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.
If that was your goal, you failed. There is no way you can paint "you can't do this" as comparable to "we can all do this, but you don't have to."
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
Skipping sector space does not detract from the "Trekiness" in any substantial way. If you disagree, you are perfectly free to continue traveling it. But my refusal to accept the same constraint is not an imposition on you.
If you think anyone who has an opinion that differs from yours in invalid, why not say it instead of pretending?
I don't think that. What I think is, if you're arguing "imposition," it is not valid to compare "you can't do this" with "we can all do this, but you don't have to."
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.
I gain nothing, but give up something? That's not 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.
It's subjective. There is no right or wrong until you seek to impose your opinions on others. This is where you try once again to paint "we can all do this, but you don't have to" as an imposition on you somehow. Limiting your freedom to limit others. :rolleyes:
I gain nothing, but give up something? That's not compromise.
This is the crux for you isn't it?
Gain nothing? Sorry, but thats just entitlement.
you're getting a shiny new ship swap system that, even under the compromise, will radically speed up ship swapping. Even in sectors where i suggest it shouldnt be allowed, it'd STILL be quicker, much quicker than whats in place now.
All your argument is based on the idea that the ship swaping system is in place and some of us are trying to tear it down.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
IT IS NOT IMPLEMENTED YET AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
Even if my proposal is taken wholly onboard you still gain virtually eveything you want.
Stop characterising yourself as losing out. Nobody is trying to make you lose, just you shouldnt win absolutely.
Because your opinion, valid as it is, is no more or less valid than anyone elses. Fact.
It would be if I were claiming I were unconditionally owed something, but I'm not. If the developers and publishers decide to change what they offer, I can either accept it or leave. But I'm not discussing this with any DEVs or Publishers, am I?
All your argument is based on the idea that the ship swaping system is in place and some of us are trying to tear it down.
Nope. I've been discussing a proposed change described in a blog. It's not my fault that you jumped to the wrong conclusion.
IT IS NOT IMPLEMENTED YET AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
Yes, and you are seeking to limit the scope of a function being added, based solely on your opinions. I am not denying you anything but the ability to impose your will on me.
Even if my proposal is taken wholly onboard you still gain virtually eveything you want.
And who are you to decide how much of a consolation prize I should accept?
Stop characterising yourself as losing out.
It's not just me. It's everyone you would deny the full function of this new feature.
Nobody is trying to make you lose, just you shouldnt win absolutely.
Nobody is trying to make you skip sector space, just you don't get to deny others the ability to skip it. The only way you could not see this as an "everybody wins" compromise is if you insist on imposing your will on others.
And once again, don't bother trying to flip that around. I'm not imposing on you by refusing to let you impose on me. That does not fly.
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."
You forgot to quote that part about not dissecting my posts.
You're "in" for more than playing an online game. Those extra letters are not there to look pretty or impressive. If I merely wanted to play an online game I would play the latest Sim City or something. You're free to ignore any and all elements, that does not exclude the need to facilitate a structure for the grander architecture, or to drop support for the connectivities of the game systems.
But I would recommend you study the genre a bit more, in general. I don't think it is possible to properly explain the concepts behind it any further, when you at this stage tell me that you can't be a loner in what I define as a MMORPG. Sure you can! But a loner in a MMORPG, is not quite like a loner in a Single Player game. That is the purpose of different genres, to deal with different needs.
If you want to be a loner you can, but the universe will not be centered around you all the time! For then there would be no room for the rest! And that is the real test.
No, I'm not, and nothing you say can negate the undeniable fact that I have been playing this game, but not in the way you describe.
Those extra letters are not there to look pretty or impressive.
They are also not there to grant you veto power over the habits of other players. If the programming allows it, it is valid "MMORPG" play, period.
You're free to ignore any and all elements, that does not exclude the need to facilitate a structure for the grander architecture
Characterizing someone's self-important definition of "pure Trek immersion" or "online role playing" as "grander architecture" does not elevate those opinions to a "need."
If you want to be a loner you can, but the universe will not be centered around you all the time!
Nor will it be centered around those few who would presume to dictate terms to the rest of us.
No, I'm not, and nothing you say can negate the undeniable fact that I have been playing this game, but not in the way you describe.
They are also not there to grant you veto power over the habits of other players. If the programming allows it, it is valid "MMORPG" play, period.
Characterizing someone's self-important definition of "pure Trek immersion" or "online role playing" as "grander architecture" does not elevate those opinions to a "need."
Nor will it be centered around those few who would presume to dictate terms to the rest of us.
To be fair, this is not a debate, but a game of dissecting everything into piecemeal variations of utterances, bereft of any meaningful content, and riddled with misconceptions and communication failures. I am not going to contribute more to this train wreck. Please excuse me.
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
---
sernonserculion is completely right. If I wanted to play an arcade style ship combat Trek game I'd play Star Trek Legacy. If I wanted to play a Trek game that followed the story of the new movies then I'd play Star Trek The Video Game. No, I wanted to play a game where I had command of a ship and I could go exploring space, doing missions and other MMORPG type tasks. I read the description on the box and it was good. If you didn't read the description and are disappointed then go find something more to your style than trying to shoehorn this game in to your small shoes.
Some people will say that I'm complaining about the new upcoming changes. Well, I put it to you that the ability to change ship in sector space came about because of those who complained about having to deal with sector space.
To those who tell me not to tell them how to play this game, I tell you to stop trying to turn this game in to something it's not. Go find another game, one that fits your checklist (fully automated, all conveniences, preferably with an "I Win" button) and leave this one alone.
This change doesn't remove any MMO type tasks. People really seem to be spending far too much time to look for reason that this will destroy sector space without really thinking about what the feature actually is and thinking about how it could actually help sector space become more useful.
And there are people who play MMOs to only solo, and the ability to do that and not have to interact with people doesn't make a game any less an MMO. If you think it does, you're definition of MMO was left behind close to 7 years ago.
To Absolutely Nobody In Particular, Except Possibly A Wandering Dev
What we have here, is a failure to communicate.
Firstly, let me be clear as to what I'm NOT unhappy about.
The ability to retool ones existing ship is an excellent idea.
It's of particular importance to PvP players, but is a convenience that many others will take advantage of.
Additionally, and most importantly, its canon.
After all, we saw many of the hero ships rejigging, installing, uninstalling and generally customising their ships during episodes in order to deal with new threats.
So, all good.
The ability to swap ships in space, without visiting a dock of some sort to do so manually. Well, once again there are a number of subsets of the player base who will find this invaluable.
Those players have as much right as any other subset of players to a QoL change.
Thus I'm not opposed to the idea of hotshipswapping as a concept.
Because, although it may not be something I think important, it clearly means a lot to some people.
So, what is my beef?
That latter change is something of a zero sum game.
Because some subsets of the player base actually do not want this feature.
To them, the status quo of having to go to a place where startships are parked and outfitted makes sense to them.
Doesn't have to make sense to anyone else, because everybody has a right to make their own sense in the game.
Thus we have a situation where it works like this.
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.
As someone who's played a few MMO's in my time, this one easily has the most divided fanbase. Just goes to show the true state of the game, seems there's more people who are over it then people who aren't.
Then there's the other group who I believe keep on playing because it's the only Trek MMO and one of the very few Trek games that will work on a modern system.
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.
Comments
If that was your goal, you failed. There is no way you can paint "you can't do this" as comparable to "we can all do this, but you don't have to."
Skipping sector space does not detract from the "Trekiness" in any substantial way. If you disagree, you are perfectly free to continue traveling it. But my refusal to accept the same constraint is not an imposition on you.
I don't think that. What I think is, if you're arguing "imposition," it is not valid to compare "you can't do this" with "we can all do this, but you don't have to."
I gain nothing, but give up something? That's not compromise.
It's subjective. There is no right or wrong until you seek to impose your opinions on others. This is where you try once again to paint "we can all do this, but you don't have to" as an imposition on you somehow. Limiting your freedom to limit others. :rolleyes:
This is the crux for you isn't it?
Gain nothing? Sorry, but thats just entitlement.
you're getting a shiny new ship swap system that, even under the compromise, will radically speed up ship swapping. Even in sectors where i suggest it shouldnt be allowed, it'd STILL be quicker, much quicker than whats in place now.
All your argument is based on the idea that the ship swaping system is in place and some of us are trying to tear it down.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
IT IS NOT IMPLEMENTED YET AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
Even if my proposal is taken wholly onboard you still gain virtually eveything you want.
Stop characterising yourself as losing out. Nobody is trying to make you lose, just you shouldnt win absolutely.
Because your opinion, valid as it is, is no more or less valid than anyone elses. Fact.
It would be if I were claiming I were unconditionally owed something, but I'm not. If the developers and publishers decide to change what they offer, I can either accept it or leave. But I'm not discussing this with any DEVs or Publishers, am I?
Nope. I've been discussing a proposed change described in a blog. It's not my fault that you jumped to the wrong conclusion.
Yes, and you are seeking to limit the scope of a function being added, based solely on your opinions. I am not denying you anything but the ability to impose your will on me.
And who are you to decide how much of a consolation prize I should accept?
It's not just me. It's everyone you would deny the full function of this new feature.
Nobody is trying to make you skip sector space, just you don't get to deny others the ability to skip it. The only way you could not see this as an "everybody wins" compromise is if you insist on imposing your will on others.
And once again, don't bother trying to flip that around. I'm not imposing on you by refusing to let you impose on me. That does not fly.
You forgot to quote that part about not dissecting my posts.
You're "in" for more than playing an online game. Those extra letters are not there to look pretty or impressive. If I merely wanted to play an online game I would play the latest Sim City or something. You're free to ignore any and all elements, that does not exclude the need to facilitate a structure for the grander architecture, or to drop support for the connectivities of the game systems.
But I would recommend you study the genre a bit more, in general. I don't think it is possible to properly explain the concepts behind it any further, when you at this stage tell me that you can't be a loner in what I define as a MMORPG. Sure you can! But a loner in a MMORPG, is not quite like a loner in a Single Player game. That is the purpose of different genres, to deal with different needs.
If you want to be a loner you can, but the universe will not be centered around you all the time! For then there would be no room for the rest! And that is the real test.
---
No, I'm not, and nothing you say can negate the undeniable fact that I have been playing this game, but not in the way you describe.
They are also not there to grant you veto power over the habits of other players. If the programming allows it, it is valid "MMORPG" play, period.
Characterizing someone's self-important definition of "pure Trek immersion" or "online role playing" as "grander architecture" does not elevate those opinions to a "need."
Nor will it be centered around those few who would presume to dictate terms to the rest of us.
To be fair, this is not a debate, but a game of dissecting everything into piecemeal variations of utterances, bereft of any meaningful content, and riddled with misconceptions and communication failures. I am not going to contribute more to this train wreck. Please excuse me.
---
sernonserculion is completely right. If I wanted to play an arcade style ship combat Trek game I'd play Star Trek Legacy. If I wanted to play a Trek game that followed the story of the new movies then I'd play Star Trek The Video Game. No, I wanted to play a game where I had command of a ship and I could go exploring space, doing missions and other MMORPG type tasks. I read the description on the box and it was good. If you didn't read the description and are disappointed then go find something more to your style than trying to shoehorn this game in to your small shoes.
Some people will say that I'm complaining about the new upcoming changes. Well, I put it to you that the ability to change ship in sector space came about because of those who complained about having to deal with sector space.
To those who tell me not to tell them how to play this game, I tell you to stop trying to turn this game in to something it's not. Go find another game, one that fits your checklist (fully automated, all conveniences, preferably with an "I Win" button) and leave this one alone.
And there are people who play MMOs to only solo, and the ability to do that and not have to interact with people doesn't make a game any less an MMO. If you think it does, you're definition of MMO was left behind close to 7 years ago.
What we have here, is a failure to communicate.
Firstly, let me be clear as to what I'm NOT unhappy about.
The ability to retool ones existing ship is an excellent idea.
It's of particular importance to PvP players, but is a convenience that many others will take advantage of.
Additionally, and most importantly, its canon.
After all, we saw many of the hero ships rejigging, installing, uninstalling and generally customising their ships during episodes in order to deal with new threats.
So, all good.
The ability to swap ships in space, without visiting a dock of some sort to do so manually. Well, once again there are a number of subsets of the player base who will find this invaluable.
Those players have as much right as any other subset of players to a QoL change.
Thus I'm not opposed to the idea of hotshipswapping as a concept.
Because, although it may not be something I think important, it clearly means a lot to some people.
So, what is my beef?
That latter change is something of a zero sum game.
Because some subsets of the player base actually do not want this feature.
To them, the status quo of having to go to a place where startships are parked and outfitted makes sense to them.
Doesn't have to make sense to anyone else, because everybody has a right to make their own sense in the game.
Thus we have a situation where it works like this.
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.
Then there's the other group who I believe keep on playing because it's the only Trek MMO and one of the very few Trek games that will work on a modern system.
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.