i cannot remember any instance where people have asked for it. what ticks me off is that there are far easier things to do that people DO want, like the same uniform for crew that you have on the boffs and yourself, for the ability for your boffs to wear off duty wear additional skins for some of the ships that only have one...
I can recall several instances where it has come up in in-game conversation over the last two years, and I just read several forum hits when searching for this thread that shows that, yes, this has been requested. Maybe not number one, but this is certainly something I myself and others I know and play with have talked about.
Now, if anyone wants to gripe about "immersion breaking", how about the fact that our Impulse Engines are lit up in Sector Space and leaving trails, and not our Warp Nacelles? That seems more obnoxious to my eyes.
I agree with an earlier poster: You're a frelling Vice Admiral. You don't think you could arrange for another ship to be flown out to you? Devs are also talking about letting you command a small group of ships you own--the swapping would be simple at that point. This is probably just step one of that.
I see that my thread has been merged with this one. I apologize for starting off my thread in a way which made it look as though switching ships was my real concern. I was trying to get around to some comments on EEPH recent post (and its inadequacies) in as kind and constructive of a way as possible. I can see that I made a mistake and I would like to correct it now.
Since my actual intent was to address EEPH's comments in another thread I have posted them in the appropriate thread but I will CC here just to be clear.
Also thanks to BranFlakes for clarifying that in fact Tray Switching (not just ship switching) is in fact in the works. That is welcome and good news. Too bad EEPH couldn't be bothered to list it among the small handful of things he thought people might care about.
Having reread EEPH's statements I see that he did not say "changing ships in sector space" he merely made a vague comment about "ship switching" and perhaps I misinterpreted his comments or read more into them than I should have. Note however that in my separate thread I specifically ask for input to clarify the issue that EEPH's vagueness created.
The problem is that historically when people misinterpret his comments he takes no responsibility for it. Instead he makes comments that amount to "Well if you misunderstood, that's your problem". That may even have some truth to it -- but it's not what an EP should say. If there is miscommunication an EP should take some responsibility and assure people that he will try to be as clear as possible in the future -- not pass condescending blame to members of the community.
Let me see if I can answer a few of the big questions posed on this thread...
Third, there are lots of requests for more communication.
Stephen D'Angelo
Executive Producer
Star Trek Online
The issue (since correctly identifying the most important issue at any given juncture seems to be one of your great weaknesses) is not one of needing more communication, but better communication.
You failed to answer the biggest question...
Did you learn anything from your PR failures last time and what can you do to assure us that you will not make the same mistakes this time?
Judging from how you ignored and disregarded all of those who posed variations on this question or voiced their concerns over your past performance in the EP position by having dodged the biggest 'elephant in the room question' I can only surmise that you take no responsibility for past failures and have no intention to make any effort to improve in the level of respect that you give to concerns of the community.
Oh yeah, except you did mention how scared of you we all are.
As a case in point I take your patronizing and condescending "I know change is scary" type comments to be an accusation of cowardice leveled against those who question your vision and priorities for the game.
Your last stint as EP was an unmitigated PR debacle due mostly to your own statements and comments to the community about things that were going on more so than the actual things or changes themselves.
I concur with the assessment that your communication style is one of mealy mouthed weasel words. From the looks of this post, it would seem that nothing has changed.
This decision is more about game and less about star trek.......which, in my view, is not a good sign of things moving forward.
This game stands or falls on how well it reflects the IP.
If it wasn't for the game, I wouldn't play star trek, just saying but if the game is just a theatral movie where you click stuff and know already how things go, meh I'd be playing other games.
Games are meant to be games for a reason-imo
Say the word, it saves the world. CUUCUUMBEER!"-With slight partigen with it." Proud member or DPS-800"-We kill dem mines with our scitter turrets."
If it wasn't for the game, I wouldn't play star trek, just saying but if the game is just a theatral movie where you click stuff and know already how things go, meh I'd be playing other games.
Games are meant to be games for a reason-imo
Your perspective is perfectly valid, but there are many others (myself included), for whom if it wasn't for Star Trek, they wouldn't play the game.
The reason this game exists (technically) is because of the IP it is based on. If there is no Star Trek, then this just becomes yet another pointless, generic MMO with a lot of quality and gameplay issues. Personally, if this game hadn't been STAR TREK Online (emphasis mine), I wouldn't have even looked twice at it.
I'm not just talking about purrty space ships and pew pew that happen to look like Star Trek, but the entire premise, storyline, playstyle and motivation of the game. The core - the very heart - of this game is Star Trek. Lose sight of that and the game will end up in serious trouble.
There is a fine line that Cryptic need to walk in balancing the Star Trek aspect and the game aspect. Now the problem you run into with an IP based game like this (moreso than other games) is that you get quite a polarised community. Part of that polarised community are the IP fans - from casual to hardcore - who value the IP and its representation in the game as much as (if not more than) the gameplay. From this perspective, gameplay is meant to support the IP, not the other way around. Everything that the designers do ideally should reflect the IP and align with the 'laws of the universe' according to the IP.
Star Trek has always been primarily about exploration - not just of space, but of the human condition. Not only that, but it attempted to be as scientifically credible as possible (as well as science fiction is able to) and give a decent sense of realism in how the universe operated. They didn't always get it right, but in general they did a fair job.
Star Trek aficionados are going to expect a certain level of faithfulness to the IP in any Star Trek game they play, this one included - and that is perfectly reasonable. If a developer is going to take on an IP like this, they'd better be ready to represent it well, or else they're going to end up burned at the stake (figuratively speaking).
This debate is a prime example of players raising concerns about how well the game is representing the IP - in particular the sub-par design of sector space and social hubs, and the benefits v's the drawbacks of having instant ship swaps in sector space. The points raised are valid, so what are Cryptic's plans to address player concerns? At this stage we will have to wait and see.
Games are meant to be games for a reason - yes, and that reason is primarily entertainment and fun. Many people here derive their entertainment and fun from the Star Trek theme of the game. Lose that, and you lose them, and I guarantee that they are much more than just a vocal minority in number.
As always, just my thoughts.
Somewhere on the wrong side of insanity.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately be explained by stupidity" ~ Robert Heinlein.
I'd say the answer to this is pretty simple. Allow people to quick change ships anywhere they like... for a ec fee.... like when they're using transwarp to mission.
You wanna be lazy/quick? Pay anywhere from 10.000 to 100.000 ec depending on how far you are from a space dock.
Thus, such a solution will be an added incentive to save some ec by goin to spacedock for some, and will be realistically correct as such a move far away from dock is BOUND TO BE COSTLY.
I'd say the answer to this is pretty simple. Allow people to quick change ships anywhere they like... for a ec fee.... like when they're using transwarp to mission.
You wanna be lazy/quick? Pay anywhere from 10.000 to 100.000 ec depending on how far you are from a space dock.
Thus, such a solution will be an added incentive to save some ec by goin to spacedock for some, and will be realistically correct as such a move far away from dock is BOUND TO BE COSTLY.
Problem solved.
Whilst it does offer some kind of incentive to return to ESD, the solution you offer doesn't address the concerns of the other posters here, namely:
* being able to switch ships in hostile sector space, and the break in realism/immersion;
* a perceived break in realism/immersion if ship changes are as quick and uneventful as outfit changes.
* the complaints over the design of sector space and the lack of compelling reason to traverse/explore it;
* the low populations of (and again, lack of compelling reason to visit) other social centres such as DS9, Drozana, K7, and so on.
Until these are addressed, it won't solve the problem for the players concerned by them.
As always, just my thoughts.
Somewhere on the wrong side of insanity.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately be explained by stupidity" ~ Robert Heinlein.
Whilst it does offer some kind of incentive to return to ESD, the solution you offer doesn't address the concerns of the other posters here, namely:
* being able to switch ships in hostile sector space, and the break in realism/immersion;
* a perceived break in realism/immersion if ship changes are as quick and uneventful as outfit changes.
* the complaints over the design of sector space and the lack of compelling reason to traverse/explore it;
* the low populations of (and again, lack of compelling reason to visit) other social centres such as DS9, Drozana, K7, and so on.
Until these are addressed, it won't solve the problem for the players concerned by them.
As always, just my thoughts.
Of course, my idea is strictly related to that ability and only one aspect about how it should be implemented. I'm just as unhappy about some of these issues as well, but I also realize that some players might find it appealing and/or convenient. As for me, it will definitely kill some of the immersion.
Let's take the points everyone makes and find some sort of middle ground.
And I believe making this particular convenience "not so convenient" will keep me (I don't care whether anyone else is using it or not) from using it too much (or at all), thus solving my personal "immersion" problem. And a little extra EC sink wont hurt the game at all imo.
I'm all for more detail in the game, all for more/better sector space detail and reasons to explore it, and in general I think the game is severely lacking in the "not pew pew pew" department. We only have cluster diplomatic missions (of which the first contact ones dont even work for me for nearly a year now) and the tour the galaxy event as content thats not related in any way to freakin DPS. And I think this is terribly sad for a Star Trek game.
Of course, my idea is strictly related to that ability and only one aspect about how it should be implemented. I'm just as unhappy about some of these issues as well, but I also realize that some players might find it appealing and/or convenient. As for me, it will definitely kill some of the immersion.
Let's take the points everyone makes and find some sort of middle ground.
And I believe making this particular convenience "not so convenient" will keep me (I don't care whether anyone else is using it or not) from using it too much (or at all), thus solving my personal "immersion" problem. And a little extra EC sink wont hurt the game at all imo.
I'm all for more detail in the game, all for more/better sector space detail and reasons to explore it, and in general I think the game is severely lacking in the "not pew pew pew" department. We only have cluster diplomatic missions (of which the first contact ones dont even work for me for nearly a year now) and the tour the galaxy event as content thats not related in any way to freakin DPS. And I think this is terribly sad for a Star Trek game.
Fair point in relation to your idea. I would have to say personally I don't think the ship swapping thing is really the core issue - with sector space and social hubs well designed and giving plenty of reason to be there, explore and so on, then switching ships in sector space isn't an issue if done right. I can see the believability and immersion issues with switching ships in hostile space, so I would be happy with it limited to a friendly sector or one with some form of hub facility.
I think the sector space and hub facility design is another issue that really needs to be addressed on its own merit. I don't know of an easy fix that doesn't detract from existing features - the overly available transwarp system kind of gimps any attempt to make sector space more appealing, and any move to gimp/remove transwarp is going to draw ire from sectors of the playerbase.
I would agree with you on the diplomatic missions. I've only ever seen one First Contact mission on the several characters I've levelled to Ambassador status, and when I did it I thought it sucked. Empty, linear chat that really made it a non event, and the rewards were pathetic.
Diplomatic investigations aren't much better, with the only exception if you get on a run of half a dozen or so you can quickly zoom between and pick up the 100 diplo exp each. I found them to be not much more than a filler, and a really lame attempt at putting diplomacy into the game. If it wasn't for the fact that they pumped a little diplomatic exp towards my commendation level, I wouldn't have bothered with them, especially when the ones in high level clusters want 20 units of the more expensive commodities and you're forking out tens of thousands of EC each time. This is an aspect of the game that they could do much, much better.
At the moment I'm too tired to think of anything else to say that is meaningful, so I'll leave it there, but in closing I think regardless of what comes from the ship swapping system, sector space really needs some love to make it a vital part of the game again.
As always, just my (mostly coherent) thoughts.
Somewhere on the wrong side of insanity.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately be explained by stupidity" ~ Robert Heinlein.
Diplomatic investigations aren't much better, with the only exception if you get on a run of half a dozen or so you can quickly zoom between and pick up the 100 diplo exp each. I found them to be not much more than a filler, and a really lame attempt at putting diplomacy into the game. If it wasn't for the fact that they pumped a little diplomatic exp towards my commendation level, I wouldn't have bothered with them, especially when the ones in high level clusters want 20 units of the more expensive commodities and you're forking out tens of thousands of EC each time. This is an aspect of the game that they could do much, much better.
At the moment I'm too tired to think of anything else to say that is meaningful, so I'll leave it there, but in closing I think regardless of what comes from the ship swapping system, sector space really needs some love to make it a vital part of the game again.
As always, just my (mostly coherent) thoughts.
Indeed, not much incentive to go on and do any kind of exploring. And the reason is simple, theres not enough variety and the rewards for it simply suck balls. Beyond a few particles and junk cheap equipment, spending time doing any exploration is a complete waste. There was that B'Tran exploring for 1440 dil but it got removed and perhaps once in a blue moon you can get 480 dil out of a random anomaly scan and thats it.
And to think how easy it would be to make it interesting and worthwhile. Out of the top of my head just now, if they would put some random events when in sector space where you would get a distress call from a random system, or an order from command to investigate some random event, or a tip about an alien wreck to be looted at some coordinates, or some Orion Syndicate loot cache to be discovered and so forth and so forth... and they would actually reward interesting stuff beyond "here's a damn plasma sample, now go and have fun with it"... instead you get borg red alerts all the time, and "random" ecounters that you don't even have to engage, just pass by and you'll be fine. Not to mention the systems that are there just for a mission no one will ever do more than once, if ever.
Such a waste. There's so much this game could be and in the end its only all about the new lockbox or the new battlezone (I bet thats what they plan next). I don't mean to say that these are bad, no, but for chrissakes take off the tinted glasses once in a while and add some depth to it all.
If it wasn't for the game, I wouldn't play star trek, just saying but if the game is just a theatral movie where you click stuff and know already how things go, meh I'd be playing other games.
Your perspective is perfectly valid, but there are many others (myself included), for whom if it wasn't for Star Trek, they wouldn't play the game.
The reason this game exists (technically) is because of the IP it is based on. If there is no Star Trek, then this just becomes yet another pointless, generic MMO with a lot of quality and gameplay issues. Personally, if this game hadn't been STAR TREK Online (emphasis mine), I wouldn't have even looked twice at it.
Here are the two main camps of players in this game. (Please note the word main. They are not the only camps, I'm sure.) Regardless of which camp you fall in I respect the reasons each person has for playing. I think they're no less valid than the next. (Unless you're one of those people who just play to farm stuff for the sole purpose of selling it for real money. I HATE getting those mail messages "For $X we'll give you this many EC!! Fast transactions!!" Parasites.)
Anyway, me, I'm in the Trekkie camp. As a Mac user, I made a PC partition on my Mac and bought a new copy of Windows, expressly for the sole purpose of playing this game. (Now that we can play it on OSX I have thankfully erased that partition.) If it wasn't for the Trek aspect I would never have gone to that trouble or expense for this game.
The thing about Trekkies is, like die-hard Star Wars fans, they don't just like their IP, they LOVE it. They spend HUGE amounts of money collecting things and going to conventions. An old acquaintance of mine even flies from Australia to Las Vegas every year for the convention. Trekkies are prepared to spend if they feel it provides them with a Trek experience. Trek is a cash cow.
Of late I've felt that the game has been becoming less and less Trek. The ability to transwarp to any mission, sector space becoming more and more useless, the power creep, in my mind they're making the game feel less Trek.
Big deal, some people may say. Fair enough, each to their own. However, as a Trek fan I gave myself a budget of $50-$75 per week for spending on the game. All because I love the Trek experience. Also, due to my career, I have the luxury of playing the game an average of 3-4 hours per day. Sometimes more. This is the sort of commitment that Trekkies can provide. Sure, non-Trekkies may also provide that commitment or more, but being the only Trek game, Trekkies have this or none. They can't jump ship to another Trek game. People who don't care about Trek can jump ship to any other game because they don't have the IP holding them here.
I feel this gives Cryptic a fine line to walk on. Cater too much to the Trekkies and the regular gamers will move on. Neglect the Trekkies and their cash cow's milk will turn sour and they'll lose a group of people known for their ability to spend.
Of late I feel that Cryptic has started to move away from Trek. That has actually reflected on my gameplay style. Over the past month I've spent nothing on the game. This new concept of changing ships in sector space feels like a non-Trek move. People may cite any number of reasons why they feel it is Trek, however as far as my wallet is concerned it's another step away.
Cryptic, you need to give sector space meaning. You need to give us reasons for going in to the vast unknown. You need to give use reason to go back to DS9. You need to start remembering that the bulk of your initial customers were Trekkies. You're failing us at the moment. Things like power creep, reduced usefulness of sector space and non-Fed/non-Klink ships being so much more powerful than everything else are changing this game from Star Trek Online to Generic Space Game Online. When the game goes too far in that direction then my wallet will shut forever.
I think we're all getting wrapped up and missing one very important point here: This game's supposed to be fun, who cares if you can switch your ship out quicker and do different runs with your friends? As long as you're having fun that is supposed to be the point.
Defending The Galaxy By Breaking One Starfleet Regulation After The Next.
What you seem to fail to realize is that "IP-first" people are not all against this. And which IP they happen to like/dislike will drastically influence which elements they see as vital.
Someone mentioned Voyager as a reason this can't happen. I, however, /hate/ Voyager. Loved DS9, TNG, TOS, meh about Enterprise. So putting out one of five series as The IP We All Adore is presumptuous.
However, let me paraphrase this--what you're doing by suggesting EC costs to doing things is basically saying "I don't like this new mechanic, and although it's in no way game-breaking or will provide any specific advantage to other players, I still want to stop others from doing it".
Basically, "I want to punish you for playing in a way I don't like." Hampering the game for other players simply because you don't think they should have it.
That's not rational. That's not even-handed. That's authoritarian and egotistical and self-centered and downright mean.
When it gets to the point where a feature has people for and against it, and the feature would help the people who want to use it an not affect the gameplay in the slightest for those who don't, the latter group of people insisting on nerfs or cooldowns or costs or anything else aren't thinking of the game--they're trying to punish the first group. Plain and simple.
You don't like it? Don't use it. Period. If your sense of "immersion" can't abide other people not playing the same way you do, you need to seek help. It's akin to insisting other people put together LEGO only according to the instructions, because you don't like non-LEGO designs.
You don't get to tell other people what they can do, or can like, when you're not in any way involved. RolePlaying is not the way the game was designed, it is an extra layer you yourself added onto the game for your own enjoyment. It is not now something you get to bludgeon other people with. The most--THE MOST--you will be affected is seeing a player in a different ship faster. That's it.
So... because you don't want a visual flicker, the bulk of players should have to suffer cooldowns, queues should have to suffer, they should have to pay penalties? All for your pride and selfishness? How about a big bowl of "no".
This will help casual players. This will help people in fleets. This will help people quickly team up with friends. This will be a MASSIVE boost to PvP (and PvPers will quickly tell you they get little love) because you can switch to your PvP ship in an instant.
So, all of that positive, and the only negative is that you don't like it. Sorry, but maybe you need to deal with it. Don't like it, don't use it. And stop being so concerned with how other people play with their toys.
A number of threads lately (I feel) are starting to show how disenchanted the community seems to be with this game. As someone who's played a few different MMO's This one has the most divided and unhappy community IMO. Sure every MMO has fans that complain about something, but they're a small minority. Here that number seems greater.
Which is sad, hopefully one day we get a Star Trek MMO that actually feels like Star Trek. Because if done right, it'd be a force to be reckoned with on the MMO market.
STO should've been what Star Citizen is going to be.
I fall into both camps here... there are times I like the immersion, and there are times I jsut want to get things done.
For my immersion brethern, let me ask this... currently we can fast switch ships via the shuttle interior... has this been a big immersion change for anyone? I don't notice when people do this in game.
I haven't seen any posts on the "How" you will switch ships... so isn't it possible that the shuttle change will just be expanded upon? Since there aren't a thousand posts all over the forums about that... then I don't see it as a huge issue.
As far as ESD, or any social zone for that matter... to be honest... the less people the better (in terms of immersion).
What you seem to fail to realize is that "IP-first" people are not all against this. And which IP they happen to like/dislike will drastically influence which elements they see as vital.
Someone mentioned Voyager as a reason this can't happen. I, however, /hate/ Voyager. Loved DS9, TNG, TOS, meh about Enterprise. So putting out one of five series as The IP We All Adore is presumptuous.
However, let me paraphrase this--what you're doing by suggesting EC costs to doing things is basically saying "I don't like this new mechanic, and although it's in no way game-breaking or will provide any specific advantage to other players, I still want to stop others from doing it".
Basically, "I want to punish you for playing in a way I don't like." Hampering the game for other players simply because you don't think they should have it.
That's not rational. That's not even-handed. That's authoritarian and egotistical and self-centered and downright mean.
When it gets to the point where a feature has people for and against it, and the feature would help the people who want to use it an not affect the gameplay in the slightest for those who don't, the latter group of people insisting on nerfs or cooldowns or costs or anything else aren't thinking of the game--they're trying to punish the first group. Plain and simple.
You don't like it? Don't use it. Period. If your sense of "immersion" can't abide other people not playing the same way you do, you need to seek help. It's akin to insisting other people put together LEGO only according to the instructions, because you don't like non-LEGO designs.
You don't get to tell other people what they can do, or can like, when you're not in any way involved. RolePlaying is not the way the game was designed, it is an extra layer you yourself added onto the game for your own enjoyment. It is not now something you get to bludgeon other people with. The most--THE MOST--you will be affected is seeing a player in a different ship faster. That's it.
So... because you don't want a visual flicker, the bulk of players should have to suffer cooldowns, queues should have to suffer, they should have to pay penalties? All for your pride and selfishness? How about a big bowl of "no".
This will help casual players. This will help people in fleets. This will help people quickly team up with friends. This will be a MASSIVE boost to PvP (and PvPers will quickly tell you they get little love) because you can switch to your PvP ship in an instant.
So, all of that positive, and the only negative is that you don't like it. Sorry, but maybe you need to deal with it. Don't like it, don't use it. And stop being so concerned with how other people play with their toys.
You haven't read the entire thread. If you did you'll notice that the reason I'm against it is because it is another in a long trend of moves that is turning sector space in to something that is becoming unused. Once sector space is completely useless they'll remove it from the game. At that point, the game will just become an arcade queue up for a mission game.
To retain Trek they need space. They need it to be useful. How is allowing ship changes in sector space making space useless? Here's how.
--> Currently if you want to do a mission you pay EC and you're there. The space between where you were and where you needed to go is useless.
-->Currently if you want to go to ESD, your starbase or other major points of interest, you transwarp.
-->If you want to do a PvE or PvP mission you queue. No need to travel to any location to do them.
-->With the ability to change ships wherever you are you will no longer need to go to s starbase or other such location. The space in between where you were and the old ship changing location is useless.
Space needs to be made to be more useful. If you read through this post you'd also see how I've provided ideas to make space a more interesting place.
As for telling people how to play, well, you may see it as that. I see it as trying to protect this game from becoming trite. I'm willing to take a hit in the convenience area if it keeps the game stronger. Are you, or is your convenience too important?
You haven't read the entire thread. If you did you'll notice that the reason I'm against it is because it is another in a long trend of moves that is turning sector space in to something that is becoming unused. Once sector space is completely useless they'll remove it from the game. At that point, the game will just become an arcade queue up for a mission game.
Which is just a long-winded repackaging of "People will not play the way I think they should play."
Space needs to be made to be more useful.
I see it as trying to protect this game from becoming trite. I'm willing to take a hit in the convenience area if it keeps the game stronger.
"Needs," "trite" and "strong" are 100% your opinion, devoid of objective facts, and you do not speak for everyone.
This goes way beyond the action of swapping the actual ship itself, since it affects behavior patterns, and how we utilize game assets like Starbases.
It brings the question of how the elements should interact with each other, why they should be there, and if they should be replaced with instant actions or not.
The process is that of removing the need to interact with environmental assets, in favor of instantly accessible menus and buttons. At some point, the environment will turn out to be purely cosmetic, if we think of this as a trend. And that is what I'm thinking.
"Needs," "trite" and "strong" are 100% your opinion, devoid of objective facts, and you do not speak for everyone.
This entire thread is full of opinions. Or are the words you're delivering sent from high holy above and are such sublime truths that we're meant to feel privileged and enlightened for having been blessed with them?
What purpose does that statement serve? Aside from it being a totally baseless generalization, it is neither an affirmation nor denial of merit.
I don't see how it is not, as all would still be playing the same way.
That is a logical fallacy. Just because it's equal, doesn't mean it's fair.
As is any rule within a game.
No, that's not the point being made. The point is that it's authoritarian to needlessly impose the will of one group over the other.
That's not unique to any side of this discussion.
That's wrong. It's like opposing the addition of chocolate pudding to the cafeteria menu because you don't like chocolate and then saying people that want chocolate are equally egotistical. That's another fallacy.
Not hardly.
Well, the definition of "mean" is "to be inconsiderate and harsh." I think that sums up the majority of arguments against the new feature since many of them use the word "lazy" to describe the people whom support it. I think "condescending" applies too. There's a general sense of indignation coming from the opponents of the feature towards the proponents of the feature.
You, in particular, have been condescending, opinionated, and dismissive.
Go here and show your support for a better Foundry!
This entire thread is full of opinions. Or are the words you're delivering sent from high holy above and are such sublime truths that we're meant to feel privileged and enlightened for having been blessed with them?
There's a difference when someone tries to present their opinions as fact.
"I'm just trying to prevent the game from becoming trite." - Sorry, no. One person does not dictate the terms for "trite" for everyone else in this context, and whether or not this particular function satisfied those terms is also a matter of opinion.
The honest way to phrase that is "I personally feel this feature will make the game grow trite, and I personally feel that doing XYZ will prevent that."
But it's less fun to acknowledge when you're trying to pretend your opinions are more important than everyone else's.
People are inherently irrational.
I don't see how it is not, as all would still be playing the same way.
As is any rule within a game.
That's not unique to any side of this discussion.
Not hardly.
Wow, talk about some non-committal "nuh-uh" answers.
The first is the only one that is valid, and the only one I'll reply to. We do not now play the same way--if you are concerned with immersion, you are not playing the way I am. The difference is this change would not force you to play in a different way, nor would it give me an advantage over you in any way. The point is not that we all "play the same way" (last I checked all elements of endgame are optional and some of us do not access any of certain subsystems), the point is that we all "have the same opportunities". This would not create an opportunity that you cannot access, therefor it is not influencing how you play.
This criticism, BTW, is little more than an appeal to tradition. The same argument could be leveled against any change, and be equally illogical in all cases. The game must evolve, and become better, to retain players, to maintain financial viability. Those that resist any an all change are the weights that drag games into oblivion.
As for it being mean, ego-centric, and pedantic? No, it really is. It is insisting that you cannot play the same way because other people might do things differently. It is indistinguishable from "But Johnny got SIX pink marshmallows and I only got FIVE."
All forty pages? No, no I have not. I read about seven before replying. Because I saw the same arguments, from the same people, repeated over and over.
If you did you'll notice that the reason I'm against it is because it is another in a long trend of moves that is turning sector space in to something that is becoming unused. Once sector space is completely useless they'll remove it from the game. At that point, the game will just become an arcade queue up for a mission game.
Which is it, Sector Space or Spacedocks that are becoming useless? Because that's what I was replying to. I'm all for adding things that can only happen in Sector Space (and Exploration Clusters, Doff Missions, Red Alerts don't count?). I was upset that they killed/nerfed The Race, and now few if any do the Tour, for precisely that reason--it was something to do in all that pretty open space. I'm all for additions to Sector Space--small sub-missions that pop up randomly like the static ones in Dyson, level-matched Enemy Encounters, etc, etc--expanding/unifying the Exploration Clusters to the whole of space. I'd also like to see the inter-block walls go away, as that would truly help immersion--just keep the same regions and Doffs and Zones, and allow people to pass smoothly between them. I'd be all for ADDING TO THE GAME--but what people here are doing is resisting anything at all be added.
And I fail to see how the ability to swap out ships in sector space is making sector space useless. Either it's making non-sector-space (Stardocks) useless, or sector space--it can't be both. What this will do is reduce TransWarp Spam and let people go out and do stuff in Sector Space they wouldn't normally, and quickly hop to PvE or PvP or team/fleet content--it will ENCOURAGE Sector Space travel.
Once sector space is completely useless they'll remove it from the game. At that point, the game will just become an arcade queue up for a mission game.
You're concerned they're going to remove "space" from a "space MMO". Riiiight...
How is allowing ship changes in sector space making space useless? Here's how.
--> Currently if you want to do a mission you pay EC and you're there. The space between where you were and where you needed to go is useless.
-->Currently if you want to go to ESD, your starbase or other major points of interest, you transwarp.
-->If you want to do a PvE or PvP mission you queue. No need to travel to any location to do them.
-->With the ability to change ships wherever you are you will no longer need to go to s starbase or other such location. The space in between where you were and the old ship changing location is useless.
All of these are already happening. This change won't affect any of that, and so these points are irrelevant (to the discussion of Ship Swapping, not to the uselessness of Sector Space, which is a separate (and valid, mind you, just separate) argument entirely).
This does not prove that Ship Swapping will MAKE Sector Space useless, but that Sector Space is already useless by your definition. So this changes nothing.
As for telling people how to play, well, you may see it as that. I see it as trying to protect this game from becoming trite. I'm willing to take a hit in the convenience area if it keeps the game stronger. Are you, or is your convenience too important?
You've failed to make a positive defense of your stance. Sector Space becoming useless is a problem--I didn't know DS9 used to be where you had to be to queue for Omega PvE queues. But it is entirely irrelevant and unrelated to this change. Your princess is in another castle.
Does this make more people prone to play more? Some say this will "ruin immersion" for them, but these people are already playing the game in a different way than intended. In reality, this won't affect them at all. Demanding other people don't do things a certain way, when it in no way affects you, is pedantry. That sentiment is selfish, and childish, and short-sighted. There is a clear benefit to many players who want and will use this functionality, and zero detriment to those who don't want to. If "convenience" gets more people playing more content with more people, more PvP and PvE and faster access to content, then it's a great thing for the game.
I'm not arguing that Sector Space is becoming empty and useless. But, as I said when the same complaint was leveled against Stardocks getting less use, this is a separate problem. By all means, shore up more ways to use the content. I'd be all for adding enough to the game that just flying around in Space is enough to actually play the game. That's great.
But that's in no way affected by this, is in no way linked or a result of this. You clearly stated this was already the case, and so this cannot be the cause. Forcing people to be inconvenienced merely for tradition is not going to encourage more players or more profit, it will instead end the game quicker. And an appeal to tradition is classified as a logical fallacy for a reason--it's logically indefensible.
It comes down to how we divide the spheres. Really. If you separate them too heavily, you will fail to see the cobweb beneath. It is more connected than most leave it to be, even before we assume that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Think of the MMO as an entity with organs and veins, there is a flow, and there is operational centers, so to speak. This is like redirecting the flow, and hope for the best. Do that enough times, and some of the organs die. Those that were dependent on them, for some reason or another, feel rejected, and the whole ends up with one less part. Not sure that makes us greater. Lighter, certainly. :P
The first is the only one that is valid, and the only one I'll reply to. We do not now play the same way--if you are concerned with immersion, you are not playing the way I am. The difference is this change would not force you to play in a different way, nor would it give me an advantage over you in any way. The point is not that we all "play the same way" (last I checked all elements of endgame are optional and some of us do not access any of certain subsystems), the point is that we all "have the same opportunities". This would not create an opportunity that you cannot access, therefor it is not influencing how you play.
Nuh-uh.
Let's use golf as an analogy. If, I'm playing with a group who is using "winter rules", but I insist on using traditional rules, then my golfing experience is effected. Granted, the experience of the others is also effected, but my preferred style of play is no less valid than theirs.
To further use golf as an analogy, this game had the potential to be a fully landscaped 18 hole golf course, but PWE has chosen to construct a shabby miniature-golf course. Where one could have played long fairways and layups, we're left with a quick game of putting.
That analogy doesn't work. It's more like a golf course installing teleport pads so you don't have to walk around everywhere, plus the ability to summon a new golf cart at any time. People who choose not to use these options can still walk around the course at their leisure. They just don't get to limit everyone else to the same behavior.
That is the crux of the issue here. Taking what is obviously a sentiment of "Give people options and they might choose wrong! I refuse to tolerate that!" and trying to portray it as something less selfish and petty, like "This will deteriorate the game." You're not fooling anyone.
However, let me paraphrase this--what you're doing by suggesting EC costs to doing things is basically saying "I don't like this new mechanic, and although it's in no way game-breaking or will provide any specific advantage to other players, I still want to stop others from doing it".
Basically, "I want to punish you for playing in a way I don't like." Hampering the game for other players simply because you don't think they should have it.
That's not rational. That's not even-handed. That's authoritarian and egotistical and self-centered and downright mean.
.
Um, no, I'm suggesting this because "doing things with EC (and dil)" is already the way of the game and it will be realistically costly to change to another ship in mid-nowhere. Same as with the transwarp to mission costs. It's already there. This IS rational. And fair. Logistics cost.
I'm in no way against it. I need to change ships quickly myself. Thats what people want, thats what they should get. People want a lot of stuff... is it all free and entirely convenient? Well bummer cause it's not.
And in the end, this will hurt very, very, very little. Simply be near a spacedock and it will cost very little to 0.
Here are the two main camps of players in this game. (Please note the word main. They are not the only camps, I'm sure.) Regardless of which camp you fall in I respect the reasons each person has for playing. I think they're no less valid than the next. (Unless you're one of those people who just play to farm stuff for the sole purpose of selling it for real money. I HATE getting those mail messages "For $X we'll give you this many EC!! Fast transactions!!" Parasites.)
Anyway, me, I'm in the Trekkie camp. As a Mac user, I made a PC partition on my Mac and bought a new copy of Windows, expressly for the sole purpose of playing this game. (Now that we can play it on OSX I have thankfully erased that partition.) If it wasn't for the Trek aspect I would never have gone to that trouble or expense for this game.
The thing about Trekkies is, like die-hard Star Wars fans, they don't just like their IP, they LOVE it. They spend HUGE amounts of money collecting things and going to conventions. An old acquaintance of mine even flies from Australia to Las Vegas every year for the convention. Trekkies are prepared to spend if they feel it provides them with a Trek experience. Trek is a cash cow.
Of late I've felt that the game has been becoming less and less Trek. The ability to transwarp to any mission, sector space becoming more and more useless, the power creep, in my mind they're making the game feel less Trek.
Big deal, some people may say. Fair enough, each to their own. However, as a Trek fan I gave myself a budget of $50-$75 per week for spending on the game. All because I love the Trek experience. Also, due to my career, I have the luxury of playing the game an average of 3-4 hours per day. Sometimes more. This is the sort of commitment that Trekkies can provide. Sure, non-Trekkies may also provide that commitment or more, but being the only Trek game, Trekkies have this or none. They can't jump ship to another Trek game. People who don't care about Trek can jump ship to any other game because they don't have the IP holding them here.
I feel this gives Cryptic a fine line to walk on. Cater too much to the Trekkies and the regular gamers will move on. Neglect the Trekkies and their cash cow's milk will turn sour and they'll lose a group of people known for their ability to spend.
Of late I feel that Cryptic has started to move away from Trek. That has actually reflected on my gameplay style. Over the past month I've spent nothing on the game. This new concept of changing ships in sector space feels like a non-Trek move. People may cite any number of reasons why they feel it is Trek, however as far as my wallet is concerned it's another step away.
Cryptic, you need to give sector space meaning. You need to give us reasons for going in to the vast unknown. You need to give use reason to go back to DS9. You need to start remembering that the bulk of your initial customers were Trekkies. You're failing us at the moment. Things like power creep, reduced usefulness of sector space and non-Fed/non-Klink ships being so much more powerful than everything else are changing this game from Star Trek Online to Generic Space Game Online. When the game goes too far in that direction then my wallet will shut forever.
Very well put and very true as well. You've made some very valid points here.
I also feel that this game is getting a bit less and less Trek by the day and the direction STO has taken lately does not encourage me in the slightest about the future. Without the Star Trek part, it's just a generic space MMO with so many issues and bugs that it couldn't survive.
I'll bet you anything that if you take out the Trek part, a year later STO will close shop.
That is the crux of the issue here. Taking what is obviously a sentiment of "Give people options and they might choose wrong! I refuse to tolerate that!" and trying to portray it as something less selfish and petty, like "This will deteriorate the game."
No, sorry. I wasn't addressing the issue of ship swapping. I was addressing the validity of preference.
I wasn't addressing the issue of ship swapping. I was addressing the validity of preference.
You don't gain yourself anything by dressing it up as a "preference," either, and as I explained, your analogy was at best inaccurate, at worst dishonest.
No one is saying you don't have a right to your opinions. What's being rejected here are the continued, dogged attempts to frame a painfully obvious desire to limit people to the preferences of a few as a way to preserve what's best for the game. Your issue is with free will, and you're not going to win people over by advocating for things that influence/manipulate/pressure them into visiting places you deem valuable. Give everyone both options, and if nobody chooses yours, tough noogies. The game will not be ruined, and life will go on.
Comments
Now, if anyone wants to gripe about "immersion breaking", how about the fact that our Impulse Engines are lit up in Sector Space and leaving trails, and not our Warp Nacelles? That seems more obnoxious to my eyes.
I agree with an earlier poster: You're a frelling Vice Admiral. You don't think you could arrange for another ship to be flown out to you? Devs are also talking about letting you command a small group of ships you own--the swapping would be simple at that point. This is probably just step one of that.
Since my actual intent was to address EEPH's comments in another thread I have posted them in the appropriate thread but I will CC here just to be clear.
Also thanks to BranFlakes for clarifying that in fact Tray Switching (not just ship switching) is in fact in the works. That is welcome and good news. Too bad EEPH couldn't be bothered to list it among the small handful of things he thought people might care about.
Having reread EEPH's statements I see that he did not say "changing ships in sector space" he merely made a vague comment about "ship switching" and perhaps I misinterpreted his comments or read more into them than I should have. Note however that in my separate thread I specifically ask for input to clarify the issue that EEPH's vagueness created.
The problem is that historically when people misinterpret his comments he takes no responsibility for it. Instead he makes comments that amount to "Well if you misunderstood, that's your problem". That may even have some truth to it -- but it's not what an EP should say. If there is miscommunication an EP should take some responsibility and assure people that he will try to be as clear as possible in the future -- not pass condescending blame to members of the community.
My direct response to EP's post can be seen here:
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?p=14585771#post14585771
Originally Posted by stephendangelo View Post
Let me see if I can answer a few of the big questions posed on this thread...
Third, there are lots of requests for more communication.
Stephen D'Angelo
Executive Producer
Star Trek Online
The issue (since correctly identifying the most important issue at any given juncture seems to be one of your great weaknesses) is not one of needing more communication, but better communication.
You failed to answer the biggest question...
Did you learn anything from your PR failures last time and what can you do to assure us that you will not make the same mistakes this time?
Judging from how you ignored and disregarded all of those who posed variations on this question or voiced their concerns over your past performance in the EP position by having dodged the biggest 'elephant in the room question' I can only surmise that you take no responsibility for past failures and have no intention to make any effort to improve in the level of respect that you give to concerns of the community.
Oh yeah, except you did mention how scared of you we all are.
As a case in point I take your patronizing and condescending "I know change is scary" type comments to be an accusation of cowardice leveled against those who question your vision and priorities for the game.
Your last stint as EP was an unmitigated PR debacle due mostly to your own statements and comments to the community about things that were going on more so than the actual things or changes themselves.
I concur with the assessment that your communication style is one of mealy mouthed weasel words. From the looks of this post, it would seem that nothing has changed.
-S2
If it wasn't for the game, I wouldn't play star trek, just saying but if the game is just a theatral movie where you click stuff and know already how things go, meh I'd be playing other games.
Games are meant to be games for a reason-imo
CUUCUUMBEER! "-With slight partigen with it."
Proud member or DPS-800 "-We kill dem mines with our scitter turrets."
Your perspective is perfectly valid, but there are many others (myself included), for whom if it wasn't for Star Trek, they wouldn't play the game.
The reason this game exists (technically) is because of the IP it is based on. If there is no Star Trek, then this just becomes yet another pointless, generic MMO with a lot of quality and gameplay issues. Personally, if this game hadn't been STAR TREK Online (emphasis mine), I wouldn't have even looked twice at it.
I'm not just talking about purrty space ships and pew pew that happen to look like Star Trek, but the entire premise, storyline, playstyle and motivation of the game. The core - the very heart - of this game is Star Trek. Lose sight of that and the game will end up in serious trouble.
There is a fine line that Cryptic need to walk in balancing the Star Trek aspect and the game aspect. Now the problem you run into with an IP based game like this (moreso than other games) is that you get quite a polarised community. Part of that polarised community are the IP fans - from casual to hardcore - who value the IP and its representation in the game as much as (if not more than) the gameplay. From this perspective, gameplay is meant to support the IP, not the other way around. Everything that the designers do ideally should reflect the IP and align with the 'laws of the universe' according to the IP.
Star Trek has always been primarily about exploration - not just of space, but of the human condition. Not only that, but it attempted to be as scientifically credible as possible (as well as science fiction is able to) and give a decent sense of realism in how the universe operated. They didn't always get it right, but in general they did a fair job.
Star Trek aficionados are going to expect a certain level of faithfulness to the IP in any Star Trek game they play, this one included - and that is perfectly reasonable. If a developer is going to take on an IP like this, they'd better be ready to represent it well, or else they're going to end up burned at the stake (figuratively speaking).
This debate is a prime example of players raising concerns about how well the game is representing the IP - in particular the sub-par design of sector space and social hubs, and the benefits v's the drawbacks of having instant ship swaps in sector space. The points raised are valid, so what are Cryptic's plans to address player concerns? At this stage we will have to wait and see.
Games are meant to be games for a reason - yes, and that reason is primarily entertainment and fun. Many people here derive their entertainment and fun from the Star Trek theme of the game. Lose that, and you lose them, and I guarantee that they are much more than just a vocal minority in number.
As always, just my thoughts.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately be explained by stupidity" ~ Robert Heinlein.
You wanna be lazy/quick? Pay anywhere from 10.000 to 100.000 ec depending on how far you are from a space dock.
Thus, such a solution will be an added incentive to save some ec by goin to spacedock for some, and will be realistically correct as such a move far away from dock is BOUND TO BE COSTLY.
Problem solved.
Whilst it does offer some kind of incentive to return to ESD, the solution you offer doesn't address the concerns of the other posters here, namely:
* being able to switch ships in hostile sector space, and the break in realism/immersion;
* a perceived break in realism/immersion if ship changes are as quick and uneventful as outfit changes.
* the complaints over the design of sector space and the lack of compelling reason to traverse/explore it;
* the low populations of (and again, lack of compelling reason to visit) other social centres such as DS9, Drozana, K7, and so on.
Until these are addressed, it won't solve the problem for the players concerned by them.
As always, just my thoughts.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately be explained by stupidity" ~ Robert Heinlein.
Of course, my idea is strictly related to that ability and only one aspect about how it should be implemented. I'm just as unhappy about some of these issues as well, but I also realize that some players might find it appealing and/or convenient. As for me, it will definitely kill some of the immersion.
Let's take the points everyone makes and find some sort of middle ground.
And I believe making this particular convenience "not so convenient" will keep me (I don't care whether anyone else is using it or not) from using it too much (or at all), thus solving my personal "immersion" problem. And a little extra EC sink wont hurt the game at all imo.
I'm all for more detail in the game, all for more/better sector space detail and reasons to explore it, and in general I think the game is severely lacking in the "not pew pew pew" department. We only have cluster diplomatic missions (of which the first contact ones dont even work for me for nearly a year now) and the tour the galaxy event as content thats not related in any way to freakin DPS. And I think this is terribly sad for a Star Trek game.
Fair point in relation to your idea. I would have to say personally I don't think the ship swapping thing is really the core issue - with sector space and social hubs well designed and giving plenty of reason to be there, explore and so on, then switching ships in sector space isn't an issue if done right. I can see the believability and immersion issues with switching ships in hostile space, so I would be happy with it limited to a friendly sector or one with some form of hub facility.
I think the sector space and hub facility design is another issue that really needs to be addressed on its own merit. I don't know of an easy fix that doesn't detract from existing features - the overly available transwarp system kind of gimps any attempt to make sector space more appealing, and any move to gimp/remove transwarp is going to draw ire from sectors of the playerbase.
I would agree with you on the diplomatic missions. I've only ever seen one First Contact mission on the several characters I've levelled to Ambassador status, and when I did it I thought it sucked. Empty, linear chat that really made it a non event, and the rewards were pathetic.
Diplomatic investigations aren't much better, with the only exception if you get on a run of half a dozen or so you can quickly zoom between and pick up the 100 diplo exp each. I found them to be not much more than a filler, and a really lame attempt at putting diplomacy into the game. If it wasn't for the fact that they pumped a little diplomatic exp towards my commendation level, I wouldn't have bothered with them, especially when the ones in high level clusters want 20 units of the more expensive commodities and you're forking out tens of thousands of EC each time. This is an aspect of the game that they could do much, much better.
At the moment I'm too tired to think of anything else to say that is meaningful, so I'll leave it there, but in closing I think regardless of what comes from the ship swapping system, sector space really needs some love to make it a vital part of the game again.
As always, just my (mostly coherent) thoughts.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately be explained by stupidity" ~ Robert Heinlein.
Indeed, not much incentive to go on and do any kind of exploring. And the reason is simple, theres not enough variety and the rewards for it simply suck balls. Beyond a few particles and junk cheap equipment, spending time doing any exploration is a complete waste. There was that B'Tran exploring for 1440 dil but it got removed and perhaps once in a blue moon you can get 480 dil out of a random anomaly scan and thats it.
And to think how easy it would be to make it interesting and worthwhile. Out of the top of my head just now, if they would put some random events when in sector space where you would get a distress call from a random system, or an order from command to investigate some random event, or a tip about an alien wreck to be looted at some coordinates, or some Orion Syndicate loot cache to be discovered and so forth and so forth... and they would actually reward interesting stuff beyond "here's a damn plasma sample, now go and have fun with it"... instead you get borg red alerts all the time, and "random" ecounters that you don't even have to engage, just pass by and you'll be fine. Not to mention the systems that are there just for a mission no one will ever do more than once, if ever.
Such a waste. There's so much this game could be and in the end its only all about the new lockbox or the new battlezone (I bet thats what they plan next). I don't mean to say that these are bad, no, but for chrissakes take off the tinted glasses once in a while and add some depth to it all.
Here are the two main camps of players in this game. (Please note the word main. They are not the only camps, I'm sure.) Regardless of which camp you fall in I respect the reasons each person has for playing. I think they're no less valid than the next. (Unless you're one of those people who just play to farm stuff for the sole purpose of selling it for real money. I HATE getting those mail messages "For $X we'll give you this many EC!! Fast transactions!!" Parasites.)
Anyway, me, I'm in the Trekkie camp. As a Mac user, I made a PC partition on my Mac and bought a new copy of Windows, expressly for the sole purpose of playing this game. (Now that we can play it on OSX I have thankfully erased that partition.) If it wasn't for the Trek aspect I would never have gone to that trouble or expense for this game.
The thing about Trekkies is, like die-hard Star Wars fans, they don't just like their IP, they LOVE it. They spend HUGE amounts of money collecting things and going to conventions. An old acquaintance of mine even flies from Australia to Las Vegas every year for the convention. Trekkies are prepared to spend if they feel it provides them with a Trek experience. Trek is a cash cow.
Of late I've felt that the game has been becoming less and less Trek. The ability to transwarp to any mission, sector space becoming more and more useless, the power creep, in my mind they're making the game feel less Trek.
Big deal, some people may say. Fair enough, each to their own. However, as a Trek fan I gave myself a budget of $50-$75 per week for spending on the game. All because I love the Trek experience. Also, due to my career, I have the luxury of playing the game an average of 3-4 hours per day. Sometimes more. This is the sort of commitment that Trekkies can provide. Sure, non-Trekkies may also provide that commitment or more, but being the only Trek game, Trekkies have this or none. They can't jump ship to another Trek game. People who don't care about Trek can jump ship to any other game because they don't have the IP holding them here.
I feel this gives Cryptic a fine line to walk on. Cater too much to the Trekkies and the regular gamers will move on. Neglect the Trekkies and their cash cow's milk will turn sour and they'll lose a group of people known for their ability to spend.
Of late I feel that Cryptic has started to move away from Trek. That has actually reflected on my gameplay style. Over the past month I've spent nothing on the game. This new concept of changing ships in sector space feels like a non-Trek move. People may cite any number of reasons why they feel it is Trek, however as far as my wallet is concerned it's another step away.
Cryptic, you need to give sector space meaning. You need to give us reasons for going in to the vast unknown. You need to give use reason to go back to DS9. You need to start remembering that the bulk of your initial customers were Trekkies. You're failing us at the moment. Things like power creep, reduced usefulness of sector space and non-Fed/non-Klink ships being so much more powerful than everything else are changing this game from Star Trek Online to Generic Space Game Online. When the game goes too far in that direction then my wallet will shut forever.
Defending The Galaxy By Breaking One Starfleet Regulation After The Next.
Someone mentioned Voyager as a reason this can't happen. I, however, /hate/ Voyager. Loved DS9, TNG, TOS, meh about Enterprise. So putting out one of five series as The IP We All Adore is presumptuous.
However, let me paraphrase this--what you're doing by suggesting EC costs to doing things is basically saying "I don't like this new mechanic, and although it's in no way game-breaking or will provide any specific advantage to other players, I still want to stop others from doing it".
Basically, "I want to punish you for playing in a way I don't like." Hampering the game for other players simply because you don't think they should have it.
That's not rational. That's not even-handed. That's authoritarian and egotistical and self-centered and downright mean.
When it gets to the point where a feature has people for and against it, and the feature would help the people who want to use it an not affect the gameplay in the slightest for those who don't, the latter group of people insisting on nerfs or cooldowns or costs or anything else aren't thinking of the game--they're trying to punish the first group. Plain and simple.
You don't like it? Don't use it. Period. If your sense of "immersion" can't abide other people not playing the same way you do, you need to seek help. It's akin to insisting other people put together LEGO only according to the instructions, because you don't like non-LEGO designs.
You don't get to tell other people what they can do, or can like, when you're not in any way involved. RolePlaying is not the way the game was designed, it is an extra layer you yourself added onto the game for your own enjoyment. It is not now something you get to bludgeon other people with. The most--THE MOST--you will be affected is seeing a player in a different ship faster. That's it.
So... because you don't want a visual flicker, the bulk of players should have to suffer cooldowns, queues should have to suffer, they should have to pay penalties? All for your pride and selfishness? How about a big bowl of "no".
This will help casual players. This will help people in fleets. This will help people quickly team up with friends. This will be a MASSIVE boost to PvP (and PvPers will quickly tell you they get little love) because you can switch to your PvP ship in an instant.
So, all of that positive, and the only negative is that you don't like it. Sorry, but maybe you need to deal with it. Don't like it, don't use it. And stop being so concerned with how other people play with their toys.
People are inherently irrational.
I don't see how it is not, as all would still be playing the same way.
As is any rule within a game.
That's not unique to any side of this discussion.
Not hardly.
Which is sad, hopefully one day we get a Star Trek MMO that actually feels like Star Trek. Because if done right, it'd be a force to be reckoned with on the MMO market.
STO should've been what Star Citizen is going to be.
For my immersion brethern, let me ask this... currently we can fast switch ships via the shuttle interior... has this been a big immersion change for anyone? I don't notice when people do this in game.
I haven't seen any posts on the "How" you will switch ships... so isn't it possible that the shuttle change will just be expanded upon? Since there aren't a thousand posts all over the forums about that... then I don't see it as a huge issue.
As far as ESD, or any social zone for that matter... to be honest... the less people the better (in terms of immersion).
Star Trek Online, Now with out the Trek....
You haven't read the entire thread. If you did you'll notice that the reason I'm against it is because it is another in a long trend of moves that is turning sector space in to something that is becoming unused. Once sector space is completely useless they'll remove it from the game. At that point, the game will just become an arcade queue up for a mission game.
To retain Trek they need space. They need it to be useful. How is allowing ship changes in sector space making space useless? Here's how.
--> Currently if you want to do a mission you pay EC and you're there. The space between where you were and where you needed to go is useless.
-->Currently if you want to go to ESD, your starbase or other major points of interest, you transwarp.
-->If you want to do a PvE or PvP mission you queue. No need to travel to any location to do them.
-->With the ability to change ships wherever you are you will no longer need to go to s starbase or other such location. The space in between where you were and the old ship changing location is useless.
Space needs to be made to be more useful. If you read through this post you'd also see how I've provided ideas to make space a more interesting place.
As for telling people how to play, well, you may see it as that. I see it as trying to protect this game from becoming trite. I'm willing to take a hit in the convenience area if it keeps the game stronger. Are you, or is your convenience too important?
Which is just a long-winded repackaging of "People will not play the way I think they should play."
"Needs," "trite" and "strong" are 100% your opinion, devoid of objective facts, and you do not speak for everyone.
It brings the question of how the elements should interact with each other, why they should be there, and if they should be replaced with instant actions or not.
The process is that of removing the need to interact with environmental assets, in favor of instantly accessible menus and buttons. At some point, the environment will turn out to be purely cosmetic, if we think of this as a trend. And that is what I'm thinking.
---
This entire thread is full of opinions. Or are the words you're delivering sent from high holy above and are such sublime truths that we're meant to feel privileged and enlightened for having been blessed with them?
What purpose does that statement serve? Aside from it being a totally baseless generalization, it is neither an affirmation nor denial of merit.
That is a logical fallacy. Just because it's equal, doesn't mean it's fair.
No, that's not the point being made. The point is that it's authoritarian to needlessly impose the will of one group over the other.
That's wrong. It's like opposing the addition of chocolate pudding to the cafeteria menu because you don't like chocolate and then saying people that want chocolate are equally egotistical. That's another fallacy.
Well, the definition of "mean" is "to be inconsiderate and harsh." I think that sums up the majority of arguments against the new feature since many of them use the word "lazy" to describe the people whom support it. I think "condescending" applies too. There's a general sense of indignation coming from the opponents of the feature towards the proponents of the feature.
You, in particular, have been condescending, opinionated, and dismissive.
There's a difference when someone tries to present their opinions as fact.
"I'm just trying to prevent the game from becoming trite." - Sorry, no. One person does not dictate the terms for "trite" for everyone else in this context, and whether or not this particular function satisfied those terms is also a matter of opinion.
The honest way to phrase that is "I personally feel this feature will make the game grow trite, and I personally feel that doing XYZ will prevent that."
But it's less fun to acknowledge when you're trying to pretend your opinions are more important than everyone else's.
The first is the only one that is valid, and the only one I'll reply to. We do not now play the same way--if you are concerned with immersion, you are not playing the way I am. The difference is this change would not force you to play in a different way, nor would it give me an advantage over you in any way. The point is not that we all "play the same way" (last I checked all elements of endgame are optional and some of us do not access any of certain subsystems), the point is that we all "have the same opportunities". This would not create an opportunity that you cannot access, therefor it is not influencing how you play.
This criticism, BTW, is little more than an appeal to tradition. The same argument could be leveled against any change, and be equally illogical in all cases. The game must evolve, and become better, to retain players, to maintain financial viability. Those that resist any an all change are the weights that drag games into oblivion.
As for it being mean, ego-centric, and pedantic? No, it really is. It is insisting that you cannot play the same way because other people might do things differently. It is indistinguishable from "But Johnny got SIX pink marshmallows and I only got FIVE."
All forty pages? No, no I have not. I read about seven before replying. Because I saw the same arguments, from the same people, repeated over and over.
Which is it, Sector Space or Spacedocks that are becoming useless? Because that's what I was replying to. I'm all for adding things that can only happen in Sector Space (and Exploration Clusters, Doff Missions, Red Alerts don't count?). I was upset that they killed/nerfed The Race, and now few if any do the Tour, for precisely that reason--it was something to do in all that pretty open space. I'm all for additions to Sector Space--small sub-missions that pop up randomly like the static ones in Dyson, level-matched Enemy Encounters, etc, etc--expanding/unifying the Exploration Clusters to the whole of space. I'd also like to see the inter-block walls go away, as that would truly help immersion--just keep the same regions and Doffs and Zones, and allow people to pass smoothly between them. I'd be all for ADDING TO THE GAME--but what people here are doing is resisting anything at all be added.
And I fail to see how the ability to swap out ships in sector space is making sector space useless. Either it's making non-sector-space (Stardocks) useless, or sector space--it can't be both. What this will do is reduce TransWarp Spam and let people go out and do stuff in Sector Space they wouldn't normally, and quickly hop to PvE or PvP or team/fleet content--it will ENCOURAGE Sector Space travel.
You're concerned they're going to remove "space" from a "space MMO". Riiiight...
All of these are already happening. This change won't affect any of that, and so these points are irrelevant (to the discussion of Ship Swapping, not to the uselessness of Sector Space, which is a separate (and valid, mind you, just separate) argument entirely).
This does not prove that Ship Swapping will MAKE Sector Space useless, but that Sector Space is already useless by your definition. So this changes nothing.
Awesome--I'm all for new ideas! But that is a separate problem, and that is unrelated to the topic at hand.
You've failed to make a positive defense of your stance. Sector Space becoming useless is a problem--I didn't know DS9 used to be where you had to be to queue for Omega PvE queues. But it is entirely irrelevant and unrelated to this change. Your princess is in another castle.
Does this make more people prone to play more? Some say this will "ruin immersion" for them, but these people are already playing the game in a different way than intended. In reality, this won't affect them at all. Demanding other people don't do things a certain way, when it in no way affects you, is pedantry. That sentiment is selfish, and childish, and short-sighted. There is a clear benefit to many players who want and will use this functionality, and zero detriment to those who don't want to. If "convenience" gets more people playing more content with more people, more PvP and PvE and faster access to content, then it's a great thing for the game.
I'm not arguing that Sector Space is becoming empty and useless. But, as I said when the same complaint was leveled against Stardocks getting less use, this is a separate problem. By all means, shore up more ways to use the content. I'd be all for adding enough to the game that just flying around in Space is enough to actually play the game. That's great.
But that's in no way affected by this, is in no way linked or a result of this. You clearly stated this was already the case, and so this cannot be the cause. Forcing people to be inconvenienced merely for tradition is not going to encourage more players or more profit, it will instead end the game quicker. And an appeal to tradition is classified as a logical fallacy for a reason--it's logically indefensible.
Think of the MMO as an entity with organs and veins, there is a flow, and there is operational centers, so to speak. This is like redirecting the flow, and hope for the best. Do that enough times, and some of the organs die. Those that were dependent on them, for some reason or another, feel rejected, and the whole ends up with one less part. Not sure that makes us greater. Lighter, certainly. :P
---
Nuh-uh.
Let's use golf as an analogy. If, I'm playing with a group who is using "winter rules", but I insist on using traditional rules, then my golfing experience is effected. Granted, the experience of the others is also effected, but my preferred style of play is no less valid than theirs.
To further use golf as an analogy, this game had the potential to be a fully landscaped 18 hole golf course, but PWE has chosen to construct a shabby miniature-golf course. Where one could have played long fairways and layups, we're left with a quick game of putting.
That is the crux of the issue here. Taking what is obviously a sentiment of "Give people options and they might choose wrong! I refuse to tolerate that!" and trying to portray it as something less selfish and petty, like "This will deteriorate the game." You're not fooling anyone.
Um, no, I'm suggesting this because "doing things with EC (and dil)" is already the way of the game and it will be realistically costly to change to another ship in mid-nowhere. Same as with the transwarp to mission costs. It's already there. This IS rational. And fair. Logistics cost.
I'm in no way against it. I need to change ships quickly myself. Thats what people want, thats what they should get. People want a lot of stuff... is it all free and entirely convenient? Well bummer cause it's not.
And in the end, this will hurt very, very, very little. Simply be near a spacedock and it will cost very little to 0.
Very well put and very true as well. You've made some very valid points here.
I also feel that this game is getting a bit less and less Trek by the day and the direction STO has taken lately does not encourage me in the slightest about the future. Without the Star Trek part, it's just a generic space MMO with so many issues and bugs that it couldn't survive.
I'll bet you anything that if you take out the Trek part, a year later STO will close shop.
No, sorry. I wasn't addressing the issue of ship swapping. I was addressing the validity of preference.
Apparently I fooled you.
You don't gain yourself anything by dressing it up as a "preference," either, and as I explained, your analogy was at best inaccurate, at worst dishonest.
No one is saying you don't have a right to your opinions. What's being rejected here are the continued, dogged attempts to frame a painfully obvious desire to limit people to the preferences of a few as a way to preserve what's best for the game. Your issue is with free will, and you're not going to win people over by advocating for things that influence/manipulate/pressure them into visiting places you deem valuable. Give everyone both options, and if nobody chooses yours, tough noogies. The game will not be ruined, and life will go on.