How many episodes of Star Trek, any series, happened when our heroes were travelling to somewhere else?
The journeys to places are part of Star Trek, as much as the arriving.
Point of order. We saw those journeys where something noteworthy happens. We never had to watch the bridge crew yawn and scratch their @sses for an hour, which is basically what the people opposed to sector space ship changes are arguing for.
Point of order. We saw those journeys where something noteworthy happens. We never had to watch the bridge crew yawn and scratch their @sses for an hour, which is basically what the people opposed to sector space ship changes are arguing for.
No, its not. Please try to actually read what is written.
Speaking for myself i want far more happening in sector space.
I'm not even arguing against the proposed change.
I'm just suggesting that, with one relatively minor tweak, we can preserve the possibility of sector space becoming something interesting.
Point of order. We saw those journeys where something noteworthy happens. We never had to watch the bridge crew yawn and scratch their @sses for an hour, which is basically what the people opposed to sector space ship changes are arguing for.
You nailed it. We are arguing for Sim Trek here, without anachronistic toilet types. Those goes into the C-Store.
Ship loadout save/load functionality should have been a part of STO from the get-go. Its absence was a gross omission. And one I'm happy to say they're finally rectifying.
Ship loadout save/load functionality has always been a part of EvE Online too, for instance; and when I found it missing here, I was highly surprised. EvE Online even allows you to buy multiple copies of the same ship: STO, for some bizarre reason, does not. As a result, ship loadout save/load functionality makes even more sense: instead of having say, 3, Galors, all fitted differently, STO allows me to possess only 1; so, ship loadout save/load functionality is the logical next step towards variety.
N.B. And Ship loadout save/load functionality will, in the process, also take care of when Cryptic fubarred your tray -- which occurs quite often.
So, let's all embrace the new change!
Eve also charges you 130 bucks a year to play. They have no real ship control, just a point and click system. You can go from one side of the galaxy to the other just by setting a course and clicking go. After that, you can leave and go to work, do some shopping, come back, and there you are, right where you wanted to be, and the game did all the work for you. And that's exactly why I don't play it anymore. The combat is all auto-fire, and no ability to take control of your own ship. You have the options to approach the target, orbit it, and choose a distance. How is that is any way fun? Eve is actually very close to being battlestar galactica online, just with slightly better graphics and different ships, but even bsgo allows you to control your ship.
And that's what sto is turning into, and that's why I'll end up quitting it too. I really don't understand why anyone would get on a play a game if they didn't want to have to do some sort of work for the things they want. What's the point of playing a game if you can just sit back and let it play itself?
I have. For example, those posts characterizing anyone who doesn't want to creep through sector space as "lazy." :rolleyes:
I'm just suggesting that, with one relatively minor tweak, we can preserve the possibility of sector space becoming something interesting.
As long as "something interesting" doesn't become "something everyone must put up with to 'prove' they deserve to arrive at their destination." Unless there are new missions and rewards added, there is no inherent value in that travel time for me.
I really don't understand why anyone would get on a play a game if they didn't want to have to do some sort of work for the things they want. What's the point of playing a game if you can just sit back and let it play itself?
Another one. :rolleyes:
Look, no matter how many of you insist it were otherwise, "arriving at destination" isn't some kind of amazing reward to be earned, and watching your ship creep across sector space is not some kind of diligent labor in need of recognition. It's a tedious mechanic that adds no real value to the experience unless you, personally, choose to see some value in it. If you do, that's fine, but understand that your choice to see something worthwhile in it does not set those terms for everyone else. We are not "lazy" or "cheating" because we reject someone's notions of "immersion" by way of sector travel for the sake of itself.
Look, no matter how many of you insist it were otherwise, "arriving at destination" isn't some kind of amazing reward to be earned, and watching your ship creep across sector space is not some kind of diligent labor in need of recognition. It's a tedious mechanic that adds no real value to the experience unless you, personally, choose to see some value in it. If you do, that's fine, but understand that your choice to see something worthwhile in it does not set those terms for everyone else. We are not "lazy" or "cheating" because we reject someone's notions of "immersion" by way of sector travel for the sake of itself.
The reward lies in being seen. And to be able to see others. If that does not feel right, then you have come to the wrong genre. This is about being in an environment with others. An inconvenient truth that no doubt should be bypassed by a click. Or a jump out.
I have. For example, those posts characterizing anyone who doesn't want to creep through sector space as "lazy." :rolleyes:
Hmmmm, except you didn't quote anyone who actually has called people lazy, you quoted me.
You have misrepresented what I'm attempting to communicate.
I am not against the ship swapping mechanism. I merely wish to see it modified.
As long as "something interesting" doesn't become "something everyone must put up with to 'prove' they deserve to arrive at their destination." Unless there are new missions and rewards added, there is no inherent value in that travel time for me.
Why would it? Then it wouldn't be interesting.
I'm looking for genuinely compelloing content that is based on the idea that you're not in Kansas anymore Dorothy.
If, as a Fed, you're zooming around Sirius sector block then ship swapping makes sense. However, if that same Fed is lurking in Qonos then it doesn't.
I also believe we should interpret the concept of friendly starbase generously. Thus, a cross faction home port can class as a friendly starbase.
This means we're looking at maybe two or three sectors where you cant ship swap at will. And, even then, you'd be bordering a friendly sector so it'd still be much faster than what we have now.
However, it would preserve the concept of unfriendly space in the game. Which, in my view, is important both for IP considerations and because it allows the devs room to develop an actually compelling vision of sector space.
Look, no matter how many of you insist it were otherwise, "arriving at destination" isn't some kind of amazing reward to be earned, and watching your ship creep across sector space is not some kind of diligent labor in need of recognition. It's a tedious mechanic that adds no real value to the experience unless you, personally, choose to see some value in it. If you do, that's fine, but understand that your choice to see something worthwhile in it does not set those terms for everyone else. We are not "lazy" or "cheating" because we reject someone's notions of "immersion" by way of sector travel for the sake of itself.
My big things is... no matter how big you build sector space? It will have walls.
Why encourage people to crash their ship into a wall, especially in routine gameplay?
I think good design would be to discourage people from reaching the walls, not leading people towards them.
The reward lies in being seen. And to be able to see others.
Knock yourself out if it gives you joy, but that this is a "reward" is 100% your opinion, and is not shared by everyone.
If that does not feel right, then you have come to the wrong genre.
Again, your opinion. I come to fly my ship into battle and make things blow up real good. That is undeniably a legitimate part of the "genre," and sector space travel adds nothing substantial to it.
This is about being in an environment with others.
You don't decide what this is "about" for everyone else. For me, it's about whatever I decide it's about. My opinion is no less valid than yours, and I'm not trying to stop you from doing it the way you like.
This sounsd like something that's going to be fun and interesting for about 5 minutes. Then it's just going to get highly annoying.
Unless, like I say, you have things to do on your ship and the option to cut straight to a destination by playing a warp rail shooter/deflector mini game.
It would only be boring if ship interiors are boring.
If ship interiors are boring, something is wrong because that's where 3/4ths of Star Trek is set.
Knock yourself out if it gives you joy, but that this is a "reward" is 100% your opinion, and is not shared by everyone.
Again, your opinion. I come to fly my ship into battle and make things blow up real good. That is undeniably a legitimate part of the "genre," and sector space travel adds nothing substantial to it.
You don't decide what this is "about" for everyone else. For me, it's about whatever I decide it's about. My opinion is no less valid than yours, and I'm not trying to stop you from doing it the way you like.
Personally, I would feel more like a special snowflake if people came aboard my ship to do things I came aboard theirs.
And as I've said, it would be a relatively simple matter to have a lower right button that says "Display Ship" and the game would cut to a shot of your ship at warp until you stop it.
And you could play a warp piloting level to move between places faster.
Or you could invite people aboard your ship to do things while you wait.
Again, your opinion. I come to fly my ship into battle and make things blow up real good. That is undeniably a legitimate part of the "genre," and sector space travel adds nothing substantial to it.
You don't decide what this is "about" for everyone else. For me, it's about whatever I decide it's about. My opinion is no less valid than yours, and I'm not trying to stop you from doing it the way you like.
i don't disagree with a word of that.
however, have to tried turning the argument around?
Isn't arguing for ship swapping with absolutely no restrictions merely a mirror of people telling you can't ship swap under any circumstances?
Both sides of the argument have a compelling, for them, argument. They're both equally valid.
Hence the suggested compromise. Both sides have to give up absolutism for a bit, but also both sides get a huge chunk of what they want.
If you really believe the line that "my opinion is no less valid than yours" why are you trying to suggest that other peoples arguments aren't valid?
Thing is, you're right in that there are a lot of different reasons for people to play this game. All of those reasons are valid.
Surely, in that context, we should be looking for solutions that try to not favour one side over the other too much.
In my view, the absolute nature of the proposed change does just that.
What do you need sector space for at this point? You can transwarp to just about every mission you receive for a meager amount of EC.
DOFF missions? Those can be changed to be accessible from ESD/Q'onos/New Romulus/ship interior.
Red Alerts? They're broken more than they work and again, can be changed to be accessible from main locations.
You've said it yourself - "at this point". Like I said before, at this point it's pretty much useless, but it didn't use to be so useless. It became so useless when the devs. made a decision for 'convenience' to kill NPC enouncters instead of improving them and when they decided that it would be more convenient to them to scrap sector space and just give slipstreams, almost free transwarps, chroniton slipstreams and whatnot to the players instead of developing something meaningfull in open space.
One step in the wrong direction, then another, another and slowly but sure we have almost pointless sector space today. That's the point I'm trying to convey here - this change itself is no biggie, but it's yet another step in that same direction. They're walking the path of lesser resistance and instead of making something new, meaningfull and exciting in sector space, they just give us 'one click' shortcuts instead.
And how far will this convenience go? If it continues at this rate we might as well get one big red 'I WIN' button which we press when we log in, everything on the map dies and we get a firework animation with "You rule!" flow text at the end.
What is Star Trek without space? A WoW with different skin? A mod? A failure?
So I did. If you're going on record as conceding that it is not lazy, I will not attribute it to you again.
For the record and gladly.
I do not believe that the desire to ship swap easily is, in any way, shape or form, lazy.
My objection towards the proposed mechanism has nothing to do with suggesting to anyone they're playing the game wrong.
The point of games such as this, is that different people can come to it and find different things to interest them.
Rejected. You are free to abstain from swapping anywhere you want. Don't limit my options to serve your personal, self-important goals.
Now you're just trying to suggest that my arguments aren't as valid as yours.
You have not engaged my argument at all.
Instead, you've merely rejected it without any recourse to the civility you're expecting from others.
So, as someone who isnt wild about the new change, I've tried to imagine how it feels from others points of view and have proposed something accordingly.
What have you done except repeat over and over again what it is that YOU want?
Isn't arguing for ship swapping with absolutely no restrictions merely a mirror of people telling you can't ship swap under any circumstances?
Both sides of the argument have a compelling, for them, argument. They're both equally valid.
No, they are not equivalent. One seeks to deny others an option, and one grants an option that you are free not to use.
Hence the suggested compromise. Both sides have to give up absolutism for a bit, but also both sides get a huge chunk of what they want.
What are you giving up by allowing other people to swap ships in any sector? The ability to make them jump through hoops to suit your preferences? Not equivalent.
If you really believe the line that "my opinion is no less valid than yours" why are you trying to suggest that other peoples arguments aren't valid?
I'm not addressing your validity. I'm saying your opinions may only dictate your actions. I'm not trying to prevent anyone from doing anything, but if you oppose any part of sector space ship swapping, you are trying to prevent people from doing things.
Thing is, you're right in that there are a lot of different reasons for people to play this game. All of those reasons are valid.
Some are probably more valid than others, but that's irrelevant. At issue here is which opinions may constitute an obligation on other people.
Surely, in that context, we should be looking for solutions that try to not favour one side over the other too much.
That compromise is satisfied by "give everyone unlimited sector space swapping, which they are perfectly free to NOT USE if they don't like it."
Limiting that option for everyone favors your side.
The point of games such as this, is that different people can come to it and find different things to interest them.
It's statements like this that are chafing. "THE" point, not "the point for me, as I see it."
The "point" for me is whatever I decide it is, and nobody has any business telling me I'm doing it "wrong".
Now you're just trying to suggest that my arguments aren't as valid as yours.
That had nothing whatsoever to do with validity, and everything to do with my refusal to be limited by your preferences. Not at all the same thing.
You have not engaged my argument at all.
Instead, you've merely rejected it without any recourse to the civility you're expecting from others.
I don't owe your argument "fair" consideration, and I don't need to defend my opposition, because I am not trying to convince you to sacrifice any option or ability in the name of my opinions. Nearly every "compromise" being proposed could be done by individuals of their own free will. There is no need to force everyone to accept the constraints you deem worthy.
And how far will this convenience go? If it continues at this rate we might as well get one big red 'I WIN' button which we press when we log in, everything on the map dies and we get a firework animation with "You rule!" flow text at the end.
Ye gods. How many times will the slippery slope fallacy be attempted before you all finally accept that it proves nothing, demonstrates nothing, and is in no way compelling?
No, they are not equivalent. One seeks to deny others an option, and one grants an option that you are free not to use.
Indeed, ship swapping everywhere denies all players the option of understanding sector space as a medium through which one must travel to reach their destination, ala the shows.
What are you giving up by allowing other people to swap ships in any sector? The ability to make them jump through hoops to suit your preferences? Not equivalent.
What are you giving up by requiring someone to make a single sector space transition, from a tiny minority of sectors, to change ship? Isn't it actually more than what you have now?
I'm not addressing your validity. I'm saying your opinions may only dictate your actions. I'm not trying to prevent anyone from doing anything, but if you oppose any part of sector space ship swapping, you are trying to prevent people from doing things.
Two issues here. First issue is 'what people can do now', second issue is 'what room has the devs left themselves to develop game mechanics in the future'. i know Shpoks has made this very distinction on a number of occasions, as have I. You don't appear to have noticed yet.
Some are probably more valid than others, but that's irrelevant. At issue here is which opinions may constitute an obligation on other people.
Indeed, and you appear to not recognise that the proposed change lays an obligation on everyone, as would the polar opposite. It may be an obligation that you either dont recognise or care about, but its there for them in their own terms.
And, 'some are probably more valid than others'? Really?
Oh dear, didn't Orwell already deal with that with the line 'some are more equal than others'?
Validity is an absolute property. It is either valid or not. Thing is, all our opinions are valid....and yours are not more valid than anyone elses.
That compromise is satisfied by "give everyone unlimited sector space swapping, which they are perfectly free to NOT USE if they don't like it."
Limiting that option for everyone favors your side.
Nope. The compromise thats already been offered is a compromise. what you're suggesting isn't. Because it utterly fails to take into account the second issue detailed above.
Originally Posted by rinkster
The point of games such as this, is that different people can come to it and find different things to interest them.
Originally posted by Hanover
It's statements like this that are chafing. "THE" point, not "the point for me, as I see it."
The "point" for me is whatever I decide it is, and nobody has any business telling me I'm doing it "wrong".
er.........so you're so angry about what I wrote that you changed a few words in order to make a statement that functionally says exactly the same thing, except you explicitally owned the statement?
My apologies, i didn't realise I was required to be as careful as you to use assertive language.
I'm sure, if i scanned this thread, I'd never find any examples of you either being passive agressive or downright aggresive then eh?
The point of an MMO, by definition, is to appeal to as many different types of people as possible.
My opinion of what an MMO is not required in order to state that truth.
So, relax a little bit, stop getting so angry and try to imagine what this change means to people who don't like it, instead of harping on about what you want.
Indeed, ship swapping everywhere denies all players the option of understanding sector space as a medium through which one must travel to reach their destination, ala the shows.
No, it doesn't, because they are still free to fly through sector space if they want. If you were honest, you'd admit what you really want is forcing them to "experience" sector space.
What are you giving up by requiring someone to make a single sector space transition, from a tiny minority of sectors, to change ship?
Versus the proposed change, I'd be giving up the ability to swap ships where I want, when I want. Don't get pedantic with me. We're discussing an upcoming change and have been since the beginning. None of these paranoid fantasies outside that scope have any merit.
Two issues here. First issue is 'what people can do now', second issue is 'what room has the devs left themselves to develop game mechanics in the future'.
Unless sector space is being removed with this patch, your concern that there will be no room for development in sector space has no factual basis. It's just fear-mongering to make your opposition sound more compelling.
Indeed, and you appear to not recognise that the proposed change lays an obligation on everyone, as would the polar opposite.
The "obligation" to let people do things you don't like is not nearly the imposition on you that the "obligaton" to continue traveling through sector space would impose on others.
It may be an obligation that you either dont recognise or care about, but its there for them in their own terms.
I am not and never was obligated to play in a way that suits your goals of "immersion," "social interaction," or "sector travel as a show of devotion to a singular idea of what Trek represents."
And, 'some are probably more valid than others'? Really?
Yes, really. If I cared to evaluate for fallacies and false equivalence, there would definitely be "pass/fail" in this thread.
Nope. The compromise thats already been offered is a compromise. what you're suggesting isn't. Because it utterly fails to take into account the second issue detailed above.
Refusing to let you dictate how I play is not an imposition on you, and saying "OK, I'll only dictate a little bit" is not a comprose.
What do I gain from your compromise? The "benefit" of only being constrained by some of your opinions. The "freedom" to appreciate the game in whatever way you see fit.
Knock yourself out if it gives you joy, but that this is a "reward" is 100% your opinion, and is not shared by everyone.
Again, your opinion. I come to fly my ship into battle and make things blow up real good. That is undeniably a legitimate part of the "genre," and sector space travel adds nothing substantial to it.
You don't decide what this is "about" for everyone else. For me, it's about whatever I decide it's about. My opinion is no less valid than yours, and I'm not trying to stop you from doing it the way you like.
No need to dissect a very short entry. It was not an essay or something. It just looks like you are trying to fragment the sum of its parts, and/or make it harder to reply.
In case you missed it, when it says "MMORPG" on the box, you're in for this kind of thing. Not accepting the nature of the game you're in, and wanting a way out of it, is all we hear about. The product description is not opinion. It is a fact. You want action, and less tedium? Play an action game. It will say action on the box.
You are here as part of a virtual environment provided as a "common playground". That means you will have to interact with something, and have to move somewhere, and that you are expected to be "inconveniently" placed in situations where you can't zap past everything.
If that is tedious, then do yourself a favor and find yourself a single player game. But I am afraid they quite often comes with awkward movement, so would stay clear of anything with "RPG" on the label, if I were you.
And as for deciding what this is about. That was never my decision, Nor was it yours. So I am not telling you to do anything, that isn't on the box already. That's the part you are circumventing here. You are the one not conforming to the format, and want a way out.
I want my format intact, and it is a very reasonable request actually. If we consider that we play some kind of MMORPG. And not an Arcade-MMO, Action-MMO, Insta-Play-MMO, or any other kind of animal that says MOO. Although someone will ask for that too, eventually. :P
So, relax a little bit, stop getting so angry and try to imagine what this change means to people who don't like it, instead of harping on about what you want.
It's nothing difficult to imagine. What I see here are self-important people trying to veto options they don't like, and dishonestly trying to spin it as an imposition on them when someone refuses to let them limit what they can do in the game.
Dress it up and rationalize it all you want, the objections in this thread amount to nothing but "I don't like this so you can't have it, or if you can have it, it must be limited in a way that suits me."
Ye gods. How many times will the slippery slope fallacy be attempted before you all finally accept that it proves nothing, demonstrates nothing, and is in no way compelling?
At least as many times as it takes you to understand that I'm not discussing anything further with you on the topic due to your previosuly shown incapacity for an intelligent discussion.
In case you missed it, when it says "MMORPG" on the box, you're in for this kind of thing.
I am "in for" playing an online game. Nothing about that necessitates actually socializing, or pretending there is some inherent value in sector travel.
Not accepting the nature of the game you're in, and wanting a way out of it, is all we hear about. The product description is not opinion. It is a fact. You want action, and less tedium? Play an action game. It will say action on the box.
Sector space is a minor, peripheral function that doesn't gain you anything. It is not a "way out" of anything substantial. It's just a meaningless animation. Without it, I am still playing an MMORPG, and any "tedium" I accept is because it actually has some reason to exist, and isn't just a symbolic display of appreciation for space travel the way the great Roddenberry intended, or somesuch.
You are here as part of a virtual environment provided as a "common playground". That means you will have to interact with something, and have to move somewhere, and that you are expected to be "inconveniently" placed in situations where you can't zap past everything.
Sometimes it's justified, sometimes it isn't. You would have me see some value in it regardless, and I don't accept that.
If that is tedious, then do yourself a favor and find yourself a single player game.
There is more than enough single-friendly content in this game to negate your implication that loners have no place. Yes, it is technically an MMORPG. No, that doesn't mean I have to interact with other people or travel the way you think I should in order to qualify as the "right" kind of player. Deal with it.
I want my format intact, and it is a very reasonable request actually.
It's still intact, even if people don't play the way you decide is "correct."
No, it doesn't, because they are still free to fly through sector space if they want. If you were honest, you'd admit what you really want is forcing them to "experience" sector space.
Nope, what I was really trying to do was turn the logic of your arument around to demonstrate how it imposes on others, as you have decried those who seek to do it to you.
Versus the proposed change, I'd be giving up the ability to swap ships where I want, when I want. Don't get pedantic with me. We're discussing an upcoming change and have been since the beginning. None of these paranoid fantasies outside that scope have any merit.
'Paranoid' eh? From the person who is apprently chafed by an insufficiently assertively phrased line?
There's basically two possibilities. Cryptic have no intention whatsoever of acting on any feedback whatsoever, or they do.
Your argument is predicated on the former, I'm crossing my fingers for the latter.
Unless sector space is being removed with this patch, your concern that there will be no room for development in sector space has no factual basis. It's just fear-mongering to make your opposition sound more compelling.
Again with the hyperbolic language. Good thing I'm not easily chafed.
One reason for travelling through sector space will be removed, just one. It's not the point.
Point two, as detailed above. You keep conflating the two.
Designating sector space as either friendly or unfriendly gives the devs a basis for a compelling framework for sector space. Making all sector space the same doesn't.
The "obligation" to let people do things you don't like is not nearly the imposition on you that the "obligaton" to continue traveling through sector space would impose on others.
Point two, Hanover. Point two.
I am not and never was obligated to play in a way that suits your goals of "immersion," "social interaction," or "sector travel as a show of devotion to a singular idea of what Trek represents."
No, but at one point, if it is to remain Star Trek Online, you have to encounter a base level of Trekiness that is not optional
Yes, really. If I cared to evaluate for fallacies and false equivalence, there would definitely be "pass/fail" in this thread.
For someone fond of throwing semantic objections at other people this is a little lax of you.
There is no such thing as more or less valid, ther is only valid or not.
Therefore, if you believe someone opinion to be less valid, then it is not valid. While some things in games should be optional for you, you don't get to rewrite the laws of logic to suit you.
They're eiother valid or not. If you think anyone who has an opinion that differs from yours in invalid, why not say it instead of pretending?
Refusing to let you dictate how I play is not an imposition on you, and saying "OK, I'll only dictate a little bit" is not a comprose.
What do I gain from your compromise? The "benefit" of only being constrained by some of your opinions. The "freedom" to appreciate the game in whatever way you see fit.
What do you gain? Nothing. In fact you give up a tiny bit of ground that you don't have yet but have been promised.
This is why its called a compromise.
Appears to me, the only reason you can't see it as a compromise is because you appear to believe that anyone who thinks ship swapping should be limited in any way is wrong.
At least as many times as it takes you to understand that I'm not discussing anything further with you on the topic due to your previosuly shown incapacity for an intelligent discussion.
Agreeing with you, accepting your terms, and allowing false equivalence for the sake of argument are not prerequisites for "intelligent discussion."
Comments
Point of order. We saw those journeys where something noteworthy happens. We never had to watch the bridge crew yawn and scratch their @sses for an hour, which is basically what the people opposed to sector space ship changes are arguing for.
No, its not. Please try to actually read what is written.
Speaking for myself i want far more happening in sector space.
I'm not even arguing against the proposed change.
I'm just suggesting that, with one relatively minor tweak, we can preserve the possibility of sector space becoming something interesting.
You nailed it. We are arguing for Sim Trek here, without anachronistic toilet types. Those goes into the C-Store.
And that is all there is to it. :P
---
Eve also charges you 130 bucks a year to play. They have no real ship control, just a point and click system. You can go from one side of the galaxy to the other just by setting a course and clicking go. After that, you can leave and go to work, do some shopping, come back, and there you are, right where you wanted to be, and the game did all the work for you. And that's exactly why I don't play it anymore. The combat is all auto-fire, and no ability to take control of your own ship. You have the options to approach the target, orbit it, and choose a distance. How is that is any way fun? Eve is actually very close to being battlestar galactica online, just with slightly better graphics and different ships, but even bsgo allows you to control your ship.
And that's what sto is turning into, and that's why I'll end up quitting it too. I really don't understand why anyone would get on a play a game if they didn't want to have to do some sort of work for the things they want. What's the point of playing a game if you can just sit back and let it play itself?
I have. For example, those posts characterizing anyone who doesn't want to creep through sector space as "lazy." :rolleyes:
As long as "something interesting" doesn't become "something everyone must put up with to 'prove' they deserve to arrive at their destination." Unless there are new missions and rewards added, there is no inherent value in that travel time for me.
Another one. :rolleyes:
Look, no matter how many of you insist it were otherwise, "arriving at destination" isn't some kind of amazing reward to be earned, and watching your ship creep across sector space is not some kind of diligent labor in need of recognition. It's a tedious mechanic that adds no real value to the experience unless you, personally, choose to see some value in it. If you do, that's fine, but understand that your choice to see something worthwhile in it does not set those terms for everyone else. We are not "lazy" or "cheating" because we reject someone's notions of "immersion" by way of sector travel for the sake of itself.
The reward lies in being seen. And to be able to see others. If that does not feel right, then you have come to the wrong genre. This is about being in an environment with others. An inconvenient truth that no doubt should be bypassed by a click. Or a jump out.
---
Hmmmm, except you didn't quote anyone who actually has called people lazy, you quoted me.
You have misrepresented what I'm attempting to communicate.
I am not against the ship swapping mechanism. I merely wish to see it modified.
Why would it? Then it wouldn't be interesting.
I'm looking for genuinely compelloing content that is based on the idea that you're not in Kansas anymore Dorothy.
If, as a Fed, you're zooming around Sirius sector block then ship swapping makes sense. However, if that same Fed is lurking in Qonos then it doesn't.
I also believe we should interpret the concept of friendly starbase generously. Thus, a cross faction home port can class as a friendly starbase.
This means we're looking at maybe two or three sectors where you cant ship swap at will. And, even then, you'd be bordering a friendly sector so it'd still be much faster than what we have now.
However, it would preserve the concept of unfriendly space in the game. Which, in my view, is important both for IP considerations and because it allows the devs room to develop an actually compelling vision of sector space.
My big things is... no matter how big you build sector space? It will have walls.
Why encourage people to crash their ship into a wall, especially in routine gameplay?
I think good design would be to discourage people from reaching the walls, not leading people towards them.
Knock yourself out if it gives you joy, but that this is a "reward" is 100% your opinion, and is not shared by everyone.
Again, your opinion. I come to fly my ship into battle and make things blow up real good. That is undeniably a legitimate part of the "genre," and sector space travel adds nothing substantial to it.
You don't decide what this is "about" for everyone else. For me, it's about whatever I decide it's about. My opinion is no less valid than yours, and I'm not trying to stop you from doing it the way you like.
Unless, like I say, you have things to do on your ship and the option to cut straight to a destination by playing a warp rail shooter/deflector mini game.
It would only be boring if ship interiors are boring.
If ship interiors are boring, something is wrong because that's where 3/4ths of Star Trek is set.
So I did. If you're going on record as conceding that it is not lazy, I will not attribute it to you again.
Just don't modify it in a way that is mandatory and/or a drain on resources.
Rejected. You are free to abstain from swapping anywhere you want. Don't limit my options to serve your personal, self-important goals.
Personally, I would feel more like a special snowflake if people came aboard my ship to do things I came aboard theirs.
And as I've said, it would be a relatively simple matter to have a lower right button that says "Display Ship" and the game would cut to a shot of your ship at warp until you stop it.
And you could play a warp piloting level to move between places faster.
Or you could invite people aboard your ship to do things while you wait.
i don't disagree with a word of that.
however, have to tried turning the argument around?
Isn't arguing for ship swapping with absolutely no restrictions merely a mirror of people telling you can't ship swap under any circumstances?
Both sides of the argument have a compelling, for them, argument. They're both equally valid.
Hence the suggested compromise. Both sides have to give up absolutism for a bit, but also both sides get a huge chunk of what they want.
If you really believe the line that "my opinion is no less valid than yours" why are you trying to suggest that other peoples arguments aren't valid?
Thing is, you're right in that there are a lot of different reasons for people to play this game. All of those reasons are valid.
Surely, in that context, we should be looking for solutions that try to not favour one side over the other too much.
In my view, the absolute nature of the proposed change does just that.
However, with a small tweak, it doesn't.
You've said it yourself - "at this point". Like I said before, at this point it's pretty much useless, but it didn't use to be so useless. It became so useless when the devs. made a decision for 'convenience' to kill NPC enouncters instead of improving them and when they decided that it would be more convenient to them to scrap sector space and just give slipstreams, almost free transwarps, chroniton slipstreams and whatnot to the players instead of developing something meaningfull in open space.
One step in the wrong direction, then another, another and slowly but sure we have almost pointless sector space today. That's the point I'm trying to convey here - this change itself is no biggie, but it's yet another step in that same direction. They're walking the path of lesser resistance and instead of making something new, meaningfull and exciting in sector space, they just give us 'one click' shortcuts instead.
And how far will this convenience go? If it continues at this rate we might as well get one big red 'I WIN' button which we press when we log in, everything on the map dies and we get a firework animation with "You rule!" flow text at the end.
What is Star Trek without space? A WoW with different skin? A mod? A failure?
For the record and gladly.
I do not believe that the desire to ship swap easily is, in any way, shape or form, lazy.
My objection towards the proposed mechanism has nothing to do with suggesting to anyone they're playing the game wrong.
The point of games such as this, is that different people can come to it and find different things to interest them.
Now you're just trying to suggest that my arguments aren't as valid as yours.
You have not engaged my argument at all.
Instead, you've merely rejected it without any recourse to the civility you're expecting from others.
So, as someone who isnt wild about the new change, I've tried to imagine how it feels from others points of view and have proposed something accordingly.
What have you done except repeat over and over again what it is that YOU want?
No, they are not equivalent. One seeks to deny others an option, and one grants an option that you are free not to use.
What are you giving up by allowing other people to swap ships in any sector? The ability to make them jump through hoops to suit your preferences? Not equivalent.
I'm not addressing your validity. I'm saying your opinions may only dictate your actions. I'm not trying to prevent anyone from doing anything, but if you oppose any part of sector space ship swapping, you are trying to prevent people from doing things.
Some are probably more valid than others, but that's irrelevant. At issue here is which opinions may constitute an obligation on other people.
That compromise is satisfied by "give everyone unlimited sector space swapping, which they are perfectly free to NOT USE if they don't like it."
Limiting that option for everyone favors your side.
It's statements like this that are chafing. "THE" point, not "the point for me, as I see it."
The "point" for me is whatever I decide it is, and nobody has any business telling me I'm doing it "wrong".
That had nothing whatsoever to do with validity, and everything to do with my refusal to be limited by your preferences. Not at all the same thing.
I don't owe your argument "fair" consideration, and I don't need to defend my opposition, because I am not trying to convince you to sacrifice any option or ability in the name of my opinions. Nearly every "compromise" being proposed could be done by individuals of their own free will. There is no need to force everyone to accept the constraints you deem worthy.
Ye gods. How many times will the slippery slope fallacy be attempted before you all finally accept that it proves nothing, demonstrates nothing, and is in no way compelling?
:rolleyes:
System space is still space, and still Star Trek.
Indeed, ship swapping everywhere denies all players the option of understanding sector space as a medium through which one must travel to reach their destination, ala the shows.
What are you giving up by requiring someone to make a single sector space transition, from a tiny minority of sectors, to change ship? Isn't it actually more than what you have now?
Two issues here. First issue is 'what people can do now', second issue is 'what room has the devs left themselves to develop game mechanics in the future'. i know Shpoks has made this very distinction on a number of occasions, as have I. You don't appear to have noticed yet.
Indeed, and you appear to not recognise that the proposed change lays an obligation on everyone, as would the polar opposite. It may be an obligation that you either dont recognise or care about, but its there for them in their own terms.
And, 'some are probably more valid than others'? Really?
Oh dear, didn't Orwell already deal with that with the line 'some are more equal than others'?
Validity is an absolute property. It is either valid or not. Thing is, all our opinions are valid....and yours are not more valid than anyone elses.
Nope. The compromise thats already been offered is a compromise. what you're suggesting isn't. Because it utterly fails to take into account the second issue detailed above.
er.........so you're so angry about what I wrote that you changed a few words in order to make a statement that functionally says exactly the same thing, except you explicitally owned the statement?
My apologies, i didn't realise I was required to be as careful as you to use assertive language.
I'm sure, if i scanned this thread, I'd never find any examples of you either being passive agressive or downright aggresive then eh?
The point of an MMO, by definition, is to appeal to as many different types of people as possible.
My opinion of what an MMO is not required in order to state that truth.
So, relax a little bit, stop getting so angry and try to imagine what this change means to people who don't like it, instead of harping on about what you want.
No, it doesn't, because they are still free to fly through sector space if they want. If you were honest, you'd admit what you really want is forcing them to "experience" sector space.
Versus the proposed change, I'd be giving up the ability to swap ships where I want, when I want. Don't get pedantic with me. We're discussing an upcoming change and have been since the beginning. None of these paranoid fantasies outside that scope have any merit.
Unless sector space is being removed with this patch, your concern that there will be no room for development in sector space has no factual basis. It's just fear-mongering to make your opposition sound more compelling.
The "obligation" to let people do things you don't like is not nearly the imposition on you that the "obligaton" to continue traveling through sector space would impose on others.
I am not and never was obligated to play in a way that suits your goals of "immersion," "social interaction," or "sector travel as a show of devotion to a singular idea of what Trek represents."
Yes, really. If I cared to evaluate for fallacies and false equivalence, there would definitely be "pass/fail" in this thread.
Refusing to let you dictate how I play is not an imposition on you, and saying "OK, I'll only dictate a little bit" is not a comprose.
What do I gain from your compromise? The "benefit" of only being constrained by some of your opinions. The "freedom" to appreciate the game in whatever way you see fit.
No need to dissect a very short entry. It was not an essay or something. It just looks like you are trying to fragment the sum of its parts, and/or make it harder to reply.
In case you missed it, when it says "MMORPG" on the box, you're in for this kind of thing. Not accepting the nature of the game you're in, and wanting a way out of it, is all we hear about. The product description is not opinion. It is a fact. You want action, and less tedium? Play an action game. It will say action on the box.
You are here as part of a virtual environment provided as a "common playground". That means you will have to interact with something, and have to move somewhere, and that you are expected to be "inconveniently" placed in situations where you can't zap past everything.
If that is tedious, then do yourself a favor and find yourself a single player game. But I am afraid they quite often comes with awkward movement, so would stay clear of anything with "RPG" on the label, if I were you.
And as for deciding what this is about. That was never my decision, Nor was it yours. So I am not telling you to do anything, that isn't on the box already. That's the part you are circumventing here. You are the one not conforming to the format, and want a way out.
I want my format intact, and it is a very reasonable request actually. If we consider that we play some kind of MMORPG. And not an Arcade-MMO, Action-MMO, Insta-Play-MMO, or any other kind of animal that says MOO. Although someone will ask for that too, eventually. :P
---
It's nothing difficult to imagine. What I see here are self-important people trying to veto options they don't like, and dishonestly trying to spin it as an imposition on them when someone refuses to let them limit what they can do in the game.
Dress it up and rationalize it all you want, the objections in this thread amount to nothing but "I don't like this so you can't have it, or if you can have it, it must be limited in a way that suits me."
At least as many times as it takes you to understand that I'm not discussing anything further with you on the topic due to your previosuly shown incapacity for an intelligent discussion.
I am "in for" playing an online game. Nothing about that necessitates actually socializing, or pretending there is some inherent value in sector travel.
Sector space is a minor, peripheral function that doesn't gain you anything. It is not a "way out" of anything substantial. It's just a meaningless animation. Without it, I am still playing an MMORPG, and any "tedium" I accept is because it actually has some reason to exist, and isn't just a symbolic display of appreciation for space travel the way the great Roddenberry intended, or somesuch.
Sometimes it's justified, sometimes it isn't. You would have me see some value in it regardless, and I don't accept that.
There is more than enough single-friendly content in this game to negate your implication that loners have no place. Yes, it is technically an MMORPG. No, that doesn't mean I have to interact with other people or travel the way you think I should in order to qualify as the "right" kind of player. Deal with it.
It's still intact, even if people don't play the way you decide is "correct."
Nope, what I was really trying to do was turn the logic of your arument around to demonstrate how it imposes on others, as you have decried those who seek to do it to you.
'Paranoid' eh? From the person who is apprently chafed by an insufficiently assertively phrased line?
There's basically two possibilities. Cryptic have no intention whatsoever of acting on any feedback whatsoever, or they do.
Your argument is predicated on the former, I'm crossing my fingers for the latter.
Again with the hyperbolic language. Good thing I'm not easily chafed.
One reason for travelling through sector space will be removed, just one. It's not the point.
Point two, as detailed above. You keep conflating the two.
Designating sector space as either friendly or unfriendly gives the devs a basis for a compelling framework for sector space. Making all sector space the same doesn't.
Point two, Hanover. Point two.
No, but at one point, if it is to remain Star Trek Online, you have to encounter a base level of Trekiness that is not optional
For someone fond of throwing semantic objections at other people this is a little lax of you.
There is no such thing as more or less valid, ther is only valid or not.
Therefore, if you believe someone opinion to be less valid, then it is not valid. While some things in games should be optional for you, you don't get to rewrite the laws of logic to suit you.
They're eiother valid or not. If you think anyone who has an opinion that differs from yours in invalid, why not say it instead of pretending?
What do you gain? Nothing. In fact you give up a tiny bit of ground that you don't have yet but have been promised.
This is why its called a compromise.
Appears to me, the only reason you can't see it as a compromise is because you appear to believe that anyone who thinks ship swapping should be limited in any way is wrong.
Agreeing with you, accepting your terms, and allowing false equivalence for the sake of argument are not prerequisites for "intelligent discussion."
lol
yeah, will you stop doing that Hanover.
Point two. Stop conflating it with point one.
And stop trying to tell us that validity is analogue.