Sector space would be made much more useful if there were some actual game content to actually do there. Changing ships/builds in sector space doesn't lend anything to it IMO.
Changing ships in sector space may mean that people might do content added to it more often because they don't need to run to a starbase to get the ship they want to use for it.
Plus, to be blunt, adding this feature makes sector space more useful than it is now, even if there's not much to do it in. The most useful thing about sector space I've seen is the ability to buy cheaper high end commodities. And yes I'm someone who doesn't mind flying around sector space saying this. Sometimes that's all I do when I play.
What is Star Trek without space? A WoW with different skin? A mod? A failure?
Drama much? LOL. There's still plenty of space left, silly; just not all that much useful sector space. Which is, IMHO, a waste of, erm, space to begin with!
Seriously, there's realism, and there's just plain tedium. There's nothing immersive about my endless, long trips to the B'Tran cluster, and back. Those were just boring and needlessly time-consuming.
So, kudos on the devs for making more and more transwarp points available!
And the same goes for you as for the nay-sayers to the in-space ship changing feature: if you don't want to use transwarps, don't. Easy-peasy.
As thing stand......
Those who like status quo get 100% of what they want
Those who want to swap ships get 0%.
If the change is actioned as currently understood....
Those who like status quo get 0% of what they want
Those who want to swap ships get 100%
I've suggested a minor change where swapping ships is limited to sectors where you have a friendly starbase. Interpreted generously, this means there are very few sectors, mostly less well used, where ship swapping wouldnt happen.
Those who like status quo get, maybe, 5-10% of what they want.
Those who want to ship swap get 90-95% of what they want.
The compromise solution does one other thing, which I think is most important.
It preserves the idea of sector space which is out of range of support. Essentially, that sense of frontier.
Ship swapping is a sort of breach of the fourth wall, but imo justified in friendly space in the name of ease of play.
However, in those few, distant, not well travelled sectors where there are no friendly bases preserving that fourth wall is important to a definite subset of players.
A subset of players who have as much right to have their concerns met by Cryptic as anyone else.
Throw us this tiny bone, leave us the possibility of a part of the game where there is still a sense of a final frontier.
The idea of only swapping in a sector near a base seems reasonable and still convenient.
Regarding people who don't want to swap in sector space, as it's been brought up lots of times already, they can still take their time and dock and meet the ship selector officer. I don't see how this changes anything for them.
Drama much? LOL. There's still plenty of space left, silly; just not all that much useful sector space. Which is, IMHO, a waste of, erm, space to begin with!
Seriously, there's realism, and there's just plain tedium. There's nothing immersive about my endless, long trips to the B'Tran cluster, and back. Those were just boring and needlessly time-consuming.
So, kudos on the devs for making more and more transwarp points available!
If you read my posts in this thread, than you know that that is exactly the essence of what I'm talking about here.
Sector space is not usefull. It has been more usefull in the past albeit not really much, but one by one, seemingly minor changes like this one have lead to sector space being nothing short of a time-waster. (if you can actually even call it that since we can *poof* pretty much anywhere with magic and if we don't *poof*, we can circumnavigate the cosmos in around 7 minutes)
What I'm saying is - this change by itself is no biggie, but we must finally take a look at the bigger picture of what's going on here. One after another decisions for convenience are being made, regardless if it's palyer or developer convenience. They have pretty much taken away any use for sector space, you've said it yourself, what happens when they decide it's more convenient for them not to invest efforts in improving sector space and just scrap it?
And the same goes for you as for the nay-sayers to the in-space ship changing feature: if you don't want to use transwarps, don't. Easy-peasy.
No, it's not "easy-peasy". I couldn't care less in a negative or a positive manner about this change. I don't see it as the sum of all evil, nor a necessity that was 'to die for'.
What I'm concerned about is what it represents - another step down the road of making STO feel less and less Trek. Like I said a few sentences before, what happens if they decide it's convenient to scrap sector space? Then we'll all have to use transwarps regardless of wanting it or not, because there will be no open space.
I did not wish to reply till I had tried this to see how it looks and I must say after trying it on tribble it is nicely done.
to my mind it is no different in appearance then using transwarp to reach a destination quickly.
if you did not have transwarp you would need to fly to each destination and this takes up valuable play time so its a necessary evil sometimes with the cooldown but if you time it right you can keep it to a minimum.
I see the shipswap no differently, if you used to want a ship change for any reason you would need to fly to a shipyard to make the change, now when you select the ship you want your current ship quickly warps off to the nearest shipyard and your new ship warps back to where you are, this is the appearance I got from the visuals involved in the swap.
I also found the ship layout save to be very good, even if you only have one layout saved, you can set up your bridge officers and consumables ect how you like them save the setting then whenever you swap ships you can just load your set up and it will load in your set up and it will swap in as many of the consumables as it can if available to match what you had when you saved the setup.
I will still enjoy an occasional visit to a shipyard when setting up new weapons and such I might have picked up from drops or via rep rewards and such but it will cut the visits down to an essential minimum giving me more time to concentrate on play.
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
What I'm concerned about is what it represents - another step down the road of making STO feel less and less Trek. Like I said a few sentences before, what happens if they decide it's convenient to scrap sector space? Then we'll all have to use transwarps regardless of wanting it or not, because there will be no open space.
I should not worry too much that this might happen, there are just too many star systems that you can visit to make a transwarp for every one of them.
sure they might put a transwarp destination within each sector I see this is as just a natural progression that you would follow irl to make your trips as quick as possible but you will still need to travel within that sector to get to the final destination you wish to go to.
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
Both are relevant to the posts I was responding to, which are also relevant to the discussion. You're the one missing the point being addressed.
I'm pointing out that people are not thinking about how this doesn't mean anything bad for sector space and could actual be more beneficial than leaving it out if people spent more than 5 minutes thinking about it. So no, your points are more proving my point and less about any real discussuion around this.
If the change is actioned as currently understood....
Those who like status quo get 0% of what they want
Those who want to swap ships get 100%
Given that the "nay" section will be no less able to continue visiting starbases to change ships, if they see things as you describe there, "what they want" must be the ability to restrict other peoples' options. Otherwise, they're not "losing" anything.
The compromise solution does one other thing, which I think is most important.
Once again, that is not a compromise. That's "We'll only impose our will on you a little bit, and you should be grateful."
A subset of players who have as much right to have their concerns met by Cryptic as anyone else.
Until they completely remove sector space, your concerns are already met. If your satisfaction requires forcing someone else's participation, then your position is unreasonable.
Given that the "nay" section will be no less able to continue visiting starbases to change ships, if they see things as you describe there, "what they want" must be the ability to restrict other peoples' options. Otherwise, they're not "losing" anything.
Or you could look at it from the perspective that player concerns need to be addressed before instigating a change that could affect the game for many players. Making a change and then having to make changes to that change has been a big issue for the player base in the past.
From reading your past responses you may say things like I'm dictating how you play, that I can always continue going to starbases, etc, etc, however such a response would sound like "I'm getting what I want so to hell with everyone else." I would suggest that people be content with the status quo until this is looked in to a little further. And those who complain about the status quo in regards to changing ships in sector space, well, it's been like that for how many years and you've kept playing. I'm sure you'd be able to be grown ups and tolerate it a little longer.
To the devs, you guys don't create this game just so you can play it in the basement. You make, create and change this game for your customer base. Maybe put ideas out there for us to look in to and evaluate rather than just implement stuff. That way we can provide constructive feedback that may make sense instead of polarising the community with changes like this.
To the devs, you guys don't create this game just so you can play it in the basement. You make, create and change this game for your customer base. Maybe put ideas out there for us to look in to and evaluate rather than just implement stuff. That way we can provide constructive feedback that may make sense instead of polarising the community with changes like this.
QFT
This is the underlying issue.
Changes to the game being made apparently consciously without regard to feedback.
The business with the anniversary ship grind is a case in point.
An appalling decision that we only know about because someone leaked it from tribble. No attempt whatsoever from the developers to sound out how the players feel about it, and apparently no desire to accept feedback once its out.
The changes we are discussing in this thread are, on the whole, welcome. However, one part of it, as Darramouss puts it, are polarising.
Simply ignoring how these things polarise players is not how a game thrives.
Or you could look at it from the perspective that player concerns need to be addressed before instigating a change that could affect the game for many players.
All concerns are not equally significant just because some of you like to pretend they are. For example, this imaginary, completely unsupported fear that sector space ship changes will start us down a path that leads to the removal of sector space and ultimately a game of instant gratification button pushes where nobody is able to interact with other human beings. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. It is not rational, not credible, and as such deserves no serious consideration.
From reading your past responses you may say things like I'm dictating how you play, that I can always continue going to starbases, etc, etc, however such a response would sound like "I'm getting what I want so to hell with everyone else."
I'm getting what I want, you lose nothing, and I'm the one being selfish. Nope, sorry. I'm not the one trying to limit the freedom of others in service of my personal views on how a Star Trek RPG should look. THAT'S the selfish contribution here.
For example, this imaginary, completely unsupported fear that sector space ship changes will start us down a path that leads to the removal of sector space and ultimately a game of instant gratification button pushes where nobody is able to interact with other human beings. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. It is not rational, not credible, and as such deserves no serious consideration.
If the "concern" I describe here is all you've got, then you've got nothing. It's completely imaginary, and that sort of worthless "feedback" merits zero consideration. If you've got something more substantial than that, you have failed to articulate it.
What I'm saying is - this change by itself is no biggie, but we must finally take a look at the bigger picture of what's going on here. One after another decisions for convenience are being made, regardless if it's palyer or developer convenience. They have pretty much taken away any use for sector space, you've said it yourself, what happens when they decide it's more convenient for them not to invest efforts in improving sector space and just scrap it?
And what *I* am saying is, is that you're turning your concerns into a huge hyberbole, therefore undercutting the credibility of your own arguments. No, the game isn't DOOOMED!! because they add a transwarp here and there. An no, the game isn't on its way to DOOOM!! because of it either.
And Yoyager had transwarp; hence, transwarp is Trek. Wanna go back to TOS? Okay then, how many times do you actually *see* Kirk fly in sector space? (for longer than 30 seconds, that is). Not much. You know why? Cuz watching space freeze is as boring as watching paint dry.
A good dev recognizes the distinction between tedious, but 'realistic' jobs (like having you endlessly fly thru sector space), and a funtional game mechanic (like transwarp). It's like transwarping to your mission start: it would get old really fast (or slow, LOL, depending on your point of view), if you had to fly all the way over there every time.
As Grand Moff Tarkin once said, "This bickering is pointless!" (Yes, wrong universe, I know... deal with it. :P )
I'm not on Tribble so I haven't seen the new ship swapping, but this whole 'sky is falling' argument over ship swapping being another nail in the coffin of sector space needs to be looked at.
To those on Tribble who have played with the new ship swapping, a few questions:
1. What changes have been made to sector space to accommodate this?
2. Do you find it has significantly affected your pattern of visiting starbases?
3. Do you find it has significantly affected your behaviour in sector space?
These seem to be the three major issues pointed out in the thread - apart from the 'don't tell me how to play' argument, but I'll leave that one in the can.
The fact of the matter is that, from my understanding, no physical changes have been made to the architecture of the game locations (starbases and sector space). So for those who desire to continue using ship selection officers at starbases, nothing has changed.
This feature really has nothing to do with sector space or starbases in terms of its functionality. It is a standalone feature that does nothing but allow you to "change characters" (if you think of each ship as a character you control) without having to zap back to a starbase. On its own it has no effect on sector space or starbases.
What does affect sector space and starbases is how the ship swapping affects player behaviour. To assume that ship swapping is another nail in the coffin is a bit of a stretch, as for this to happen, every player would have to abandon the old way of ship swapping and use the new method. This isn't going to happen. At least some people are going to stick to the old way, at least some of the time.
There is no reason for Cryptic to remove sector space - even if only a few people use it, then it is still useful. Besides, the changes required would basically involve a rewrite of half the game, for what benefit to Cryptic? I may eat my words one day, but at this stage I would say "not going to happen".
To accuse them of consistently dumbing down sector space for the purpose of eventually removing it is a bit of a slippery-slope argument, and there's no way it can be substantiated. Correlation does not equal causation. Just because past changes have diminished sector space's usefulness in some people's eyes, they cannot be used to extrapolate the future of sector space. We don't know what (if anything) Cryptic has planned for sector space.
I don't think Cryptic has any intentions of trying to kill sector space or starbases with this feature. To me it's just another little convenience factor, like being able to switch ground costumes whenever. Think of the cries that would arise if everyone had to head to a tailor or zone into their ship and go to their quarters to be able to change clothes. Realistic? Yes, but utterly pointless. Those who want to do just that for immersion factor are perfectly free to do so, while others can change where they want. Both players have the ability to do it their way, and neither of them infringes on the gameplay of the other. Sector space ship changing is exactly the same.
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.
And what *I* am saying is, is that you're turning your concerns into a huge hyberbole, therefore undercutting the credibility of your own arguments. No, the game isn't DOOOMED!! because they add a transwarp here and there. An no, the game isn't on its way to DOOOM!! because of it either.
For starters, you can begin by stop trying to put words into my mouth. That is undercutting your credibility, or what's left of it by now because of your attempts of a discussion with me without reading my posts and points in the thread and based on assumptions and conclusions you pulled out of thin air.
FYI, I specifically said already in another post that, I quote, "I don't think the game is DOOOMED!", which have you actually read the discussion here, you would've known.
My arguments are at least as valid as yours or Cryptic's next customer. I like the product, I buy the product and you'll bet I will speak on what I think is decreasing the value of that product.
The game might not be doomed even if they completely remove sector space, but it'll sure make it doomed for me because I won't play it then. So I have every right to argue against something I believe is problematic and could lead to ending my STO experience.
And Yoyager had transwarp; hence, transwarp is Trek. Wanna go back to TOS? Okay then, how many times do you actually *see* Kirk fly in sector space? (for longer than 30 seconds, that is). Not much. You know why? Cuz watching space freeze is as boring as watching paint dry.
Subjective. What is boring for you might be fun for someone else. But that's beyond the point, we've said it a milion times in the thread that adding value to sector space is what we want, so it wouldn't be boring.
A good dev recognizes the distinction between tedious, but 'realistic' jobs (like having you endlessly fly thru sector space), and a funtional game mechanic (like transwarp). It's like transwarping to your mission start: it would get old really fast (or slow, LOL, depending on your point of view), if you had to fly all the way over there every time.
And this is what we're discussing here, adding more stuff that will bring value to sector space. You know, make it fun and exciting instead of scrapping it altogether cause it's just easier not to bother? Or would you prefer they put us all in a room with buttons and we just one click for anywhere we want to go and anything we want to do?
For example, this imaginary, completely unsupported fear that sector space ship changes will start us down a path that leads to the removal of sector space and ultimately a game of instant gratification button pushes where nobody is able to interact with other human beings. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. It is not rational, not credible, and as such deserves no serious consideration.
If the "concern" I describe here is all you've got, then you've got nothing. It's completely imaginary, and that sort of worthless "feedback" merits zero consideration. If you've got something more substantial than that, you have failed to articulate it.
The position has been articulated countless times, Hanover.
Point two, sir, point two.
The failure, if there actually is one, is apparently one of comprehension.
-This feature really has nothing to do with sector space or starbases in terms of its functionality. It is a standalone feature that does nothing but allow you to "change characters" (if you think of each ship as a character you control) without having to zap back to a starbase. On its own it has no effect on sector space or starbases.
In many ways i agree with this, but there is one point of contention.
While, in gameplay mechanistic terms, it can be considered standalone, there are dimensions where it is intrinsic to other concepts.
The primary concept, for me, is that sector space as things stand impose a sense of distance on the players.
That sense of distance is, again for me, an important part of Star Trek. While things certainly happened in home space in the shows, many if not most happens when the ship is 3 days away from help or so.....
For me, and i think a few other posters in the thread, this sense is important. Part of why we play the game and, indeed, spend money on it.
The new mechanism however is an important thing to another sector of the player base. And I do understand that, for those who get something different from the game to me, this could be so.
Their desires are no more or less valid than my own, as regards the game.
I've argued, consistently, for a specific and limited restriction on just the ship swapping.
Because what I want is for my desire for a star trek game as I understand it to be recognised by the developers. Because if we have an idea of sector space, built into the game, that divides space into friendly and unfriendly then we have a dynamic that can be built on in the future.
As things stand, the proposed mechanism is polarising. And both sides of that polar divide are justified in their own terms.
Finally, i do have one fear about this.
If we do get that delta quadrant expansion, will the game mechanic of ship swapping work there too?
Because, even a game at one point has to honour its IP. At one point the devs must ask themselves, 'if this actually Trekky enough?'
The position has been articulated countless times, Hanover.
Yet it still hasn't sunk in. And enough with your "point 2" TRIBBLE. If you've got something to say, state it explicitly.
The fact that someone doesn't agree about how the game "should" be played, doesn't take the fear-mongering predictions as a given, does not mean they don't "understand" you.
In many ways i agree with this, but there is one point of contention.
While, in gameplay mechanistic terms, it can be considered standalone, there are dimensions where it is intrinsic to other concepts.
The primary concept, for me, is that sector space as things stand impose a sense of distance on the players.
That sense of distance is, again for me, an important part of Star Trek. While things certainly happened in home space in the shows, many if not most happens when the ship is 3 days away from help or so.....
For me, and i think a few other posters in the thread, this sense is important. Part of why we play the game and, indeed, spend money on it.
The new mechanism however is an important thing to another sector of the player base. And I do understand that, for those who get something different from the game to me, this could be so.
Their desires are no more or less valid than my own, as regards the game.
I've argued, consistently, for a specific and limited restriction on just the ship swapping.
Because what I want is for my desire for a star trek game as I understand it to be recognised by the developers. Because if we have an idea of sector space, built into the game, that divides space into friendly and unfriendly then we have a dynamic that can be built on in the future.
As things stand, the proposed mechanism is polarising. And both sides of that polar divide are justified in their own terms.
Finally, i do have one fear about this.
If we do get that delta quadrant expansion, will the game mechanic of ship swapping work there too?
Because, even a game at one point has to honour its IP. At one point the devs must ask themselves, 'if this actually Trekky enough?'
That point - the concept of distance - I think is a fair one from the point of view of 'Trek-ness', or realism or immersion. I wouldn't have a problem with it only being available in either friendly sectors or sectors with a starbase. Others may disagree, and you could argue that, for an individual player, the option still exists to only choose ship swapping in an 'eligible' sector. Either way, it wouldn't worry me.
As for the Delta Quadrant, well Cryptic have kind of gimped themselves there a little by offering such easy access to and from the Dyson Sphere. If the sphere is somewhere in the Delta Quadrant, then we can already transwarp to either Allied command or our Fleet spire.
The other gimping factor comes from the Iconian gateways. If, as is indicated in Sphere of Influence, we do activate all the gateways, then it stands to reason at least one of them comes out somewhere in the Delta Quadrant... We already use a gateway to get to the sphere, so it's not much of a stretch for Cryptic to conveniently add in another gateway to zap us halfway across the galaxy. If we can do it, who's to say our other ships can't do the same thing? So these both potentially diminish the sense of distance in any potential Delta Quadrant expansion. I don't know how that would affect ship swapping there.
As always, just my thoughts.
EDIT:
Strangely, as I thought about the topic, it reminded me of the movie Chocolat. For those who haven't seen it, a young woman moves into a town and sets up a chocolate shop right around the time of Lent. She meets a lot of opposition, especially from the local priest, who really vilifies her and assassinates her character. The irony of it is at the end of the movie the priest has a fit and breaks into the shop, and ends up gorging himself.
It seems that half of his problem was being unable to withstand the temptation set before him. I wonder how this relates to the temptation to use sector space ship swaps upon those who prefer immersion...
"It's right there... All I have to do is press that button... No... Mustn't! Need to get to a starbase... but the button is just there! Aargh! Damn you Cryptic! Damn you for tempting me!"
Just a random, incoherent and tongue-in-cheek thought.
Somewhere on the wrong side of insanity.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately be explained by stupidity" ~ Robert Heinlein.
I've argued, consistently, for a specific and limited restriction on just the ship swapping.
And that's where you lose me. What you propose is nothing more than a punishment for using a mechanic you don't like.
Because what I want is for my desire for a star trek game as I understand it to be recognised by the developers.
In a way that affects other players. It's not just recognition you seek. You want "recognition" demonstrated through a restriction of options available to other people. I don't know why people keep trying to put a prettier face on that, instead of just being honest.
Because, even a game at one point has to honour its IP. At one point the devs must ask themselves, 'if this actually Trekky enough?'
Then give me a post number. And it BETTER NOT be something I've already responded to.
As far as i can tell, you're just trolling the thread now, banging on about the same straw man instead of engaging with whats actually been written.
What's "actually been written" is deluded paranoia with no basis in fact, combined with people appointing themselves arbiters of what qualifies as Trek purism and presuming to dictate how others may play the game on that basis. That's not a straw man. That's an accurate portrayal that ignores the attempts to rationalize your motivations.
You want what you want. you don't see the value in what other people want, therefore they are gving nothing up by giving you everything you want.
Your position is crystal clear.
If it were clear to you, you wouldn't be claiming I see no value in what other people want. I'm saying it doesn't matter whether I value it or not, because I am not seeking to interfere with you playing the game as you see fit. You can travel at warp 1 to social meetups at Drozana every day for all I care. If what you want is to restrict my options, then it is you who does not value what I want.
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.
Point two, as detailed above. You keep conflating the two.
Is this it? Is this the precious "point 2" you keep harping on? That you're hoping they act on your feedback? That is not a response or a refutation to anything I've said. It's basically just saying "Shut up and let me blather on until the devs listen to me."
If it were clear to you, you wouldn't be claiming I see no value in what other people want. I'm saying it doesn't matter whether I value it or not, because I am not seeking to interfere with you playing the game as you see fit.
Ok, one last try at point two for you.
The error you're making is only seeing these sort of mechanistic changes in terms of game mechanics.
I get that, for some, the mechanics have not been ideal. Hence the proposal from the devs in the first place.
However, point two, way way back, was about how a mechanistic change also effects less quantifiable, more nebulous concepts.
This game is Star Trek. yes, its an MMO as well, but its also Star Trek. This IP brings with it a bunch of core concepts that define mechanisms and labels, so we have transporters, not teleporters. Phasers, not space lasers.
In other words, there is a hard to define minimum level of Trek required.
It's hard to define because the line shifts from individual to individual.
We're talking not game mechanics here but ideas, concepts of the game and universe it springs from.
Ship swapping cuts across some of those concepts for some people. I think that, on the whole, they have to suck it up because the part of the community that wants it has just a valid right to the game as them.
However, I've argued for a tiny restriction on the mechanism, based on an idea that is canon. The idea that you are out of range. all through the series we have had the idea of friendly space, neutral zones, unfriendly space.
Sector space in the series has characteristics. You can't do some things when you're a long way away from base, things that you can do when you are closer. there are countless examples of this.
Thus, for those who set the bar of trekiness higher than you (by which I mean they set the balance between Trek and game mechanics differently to you) they get a clear signal from the developers that their concerns are heeded.
Those who still want to ship swap wiould be able to ship swap virtually everywhere, and in a very few places have to make a single sector transition.
They'd go through that terrible inconvenience purely to assuage the fears of another part of the community.
And this is the point that you need to understand.
You say that nobody is giving anything up if you get everything you want.
If you restrict your focus to pure game mechanics, you may be right.
However, all games have to be more than just the sum of the parts.
I, and others, are suggesting that something nebulous and important is at stake here. something not easily boiled down to mechanics.
This is point two. Not everything a game needs to be successful is down to mere mechanics. A lot of it is to do with the soul of a game. You may not see that soul in danger, but others do......and their viewpoint is as valid, as correct, as worthy, and as deserving of respect as your position. It is also equally deserving of the devs respect as your position.
"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"
post 48something or other.
Point one. Game mechanics.
Point two. Options for the future and not cutting them off.
The error you're making is only seeing these sort of mechanistic changes in terms of game mechanics.
In other words, in terms of things that actually exist outside peoples' imaginations.
However, point two, way way back, was about how a mechanistic change also effects less quantifiable, more nebulous concepts.
In other words, it affects how you choose to perceive your game play. You have not justified this insistance that others should be in any way constrained by your chosen perceptions.
This game is Star Trek. yes, its an MMO as well, but its also Star Trek. This IP brings with it a bunch of core concepts that define mechanisms and labels, so we have transporters, not teleporters. Phasers, not space lasers.
Circumventing sector space travel does not detract from the integrity of the IP in any substantial way. There are still space ships, and they are still in space. There were never any episodes where they just traveled and nothing interesting happened, and so that sort of visual is in no way necessary to qualify as a genuine Trek game.
In other words, there is a hard to define minimum level of Trek required.
It's hard to define because the line shifts from individual to individual.
So give everyone full options, and let each individual choose how they act upon them. If you disagree, what you're doing is indulging the "Stop having fun the wrong way!" mentality, no matter how you try to spin and rationalize it.
Ship swapping cuts across some of those concepts for some people.
Why should what I do cut across those concepts for you? Can you not enjoy yourself without deciding how others should enjoy themselves?
I think that, on the whole, they have to suck it up because the part of the community that wants it has just a valid right to the game as them.
They are asking for something that does not affect you in any substantial way. Causing you to witness behavior you dislike is not substantial.
However, I've argued for a tiny restriction on the mechanism, based on an idea that is canon. The idea that you are out of range. all through the series we have had the idea of friendly space, neutral zones, unfriendly space.
There are all manner of FTL technologies "in canon" that easily explain how someone could change ships anywhere. And this is a future well after what we saw on-screen, so it's not unreasonable to assume those technologies have advanced. What you want to do is freeze innovation at some "golden" point in history, and I challenge you to explain how opposing innovation is in any way "Trek."
Thus, for those who set the bar of trekiness higher than you (by which I mean they set the balance between Trek and game mechanics differently to you) they get a clear signal from the developers that their concerns are heeded.
Self-entitled demand for attention, then. And "rigid terms not completely supported by canon" <> "setting the bar higher."
They'd go through that terrible inconvenience purely to assuage the fears of another part of the community.
Irrational fears, with no supporting evidence and no basis in reality, are not valid reasons to inconvenience anyone.
And this is the point that you need to understand.
I understand it perfectly. I just refuse to cast it in the same dishonestly rosey light.
You say that nobody is giving anything up if you get everything you want.
If you restrict your focus to pure game mechanics, you may be right.
Pure game mechanics is the only detail that's relevant to everyone universally. You, your "immersion," and your personal definition of Trek purism in an MMO, are 100% your problems to sort out.
I, and others, are suggesting that something nebulous and important is at stake here. something not easily boiled down to mechanics.
Something imaginary, something that requires a willful buy-in to even accept that it exists, and then the further leap of agreeing with your personal take on it. No. You can live out your fantasy role-play without involving anyone else.
This is point two. Not everything a game needs to be successful is down to mere mechanics. A lot of it is to do with the soul of a game. You may not see that soul in danger, but others do......and their viewpoint is as valid, as correct, as worthy, and as deserving of respect as your position. It is also equally deserving of the devs respect as your position.
Sorry, that's just a heap of contrived, self-serving BS. "Imaginary concerns" are not of equal merit to things that actually exist in reality.
"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"
post 48something or other.
Point one. Game mechanics.
Point two. Options for the future and not cutting them off.
So, like I said, deluded paranoia. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that sector space is going away or that the Devs have not allowed room for building sector space content in the future. This is total conjecture, and you would have it given the attention of a realistically foreseeable danger.
Comments
Plus, to be blunt, adding this feature makes sector space more useful than it is now, even if there's not much to do it in. The most useful thing about sector space I've seen is the ability to buy cheaper high end commodities. And yes I'm someone who doesn't mind flying around sector space saying this. Sometimes that's all I do when I play.
The only real frontiers in the game, IMO, are the areas where you can do the exploration missions. Everything else seems to be pretty well explored.
Drama much? LOL. There's still plenty of space left, silly; just not all that much useful sector space. Which is, IMHO, a waste of, erm, space to begin with!
Seriously, there's realism, and there's just plain tedium. There's nothing immersive about my endless, long trips to the B'Tran cluster, and back. Those were just boring and needlessly time-consuming.
So, kudos on the devs for making more and more transwarp points available!
And the same goes for you as for the nay-sayers to the in-space ship changing feature: if you don't want to use transwarps, don't. Easy-peasy.
Regarding people who don't want to swap in sector space, as it's been brought up lots of times already, they can still take their time and dock and meet the ship selector officer. I don't see how this changes anything for them.
If you read my posts in this thread, than you know that that is exactly the essence of what I'm talking about here.
Sector space is not usefull. It has been more usefull in the past albeit not really much, but one by one, seemingly minor changes like this one have lead to sector space being nothing short of a time-waster. (if you can actually even call it that since we can *poof* pretty much anywhere with magic and if we don't *poof*, we can circumnavigate the cosmos in around 7 minutes)
What I'm saying is - this change by itself is no biggie, but we must finally take a look at the bigger picture of what's going on here. One after another decisions for convenience are being made, regardless if it's palyer or developer convenience. They have pretty much taken away any use for sector space, you've said it yourself, what happens when they decide it's more convenient for them not to invest efforts in improving sector space and just scrap it?
No, it's not "easy-peasy". I couldn't care less in a negative or a positive manner about this change. I don't see it as the sum of all evil, nor a necessity that was 'to die for'.
What I'm concerned about is what it represents - another step down the road of making STO feel less and less Trek. Like I said a few sentences before, what happens if they decide it's convenient to scrap sector space? Then we'll all have to use transwarps regardless of wanting it or not, because there will be no open space.
to my mind it is no different in appearance then using transwarp to reach a destination quickly.
if you did not have transwarp you would need to fly to each destination and this takes up valuable play time so its a necessary evil sometimes with the cooldown but if you time it right you can keep it to a minimum.
I see the shipswap no differently, if you used to want a ship change for any reason you would need to fly to a shipyard to make the change, now when you select the ship you want your current ship quickly warps off to the nearest shipyard and your new ship warps back to where you are, this is the appearance I got from the visuals involved in the swap.
I also found the ship layout save to be very good, even if you only have one layout saved, you can set up your bridge officers and consumables ect how you like them save the setting then whenever you swap ships you can just load your set up and it will load in your set up and it will swap in as many of the consumables as it can if available to match what you had when you saved the setup.
I will still enjoy an occasional visit to a shipyard when setting up new weapons and such I might have picked up from drops or via rep rewards and such but it will cut the visits down to an essential minimum giving me more time to concentrate on play.
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
I should not worry too much that this might happen, there are just too many star systems that you can visit to make a transwarp for every one of them.
sure they might put a transwarp destination within each sector I see this is as just a natural progression that you would follow irl to make your trips as quick as possible but you will still need to travel within that sector to get to the final destination you wish to go to.
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
Given that the "nay" section will be no less able to continue visiting starbases to change ships, if they see things as you describe there, "what they want" must be the ability to restrict other peoples' options. Otherwise, they're not "losing" anything.
Once again, that is not a compromise. That's "We'll only impose our will on you a little bit, and you should be grateful."
Until they completely remove sector space, your concerns are already met. If your satisfaction requires forcing someone else's participation, then your position is unreasonable.
Or you could look at it from the perspective that player concerns need to be addressed before instigating a change that could affect the game for many players. Making a change and then having to make changes to that change has been a big issue for the player base in the past.
From reading your past responses you may say things like I'm dictating how you play, that I can always continue going to starbases, etc, etc, however such a response would sound like "I'm getting what I want so to hell with everyone else." I would suggest that people be content with the status quo until this is looked in to a little further. And those who complain about the status quo in regards to changing ships in sector space, well, it's been like that for how many years and you've kept playing. I'm sure you'd be able to be grown ups and tolerate it a little longer.
To the devs, you guys don't create this game just so you can play it in the basement. You make, create and change this game for your customer base. Maybe put ideas out there for us to look in to and evaluate rather than just implement stuff. That way we can provide constructive feedback that may make sense instead of polarising the community with changes like this.
QFT
This is the underlying issue.
Changes to the game being made apparently consciously without regard to feedback.
The business with the anniversary ship grind is a case in point.
An appalling decision that we only know about because someone leaked it from tribble. No attempt whatsoever from the developers to sound out how the players feel about it, and apparently no desire to accept feedback once its out.
The changes we are discussing in this thread are, on the whole, welcome. However, one part of it, as Darramouss puts it, are polarising.
Simply ignoring how these things polarise players is not how a game thrives.
All concerns are not equally significant just because some of you like to pretend they are. For example, this imaginary, completely unsupported fear that sector space ship changes will start us down a path that leads to the removal of sector space and ultimately a game of instant gratification button pushes where nobody is able to interact with other human beings. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. It is not rational, not credible, and as such deserves no serious consideration.
I'm getting what I want, you lose nothing, and I'm the one being selfish. Nope, sorry. I'm not the one trying to limit the freedom of others in service of my personal views on how a Star Trek RPG should look. THAT'S the selfish contribution here.
Fixed it for you.
Point two, Hanover, point two.
:rolleyes:
You may start here:
If the "concern" I describe here is all you've got, then you've got nothing. It's completely imaginary, and that sort of worthless "feedback" merits zero consideration. If you've got something more substantial than that, you have failed to articulate it.
And what *I* am saying is, is that you're turning your concerns into a huge hyberbole, therefore undercutting the credibility of your own arguments. No, the game isn't DOOOMED!! because they add a transwarp here and there. An no, the game isn't on its way to DOOOM!! because of it either.
And Yoyager had transwarp; hence, transwarp is Trek. Wanna go back to TOS? Okay then, how many times do you actually *see* Kirk fly in sector space? (for longer than 30 seconds, that is). Not much. You know why? Cuz watching space freeze is as boring as watching paint dry.
A good dev recognizes the distinction between tedious, but 'realistic' jobs (like having you endlessly fly thru sector space), and a funtional game mechanic (like transwarp). It's like transwarping to your mission start: it would get old really fast (or slow, LOL, depending on your point of view), if you had to fly all the way over there every time.
I'm not on Tribble so I haven't seen the new ship swapping, but this whole 'sky is falling' argument over ship swapping being another nail in the coffin of sector space needs to be looked at.
To those on Tribble who have played with the new ship swapping, a few questions:
1. What changes have been made to sector space to accommodate this?
2. Do you find it has significantly affected your pattern of visiting starbases?
3. Do you find it has significantly affected your behaviour in sector space?
These seem to be the three major issues pointed out in the thread - apart from the 'don't tell me how to play' argument, but I'll leave that one in the can.
The fact of the matter is that, from my understanding, no physical changes have been made to the architecture of the game locations (starbases and sector space). So for those who desire to continue using ship selection officers at starbases, nothing has changed.
This feature really has nothing to do with sector space or starbases in terms of its functionality. It is a standalone feature that does nothing but allow you to "change characters" (if you think of each ship as a character you control) without having to zap back to a starbase. On its own it has no effect on sector space or starbases.
What does affect sector space and starbases is how the ship swapping affects player behaviour. To assume that ship swapping is another nail in the coffin is a bit of a stretch, as for this to happen, every player would have to abandon the old way of ship swapping and use the new method. This isn't going to happen. At least some people are going to stick to the old way, at least some of the time.
There is no reason for Cryptic to remove sector space - even if only a few people use it, then it is still useful. Besides, the changes required would basically involve a rewrite of half the game, for what benefit to Cryptic? I may eat my words one day, but at this stage I would say "not going to happen".
To accuse them of consistently dumbing down sector space for the purpose of eventually removing it is a bit of a slippery-slope argument, and there's no way it can be substantiated. Correlation does not equal causation. Just because past changes have diminished sector space's usefulness in some people's eyes, they cannot be used to extrapolate the future of sector space. We don't know what (if anything) Cryptic has planned for sector space.
I don't think Cryptic has any intentions of trying to kill sector space or starbases with this feature. To me it's just another little convenience factor, like being able to switch ground costumes whenever. Think of the cries that would arise if everyone had to head to a tailor or zone into their ship and go to their quarters to be able to change clothes. Realistic? Yes, but utterly pointless. Those who want to do just that for immersion factor are perfectly free to do so, while others can change where they want. Both players have the ability to do it their way, and neither of them infringes on the gameplay of the other. Sector space ship changing is exactly the same.
As always, just my thoughts.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately be explained by stupidity" ~ Robert Heinlein.
For starters, you can begin by stop trying to put words into my mouth. That is undercutting your credibility, or what's left of it by now because of your attempts of a discussion with me without reading my posts and points in the thread and based on assumptions and conclusions you pulled out of thin air.
FYI, I specifically said already in another post that, I quote, "I don't think the game is DOOOMED!", which have you actually read the discussion here, you would've known.
My arguments are at least as valid as yours or Cryptic's next customer. I like the product, I buy the product and you'll bet I will speak on what I think is decreasing the value of that product.
The game might not be doomed even if they completely remove sector space, but it'll sure make it doomed for me because I won't play it then. So I have every right to argue against something I believe is problematic and could lead to ending my STO experience.
Subjective. What is boring for you might be fun for someone else. But that's beyond the point, we've said it a milion times in the thread that adding value to sector space is what we want, so it wouldn't be boring.
And this is what we're discussing here, adding more stuff that will bring value to sector space. You know, make it fun and exciting instead of scrapping it altogether cause it's just easier not to bother? Or would you prefer they put us all in a room with buttons and we just one click for anywhere we want to go and anything we want to do?
The position has been articulated countless times, Hanover.
Point two, sir, point two.
The failure, if there actually is one, is apparently one of comprehension.
In many ways i agree with this, but there is one point of contention.
While, in gameplay mechanistic terms, it can be considered standalone, there are dimensions where it is intrinsic to other concepts.
The primary concept, for me, is that sector space as things stand impose a sense of distance on the players.
That sense of distance is, again for me, an important part of Star Trek. While things certainly happened in home space in the shows, many if not most happens when the ship is 3 days away from help or so.....
For me, and i think a few other posters in the thread, this sense is important. Part of why we play the game and, indeed, spend money on it.
The new mechanism however is an important thing to another sector of the player base. And I do understand that, for those who get something different from the game to me, this could be so.
Their desires are no more or less valid than my own, as regards the game.
I've argued, consistently, for a specific and limited restriction on just the ship swapping.
Because what I want is for my desire for a star trek game as I understand it to be recognised by the developers. Because if we have an idea of sector space, built into the game, that divides space into friendly and unfriendly then we have a dynamic that can be built on in the future.
As things stand, the proposed mechanism is polarising. And both sides of that polar divide are justified in their own terms.
Finally, i do have one fear about this.
If we do get that delta quadrant expansion, will the game mechanic of ship swapping work there too?
Because, even a game at one point has to honour its IP. At one point the devs must ask themselves, 'if this actually Trekky enough?'
Yet it still hasn't sunk in. And enough with your "point 2" TRIBBLE. If you've got something to say, state it explicitly.
The fact that someone doesn't agree about how the game "should" be played, doesn't take the fear-mongering predictions as a given, does not mean they don't "understand" you.
That point - the concept of distance - I think is a fair one from the point of view of 'Trek-ness', or realism or immersion. I wouldn't have a problem with it only being available in either friendly sectors or sectors with a starbase. Others may disagree, and you could argue that, for an individual player, the option still exists to only choose ship swapping in an 'eligible' sector. Either way, it wouldn't worry me.
As for the Delta Quadrant, well Cryptic have kind of gimped themselves there a little by offering such easy access to and from the Dyson Sphere. If the sphere is somewhere in the Delta Quadrant, then we can already transwarp to either Allied command or our Fleet spire.
The other gimping factor comes from the Iconian gateways. If, as is indicated in Sphere of Influence, we do activate all the gateways, then it stands to reason at least one of them comes out somewhere in the Delta Quadrant... We already use a gateway to get to the sphere, so it's not much of a stretch for Cryptic to conveniently add in another gateway to zap us halfway across the galaxy. If we can do it, who's to say our other ships can't do the same thing? So these both potentially diminish the sense of distance in any potential Delta Quadrant expansion. I don't know how that would affect ship swapping there.
As always, just my thoughts.
EDIT:
Strangely, as I thought about the topic, it reminded me of the movie Chocolat. For those who haven't seen it, a young woman moves into a town and sets up a chocolate shop right around the time of Lent. She meets a lot of opposition, especially from the local priest, who really vilifies her and assassinates her character. The irony of it is at the end of the movie the priest has a fit and breaks into the shop, and ends up gorging himself.
It seems that half of his problem was being unable to withstand the temptation set before him. I wonder how this relates to the temptation to use sector space ship swaps upon those who prefer immersion...
"It's right there... All I have to do is press that button... No... Mustn't! Need to get to a starbase... but the button is just there! Aargh! Damn you Cryptic! Damn you for tempting me!"
Just a random, incoherent and tongue-in-cheek thought.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately be explained by stupidity" ~ Robert Heinlein.
And that's where you lose me. What you propose is nothing more than a punishment for using a mechanic you don't like.
In a way that affects other players. It's not just recognition you seek. You want "recognition" demonstrated through a restriction of options available to other people. I don't know why people keep trying to put a prettier face on that, instead of just being honest.
:rolleyes:
It won't stop "honoring the IP" because of this.
I already did, pages and pages ago Hanover.
As far as i can tell, you're just trolling the thread now, banging on about the same straw man instead of engaging with whats actually been written.
There is no point me rearticulating to you whats been articulated countless times.
You want what you want. you don't see the value in what other people want, therefore they are gving nothing up by giving you everything you want.
Your position is crystal clear.
Then give me a post number. And it BETTER NOT be something I've already responded to.
What's "actually been written" is deluded paranoia with no basis in fact, combined with people appointing themselves arbiters of what qualifies as Trek purism and presuming to dictate how others may play the game on that basis. That's not a straw man. That's an accurate portrayal that ignores the attempts to rationalize your motivations.
If it were clear to you, you wouldn't be claiming I see no value in what other people want. I'm saying it doesn't matter whether I value it or not, because I am not seeking to interfere with you playing the game as you see fit. You can travel at warp 1 to social meetups at Drozana every day for all I care. If what you want is to restrict my options, then it is you who does not value what I want.
Is this it? Is this the precious "point 2" you keep harping on? That you're hoping they act on your feedback? That is not a response or a refutation to anything I've said. It's basically just saying "Shut up and let me blather on until the devs listen to me."
Ok, one last try at point two for you.
The error you're making is only seeing these sort of mechanistic changes in terms of game mechanics.
I get that, for some, the mechanics have not been ideal. Hence the proposal from the devs in the first place.
However, point two, way way back, was about how a mechanistic change also effects less quantifiable, more nebulous concepts.
This game is Star Trek. yes, its an MMO as well, but its also Star Trek. This IP brings with it a bunch of core concepts that define mechanisms and labels, so we have transporters, not teleporters. Phasers, not space lasers.
In other words, there is a hard to define minimum level of Trek required.
It's hard to define because the line shifts from individual to individual.
We're talking not game mechanics here but ideas, concepts of the game and universe it springs from.
Ship swapping cuts across some of those concepts for some people. I think that, on the whole, they have to suck it up because the part of the community that wants it has just a valid right to the game as them.
However, I've argued for a tiny restriction on the mechanism, based on an idea that is canon. The idea that you are out of range. all through the series we have had the idea of friendly space, neutral zones, unfriendly space.
Sector space in the series has characteristics. You can't do some things when you're a long way away from base, things that you can do when you are closer. there are countless examples of this.
Thus, for those who set the bar of trekiness higher than you (by which I mean they set the balance between Trek and game mechanics differently to you) they get a clear signal from the developers that their concerns are heeded.
Those who still want to ship swap wiould be able to ship swap virtually everywhere, and in a very few places have to make a single sector transition.
They'd go through that terrible inconvenience purely to assuage the fears of another part of the community.
And this is the point that you need to understand.
You say that nobody is giving anything up if you get everything you want.
If you restrict your focus to pure game mechanics, you may be right.
However, all games have to be more than just the sum of the parts.
I, and others, are suggesting that something nebulous and important is at stake here. something not easily boiled down to mechanics.
This is point two. Not everything a game needs to be successful is down to mere mechanics. A lot of it is to do with the soul of a game. You may not see that soul in danger, but others do......and their viewpoint is as valid, as correct, as worthy, and as deserving of respect as your position. It is also equally deserving of the devs respect as your position.
Nope, but nice try.
"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"
post 48something or other.
Point one. Game mechanics.
Point two. Options for the future and not cutting them off.
In other words, in terms of things that actually exist outside peoples' imaginations.
In other words, it affects how you choose to perceive your game play. You have not justified this insistance that others should be in any way constrained by your chosen perceptions.
Circumventing sector space travel does not detract from the integrity of the IP in any substantial way. There are still space ships, and they are still in space. There were never any episodes where they just traveled and nothing interesting happened, and so that sort of visual is in no way necessary to qualify as a genuine Trek game.
So give everyone full options, and let each individual choose how they act upon them. If you disagree, what you're doing is indulging the "Stop having fun the wrong way!" mentality, no matter how you try to spin and rationalize it.
Why should what I do cut across those concepts for you? Can you not enjoy yourself without deciding how others should enjoy themselves?
They are asking for something that does not affect you in any substantial way. Causing you to witness behavior you dislike is not substantial.
There are all manner of FTL technologies "in canon" that easily explain how someone could change ships anywhere. And this is a future well after what we saw on-screen, so it's not unreasonable to assume those technologies have advanced. What you want to do is freeze innovation at some "golden" point in history, and I challenge you to explain how opposing innovation is in any way "Trek."
Self-entitled demand for attention, then. And "rigid terms not completely supported by canon" <> "setting the bar higher."
Irrational fears, with no supporting evidence and no basis in reality, are not valid reasons to inconvenience anyone.
I understand it perfectly. I just refuse to cast it in the same dishonestly rosey light.
Pure game mechanics is the only detail that's relevant to everyone universally. You, your "immersion," and your personal definition of Trek purism in an MMO, are 100% your problems to sort out.
Something imaginary, something that requires a willful buy-in to even accept that it exists, and then the further leap of agreeing with your personal take on it. No. You can live out your fantasy role-play without involving anyone else.
Sorry, that's just a heap of contrived, self-serving BS. "Imaginary concerns" are not of equal merit to things that actually exist in reality.
So, like I said, deluded paranoia. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that sector space is going away or that the Devs have not allowed room for building sector space content in the future. This is total conjecture, and you would have it given the attention of a realistically foreseeable danger.