stop it. AKA, you are removing someone else's agency by effectively saying them having silly fun is less important that your serious role play.
To this point I say: That will matter exactly when we start having to prove that a toggle is bad. We don't. We just have to demonstrate that you haven't sufficiently proven that it is good. And you haven't, since at best you can say the lack of one annoys you, but you can't even demonstrate why we should care enough to justify the dev time to code it, and certainly why we should care about it more than we care about the other issues that are competing for the same attention.
There's some explanation on why slippery slopes are fallacious, which is exactly the argument you're proffering. There's also something strange about someone arguing that I can't place my interests before theirs when their own side of the argument is doing just that. If you want to admit that this argument is inherently silly and will go nowhere, then I'd reiterate that since you lose nothing by the proposed toggle (which I will explain in relation to your second point), then I would err on going with the toggle.
I thought it was a given that I find abuse of "social items" to be distasteful, and I've provided a specific example of the behavior I'm arguing against. And once again, it's strange that you would lament my telling someone their playstyle is less important than my own when you're doing just the same. Also once more, I reiterate that since you lose nothing by the arrangement except for the ability to annoy people who don't want to be bothered (since everyone else can still opt in), I wonder about the motivation for arguing against a toggle.
I've already proven that a toggle is "good." It prevents abuse by people who misuse it to purposefully disrupt others, while not taking away any functionality from those who use it as it was intended (I can make the very safe assumption that Cryptic isn't designing these things for them to be abused). This argument works, so long as you agree that using the disco ball to intentionally bother another player qualifies as abuse. If you don't agree with that premise, then we have nothing more to discuss.
Comments
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
---> PUBLIC KDF MESSAGE
kind of sums up this whole thread in an ironic sort of way ......
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
The toggle would apply to the animation so that players in the radius of the dance ball can opt out of the dance. What is so difficult to understand about this? Or are you being obtuse on purpose?
It's nothing like saying you don't like the game. It's exactly what it is: We don't want silly people abusing these items because they get their jollies by intentionally disrupting other players' enjoyment of the game. The developers should provide an all-encompassing toggle which gives players the option to opt out of the "little spice" provided by these kinds of interactions.
No one should be able to impose their version of "fun" on anyone else. If you want to PvP, PvP. If you want to RP, RP. If you want to throw dance parties, throw dance parties. All of these activities stop being fun when they're imposed on people who don't want to partake. It's not a difficult concept.
I also want to toggle off Alien ships, and old TNG ships, and ships from TOS, they ruin my immersion as well, also toggle off Alien races because they look goofy and ruin my immersion....also toggle off other players they ruin my immersion as well with their running and jumping DON'T THEY KNOW RUNNING RUINS IMMERSION!!!
Good for you. Now go start a thread for that.
EDIT: You know you've proved your point when the other side has to resort to extreme exaggeration just to stay engaged in the conversation. Heh.
not at all it is a serious inquiry of your intent.....
because if you are just the only one opting out....
what is going to happen to your psyche when a dozen other players and all the NPC's in a 30M radius suddenly burst into dance and a great ball of lights with graffitti pop up in a two minute exclamation of joy around you becasue they decided to not opt out and dont mind the non-invasive dance ???.....
is that going to placate your notion of "I don't want to be a part of this, let me opt out of the dance emote" ??
.
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
Correct.
Let's say I'm playing out a scene with another roleplayer. His character was recently accused of conduct unbecoming, so my character--his CO--confronts him during some down time on the station. We're going back and forth, playing out the confrontation when all of the sudden JoeBoB45 decides he wants to disrupt our little scene just because he happens to dislike roleplayers. Not that we were disrupting his fun, mind you, since our roleplay was in PMs. So what does Joe do? He pulls out his disco ball and forces us to dance.
Just like that, he's ruined our scene and we're now forced to ignore it or walk away. In either case, our enjoyment has been ruined through no fault of our own.
The toggle would simply allow us to avoid the issue, and with zero confrontation between players. Joe pulls out his disco ball, but guess what? My friend and I had toggled social emotes off early in the evening so when the room starts dancing, we don't. Joe still gets to dance and we get to continue our scene without interruption.
I like to imagine that this sort of thing would already be in the game because the people at Cryptic are decent people who respect all of their players. But they probably don't have an easy way of implementation, so we're stuck complaining about these kinds of scenarios on the forum until something is done.
In the short term, it would be helpful if they stopped introducing more of these kinds of items until they can provide a toggle.
you are now free of the dance, you toggled it off ....but
why arent you raging about the other players and NPC's that also burst into dance around you ? all with a shining ball and confetti glowing in area of effect because they dont feel the need to toggle it off, they like it, or are indifferent to it..
your fine with that ?
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
I'm perfectly fine with that.
As a roleplayer, I don't have control over any other character but my own (nor do I expect to). If I didn't want to see people dancing around me, if it was important to my scene, I wouldn't be at the club. My objection is to having my own character bust out the dance moves when it's not appropriate to my roleplay.
And having said that, I'd have no issue opting back in when my character decides to cut a rug during leave, etc--even if the disco ball owner's intent was to ruin my evening.
EDIT: To add, I don't think this is an unreasonable expectation or desire. It doesn't affect anyone's enjoyment who isn't out to cause disruption since the only people who would be bothered by other people not being forced to dance are themselves out to cause trouble.
It's not everyday that I see someone dodge, dismiss, and pat themselves on the back, all in a single post.
If you'd take a moment to actually consider neoakiraii's point, you might realize that if Cryptic takes the time and resources to cater specifically to one vocal minority, suddenly that opens the door to countless others.
It's not enough just to play backseat designer on the forums - someone actually has to code and test and implement that toggle of yours, and there are countless better things the developers could be doing, especially when the vast majority of their users either enjoy the disco balls or don't care.
By all means though, send Cryptic your resume.
There's a first time for everything.
I considered his point, buried deep under the sarcasm and nonconstructive baiting he presented it as. Of course the people using these disco balls are a minority too, so I guess since minorities--vocal or not--should be ignored, it wouldn't hurt you all if people were given the option to opt out of your dance fun times.
Here's the thing: One doesn't have to be a game designer to have an opinion about games. Nor does one require a job in the industry to know when an item is ripe for abuse. That's why these forums exist after all--to get input from players, the vast majority of whom Cryptic understands are not game professionals. It's an extremely tired and fallacious argument, the old "well you're just a backseat game developer so your opinion is worthless." Remember, it would also apply to any argument you use to counter my position, so I entreat you to choose your logic more carefully.
so the 'only' difference is...
your character 'not' dancing is the only thing different from what the party amplifier is now in it's current state.
really....
that's worth being so quarrelsome ?
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
I'd ask the same of you. Is it really worth being so quarrelsome? If not, I wonder why you'd spend so much time trying to defend your position. Clearly you care enough about it to go back and forth with me, right?
People just want to enjoy the game in their own way without being subjected to poorly designed "social items" that have no regard for the players around them. It was a misstep by Cryptic. Threads like this one and the countless others on the subject are made with the hope that it will change future plans for similar items.
Again, is it really that unreasonable of a request?
Ahh, but you toggling away my toons means you don't react to my character/ship, which ruins my immersion, so I need a toggle to de-toggle your toggles. Unless you have a toggle de-toggler toggle, so you can de-de-toggle your toggles. But then I would use my re-de-toggler...
neoakiraii is right on here - if we start doing this, where do we draw the line? These aren't even ridiculous examples, these are almost all things I've seen people actually request (toggling off running being the only exception). The fact is, it's not at all clear why RP is a more 'valid' way of playing the game than clowning around with the silly toys, or why RP should be considered such srs bznz that we have to 'protect' it.
It seems like many RP players want to have it both ways - they want to be able to use "public" spaces in game to perform and make us all their unwitting/unwilling audience, but they also want to make sure the smelly public can't interrupt their "art". I don't even mind RP as a rule, and I like things like character bios etc, but MAN it irks me when RP players act like they should have priority over the public domains in game.
I'm not trying to defend a position at all...I am asking you, and trying to figure out the logic of it.
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
So much straw.
Slippery slopes are a logical fallacy, so I won't bother with the "where do we draw the line" argument. I will, however, engage you on the straw man...
Roleplayers don't want it both ways--they want just the one. They want their gameplay to be just as respected as your fun "with the silly toys." There is nothing inherently wrong about the disco balls except the fact that they can and are used to bother other players; in this case I'm coming from the position of a roleplayer, but it's not just roleplayers who can be bothered by this things.
Is it wrong to not want to be bothered by someone who only wants to interrupt your play? Is it wrong to ask the developers to put checks on these kinds of items so that there's no opportunity for irksome players to bother everyone else?
I'm sure there's some aspect of your gameplay that could be disrupted by another player, but chances are, there's already checks in place to prevent that. For example, many games with open-world PvP use PvP flagging so people who don't want to take part don't have to. Cryptic avoids the whole PvP issue completely by making it its own compartment within the game.
Or how about STF leavers? Or AFK leechers? At the root of those problems is the same issue being discussed here: stupid people doing stupid things. All we ask is that Cryptic consider giving us the option to avoid the stupid things.
EDIT: And since our request in no way shape or form impacts your own enjoyment of the game, I honestly have to wonder at the vehemence of your side's defense.
First, you are misinterpreting the point. It's not that all minorities should be ignored, it's that what you are asking for is unreasonable precisely because it would open the doors to so many other 'reasonable' requests. This doesn't mean you shouldn't have a right to let Cryptic know that you don't like the item, but it is definitely unreasonable to expect them to place fixing your concern on a higher level than all the others.
Second, you are equivocating with regards to the word "ignore", used first in the sense of "disregard" and then second in the sense of "/ignore". There is a huge difference between disregarding a specific concern from a specific group, and creating an in-game system to wholesale remove the existence of certain players from the game. The fact that you conflate the two does you no favors in the persuasiveness department.
Third, you misunderstand your position in the argument re: evidence burden. You are correct that people who disagree with you are doing so on the basis of opinion, and not provable facts. That said, since those people are not arguing for change, they have no obligation to affirmatively prove anything - merely to demonstrate that you have failed to establish your case. Thus, while us showing how your position is a subjective opinion serves to undercut your position, turning that around against us does basically nothing to our central thesis that your opinion is not persuasive.
you aren't being quarrelsome 'and' passive aggressive now are you ?
tisk tisk..... :rolleyes:
Do I need to quote examples for you to realize just where it is happening the past few pages ? I'd rather not do that to be honest, but it's pretty blatant.
but FWIW.... I'm starting to think that you can't help it.
so on that note....I'm not gonna stick around in this thread anymore.
/end
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
I'm thinking of LOTRO and Turbine. They introduced forced-emotes, consumable items that force another player character to perform an emote. This should sound familiar. Some people got very angry at their characters being used in this way. This should sound familiar. Every so often, Turbine introduced additional forced emote items, and every time, the forums would catch on fire. Nonetheless, Turbine remained silent. This should sound familiar. Eventually, Turbine introduced a forced-emote toggle that made the player character using it immune to all such emotes.
Now all this played out quite some time ago. And it was utterly predictable, considering one of the lessons of MMO Design 101 is that players don't like losing control of their characters. Given the way things usually work around here, I expect STO will follow a similar course. We can probably look forward to another couple of cycles of this before Cryptic wises up and implements an opt-out. Until then, get used to seeing this same argument rehashed over and over and over and over and over.......
To your first paragraph, I would again remind you that slippery slopes are logical fallacies. That being the case, it's not really an argument you can stand on.
Second, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. What I'm proposing in no way removes anyone from the game. It restores agency to players who are having it taken away by others.
To your final point, your side still have fail to provide a rational counter to this very simple fact: A toggle would in no way, shape, or form disrupt your gameplay.
No worries, your completely transparent bowing out wasn't lost on me. Good luck in your future endeavors.
Heh. While I don't agree with your stance, I do appreciate the humor.
Except a) slippery slopes aren't automatically fallacious (a claim which I will defend just as soon as you earn your claim that they are), and
b) This isn't a straight slippery slope argument, it's also argument by analogy. A slippery slope argument proceeds by asserting that a seemingly reasonable first step will trigger an inevitable cascade to an absurd/undesirable end. This isn't that - it looks similar, but it actually operates by questioning your authority to place your specific concern ahead of many other analogous concerns. In other words, we're not just saying that the result could be bad, we're saying you have no right to place your interests ahead of all the other competing interests.
I'm saying you are trying to use wordplay to make your argument look clever. Also: What you are proposing looks like restoring agency from your perspective. From another perspective, it looks like you are seeking to belittle a behavior you find distasteful by demanding an overt game tool to stop it. AKA, you are removing someone else's agency by effectively saying them having silly fun is less important that your serious role play.
To this point I say: That will matter exactly when we start having to prove that a toggle is bad. We don't. We just have to demonstrate that you haven't sufficiently proven that it is good. And you haven't, since at best you can say the lack of one annoys you, but you can't even demonstrate why we should care enough to justify the dev time to code it, and certainly why we should care about it more than we care about the other issues that are competing for the same attention.
To late for crazy extremist president...we got Obama already
(Now for a shameless campaign add )
America is the land of the free and home of the brave , where men are men and women are men and the streets are paved with..asphalt.
A place where you can take you and your family outside for a family outing only to be shot at by kids with machine guns.
Yes in this great country of ours we need strong leadership and a strong guiding hand to show us the way to TRUE prosperity and there is only one man that can do that....Gul Dukat
So in 2016 vote for Gul Dukat and bring true order and servitude to every home
http://i.imgur.com/8UkI1.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy
There's some explanation on why slippery slopes are fallacious, which is exactly the argument you're proffering. There's also something strange about someone arguing that I can't place my interests before theirs when their own side of the argument is doing just that. If you want to admit that this argument is inherently silly and will go nowhere, then I'd reiterate that since you lose nothing by the proposed toggle (which I will explain in relation to your second point), then I would err on going with the toggle.
I thought it was a given that I find abuse of "social items" to be distasteful, and I've provided a specific example of the behavior I'm arguing against. And once again, it's strange that you would lament my telling someone their playstyle is less important than my own when you're doing just the same. Also once more, I reiterate that since you lose nothing by the arrangement except for the ability to annoy people who don't want to be bothered (since everyone else can still opt in), I wonder about the motivation for arguing against a toggle.
I've already proven that a toggle is "good." It prevents abuse by people who misuse it to purposefully disrupt others, while not taking away any functionality from those who use it as it was intended (I can make the very safe assumption that Cryptic isn't designing these things for them to be abused). This argument works, so long as you agree that using the disco ball to intentionally bother another player qualifies as abuse. If you don't agree with that premise, then we have nothing more to discuss.