Voted, though it was difficult to choose just 5 out of those options
These are the Voyages on the STO forum, the final frontier. Our continuing mission: to explore Pretentious Posts, to seek out new Overreactions and Misinformation , to boldly experience Cynicism like no man has before.......
Can't believe I forgot this one, but I'd love it if Timid Creature worked the way it used to. I.e., a mob with that setting would not fire on enemies no matter what. I don't care if the loot grinders exploit it again, I just want that functionality back.
Also, why limit the poll to five choices when the thread title says ten?
Does "functional boss NPCs" include standard dreadnought-level mobs?
One final thing: I don't see "costume import return" in the poll list.
The thread title says 10 (just to throw out a number), but in the OP I particularly say 10 OR 5. I wanted to base it off the total amount of suggestions that would come in. As I assume these functions to be mostly very Dev-time consuming undertakings, I really wanted to cut the list down to 5. Anyhow, In the end, the complete list will be posted here, with the top 5 entries highlighted in some way... Just like the prvious lists for assets and costumes.
I'll add "Give us back a functional costume import" to the list. You can change your responses any time.
What's the point of a poll if you don't take all the stuff people suggest? Those are utilities.....
Asset search engines, for instance, would be a quality of life feature NOT affecting the end product seen by those who play the mission in the end. I do not consider these a basic "function" or "ability". We should set up a seperate poll for these things.
Why did he leave out campaigns? That's a thing the person would have in the editor itself.
While I do agree, I seriously doubt we will get EVERYTHING tomorrow. Furthermore, while a better Foundry UI might make all our lifes easier, we should first focus on exactly those improvements/additions that directly affect the end product, i.e. the mission the players will see in the end. Quality of life perks are not part of that. Eventually, Cryptic is already well aware (Ipresume) of the things the in-game Foundry UI is lacking and that the Neverwinter-UGC concept of offering missions has to be ported over to STO. I see little we can do here as players/authors.
Low gravity seems as if it might be an easy one, just a more extreme version of the existing low gravity effect - an asset, really, not a feature. I may be wrong about that, but it'd be good if not.
Isn't "Working despawn/hide animation for objects other than the player (e.g., different transporter effects)" the same thing as "Different NPC animations for (de-)spawning"? (Either way, I'm all for it.)
Low gravity seems as if it might be an easy one, just a more extreme version of the existing low gravity effect - an asset, really, not a feature. I may be wrong about that, but it'd be good if not.
Isn't "Working despawn/hide animation for objects other than the player (e.g., different transporter effects)" the same thing as "Different NPC animations for (de-)spawning"? (Either way, I'm all for it.)
Well, Low-G as a feature would presumably include enabling use of EV suit thrusters.
I thought of three more things that I think would make a real difference (and I've seen other people wishing for them, it's not just me):
Ability to place player's Captain and BOffs as NPC contacts/enemies, the same as the player's BOffs are currently selectable as the face for a dialogue.
Failing that, at least add the Captain to the list of options for a dialogue, alongside the BOffs.
For one thing, you could occasionally give the captain a big speech that won't fit on a reply button. Sometimes that's just called for. For another, meeting yourself coming back is weird, and for proper Star Trek, you need weird from time to time. Mirror doubles, evil clones, Romulan impostors, flashbacks, illusions.
Individual enemies, not just groups.
Especially good if we do get the ability to send in the Captain alone, and they can fight a bad guy one-on-one.
Ability to give the player a (worthless, effect-less) item, and then to check for its presence as the trigger for something else later.
As well as improving immersion, it would also vastly increase the possibilities for doing triggers. For one thing, it would provide the long-wished-for way to carry choices forward from map to map, since you'd still have the item.
I thought of three more things that I think would make a real difference (and I've seen other people wishing for them, it's not just me):
Ability to place player's Captain and BOffs as NPC contacts/enemies, the same as the player's BOffs are currently selectable as the face for a dialogue.
Failing that, at least add the Captain to the list of options for a dialogue, alongside the BOffs.
For one thing, you could occasionally give the captain a big speech that won't fit on a reply button. Sometimes that's just called for. For another, meeting yourself coming back is weird, and for proper Star Trek, you need weird from time to time. Mirror doubles, evil clones, Romulan impostors, flashbacks, illusions.
Individual enemies, not just groups.
Especially good if we do get the ability to send in the Captain alone, and they can fight a bad guy one-on-one.
Ability to give the player a (worthless, effect-less) item, and then to check for its presence as the trigger for something else later.
As well as improving immersion, it would also vastly increase the possibilities for doing triggers. For one thing, it would provide the long-wished-for way to carry choices forward from map to map, since you'd still have the item.
I've added your suggestions, Wombat, and combined the animation-trigger thingy (You were right about that). I also remind everyone again, that all of you can go back and edit your votes at any time. Furthermore the list is shuffled for every voter, so we can exclude biased decisions due to that.
I just realized rotation may already be on the y axis (when you are looking at the 2d map you are looking down from above and the objects rotate clockwise or counter clockwise, meaning their central axis would be y). It's actually x axis rotation I was suggesting.
Either way I hope people get what I was asking for...the ability to rotate an object upside down.
And another suggestion, it would make sense to restrict the players weapons to coincide with selecting and NPC's armament. If we are talking about recreating a 1 on 1 death match Kirk style then it would be an unfair advantage if we are left with our full arsenal while the NPC only has stones to throw at us.
I just realized rotation may already be on the y axis (when you are looking at the 2d map you are looking down from above and the objects rotate clockwise or counter clockwise, meaning their central axis would be y). It's actually x axis rotation I was suggesting.
Either way I hope people get what I was asking for...the ability to rotate an object upside down.
And another suggestion, it would make sense to restrict the players weapons to coincide with selecting and NPC's armament. If we are talking about recreating a 1 on 1 death match Kirk style then it would be an unfair advantage if we are left with our full arsenal while the NPC only has stones to throw at us.
I think everybody knows what's meant with "Y-axis rotation"
Weapon limitations for the players and mobs are already in the list.
30 votes so far. Please, everyone should check their votes. If you see one of your votes went missing due to a later change, simply modify your vote again accordingly. Modification of the poll form will now stop.
39 votes and counting. As the costume and map polls reached much higher turnouts, I'll leave this one open a bit longer. Although I do not expect to get 100+ votes for something "metaphaysical" as uninspiring as foundry functions in the end (;) ), I think 50+ is an attainable, representative number.
This is a good list, I see only 5 things that I need and aren't mentioned:
1) I want to reuse an item, for example I can use a console only once, there is a workaround that involves hiding the console and showing a new one so this is low priority to me but that would make the design faster.
2) most importantly I want to reuse hiding and showing indefinitely, for example if I place a npc with a dialog to open a door then I want to be able to ask him to close the door then open it later, indefinitely.
It is very important for designing a good maze because if you open door A then it closes doors B and C then if you open door B then it closes A and then you want to start over so all the doors would reset to their initial state, that sort of things.
3) the NPCs need to be able to lead and follow the player, for "let me show you the way" or "lead on, I'm going with you" kind of interactions.
This is a good list, I see only 5 things that I need and aren't mentioned:
1) I want to reuse an item, for example I can use a console only once, there is a workaround that involves hiding the console and showing a new one so this is low priority to me but that would make the design faster.
Already on the list as "Trigger toggle". However, I had to close down editing of the list at some point and there was plenty of time to suggest things until then.
"Trigger toggles" kind of takes in 2) as well, if I understand the idea correctly.
In the meantime, there is another possible workaround for 1): Kirkfat's martini trick. You hide a Martini Glass inside or underneath the object, set it to appear when the first interact is complete, and use the martini glass for the second interact. It's demonstrated in one of Kirkfat's Foundry tutorials on YouTube - I think the clip may be called "Klingon Smash".
Somebody was discussing 5) just recently, and said that what they do is call the object "." or something like that, they say it hardly shows that way and the editor will still accept it as a name.
Yes, great pity we forgot 3), I should have thought of it myself, but still, we aren't going to get all of these and any would be a great help.
How's the poll coming along? I can't seem to see the results, unless I vote a second time, and as it doesn't know who I am (I don't have a Google account, on principle) that would be logged as a second lot of votes.
How's the poll coming along? I can't seem to see the results, unless I vote a second time, and as it doesn't know who I am (I don't have a Google account, on principle) that would be logged as a second lot of votes.
We're standing at 43 votes, with the current top five being
Option to specify away team size for ground maps
Trigger toggles, i.e., adding "OR" logic for states, not just "AND" (triggers that can have a different effect after each usage, e.g., turn force field on and off again at same console)
Designate maps/map areas as lethal without EV-suit
Site-to-Site transport ability (move player WITHIN a ground map)
Fully costumizable mob parameters (which abilities, hull/shield points etc. etc.)
We're standing at 43 votes, with the current top five being
Option to specify away team size for ground maps
Trigger toggles, i.e., adding "OR" logic for states, not just "AND" (triggers that can have a different effect after each usage, e.g., turn force field on and off again at same console)
Designate maps/map areas as lethal without EV-suit
Site-to-Site transport ability (move player WITHIN a ground map)
Fully costumizable mob parameters (which abilities, hull/shield points etc. etc.)
We're standing at 43 votes, with the current top five being
Option to specify away team size for ground maps
Trigger toggles, i.e., adding "OR" logic for states, not just "AND" (triggers that can have a different effect after each usage, e.g., turn force field on and off again at same console)
Designate maps/map areas as lethal without EV-suit
Site-to-Site transport ability (move player WITHIN a ground map)
Fully costumizable mob parameters (which abilities, hull/shield points etc. etc.)
Small craft didn't make it... I named my first mission Federation Spies because I wanted the feds to steal the player Starship then the goal would have been to take it back with a small craft.
But that was not possible so I had to change the whole story.
Small craft didn't make it... I named my first mission Federation Spies because I wanted the feds to steal the player Starship then the goal would have been to take it back with a small craft.
But that was not possible so I had to change the whole story.
Yeah, I'm also surprised that it is obviously not in such a high demand.
hello, here is what i like to have in foundry most:
indestructible npc's: often i need a npc which is story relevant, so it's bad if this npc is destroyed in a battle but has a dialogue after that. to prevent exploits, it would be ok for me if this npc doesn't make damage.
mission objektive "disable enemy" : sometimes i like to make a battle, and enter a ship after it, or fight a npc on a ground map and catch him for example. unfortunately, that doesn't look good if ships are destroyed or npc's are killed on ground before that.
triggers with not only "and" functionality, also with "or" and "xor"
possibility to trigger respawn points, npc behaviour and npc animation (surely this will need triggers not for "visible to unvisible" but triggers like "animation/behaviour a to animation/behaviour b").
npc groups with 1, 2 or 3 npc's. especially needed for story relevant npc's if i want to make sure that only 1 ship spawns independent from players team size.
possibility to trigger things more than two times.
fully customizeable npc groups: possibility to select weapon types, special abilities, allied/enemy settings (also how they are allied or enemy towards other npc's)
triggers which are not initiated by player, but initiated by npc's: together with 9. , 6. and 4. it could look like this: npc goes to a console, types something, walks to another console, scans it then he waits there for player, who has to talk to him, and after talking he follows the player.
npc behaviours "walk from a to b" and "follow player"
possibility to put a crate with a flashlight on a map.
hello, here is what i like to have in foundry most:
indestructible npc's: often i need a npc which is story relevant, so it's bad if this npc is destroyed in a battle but has a dialogue after that. to prevent exploits, it would be ok for me if this npc doesn't make damage.
mission objektive "disable enemy" : sometimes i like to make a battle, and enter a ship after it, or fight a npc on a ground map and catch him for example. unfortunately, that doesn't look good if ships are destroyed or npc's are killed on ground before that.
triggers with not only "and" functionality, also with "or" and "xor"
possibility to trigger respawn points, npc behaviour and npc animation (surely this will need triggers not for "visible to unvisible" but triggers like "animation/behaviour a to animation/behaviour b").
npc groups with 1, 2 or 3 npc's. especially needed for story relevant npc's if i want to make sure that only 1 ship spawns independent from players team size.
possibility to trigger things more than two times.
fully customizeable npc groups: possibility to select weapon types, special abilities, allied/enemy settings (also how they are allied or enemy towards other npc's)
triggers which are not initiated by player, but initiated by npc's: together with 9. , 6. and 4. it could look like this: npc goes to a console, types something, walks to another console, scans it then he waits there for player, who has to talk to him, and after talking he follows the player.
npc behaviours "walk from a to b" and "follow player"
possibility to put a crate with a flashlight on a map.
Divergent storylines... as in, pick dialoge option A and do objectives X and Y. Pick option B and do objective Z. Can apply interactions, reach markers, kills, etc., and would be nice if we could even send players to entirely different maps this way. The idea is that you don't have to have the player stuck to a rigid set of objectives. It can add choice and feel more involved.
THIS!
A million times, THIS!
I've been wanting this FORVER!
It would make creating a Diplomatic mission much more realistic, and interesting!
The ability to designate missions for Romulan Republic players.
The ability to designate missions as universal/factionless (would come in handy now that the Fed/KDF war is over).
Come to think of it, if we had a factionless designation we wouldn't even need a Romulan-specific one. Romulan missions could just be designated as factionless; they'd still have to be called out as Romulan missions in the description, but authors would no longer have to make duplicate missions for both allied factions.
AND THIS!
They may have to choose a side at level 10, or whatever, but they also get the option to NOT choose a side....but they have no fun missions if they don't choose.
THIS would solve that problem, and simultaneously expand upon the RRF gameplay experience, and thus player yield.
ALSO, I'd like to be able to level my Foundry Captains again.
How else am I supposed to make an accurately scaled mission if I can't test it at the target level?
How; make it, publish it, receive numerous complaints while I slowly test it, then recreate it ALL OVER AGAIN to avoid the unnecessary low rating...because the Import/Copy function keeps copying the mission name, and description, but leaving out the actual MISSION.
"Join Date: Jun 2012" Says Cryptic's "new" forum system. I've been here since a week before launch, but SOME stuff just didn't carry over through multiple system changes/updates. :rolleyes:
Being able to rotate objects on more than the one axis we currently have access to. That would give us more options to use items in different ways, let alone it would be awesome to have when making custom maps.
Comments
Agreed.
/10chars
Someone should alert the OP to put it in the poll, along with all the other suggestions.
My character Tsin'xing
Why did he leave out campaigns? That's a thing the person would have in the editor itself.
The thread title says 10 (just to throw out a number), but in the OP I particularly say 10 OR 5. I wanted to base it off the total amount of suggestions that would come in. As I assume these functions to be mostly very Dev-time consuming undertakings, I really wanted to cut the list down to 5. Anyhow, In the end, the complete list will be posted here, with the top 5 entries highlighted in some way... Just like the prvious lists for assets and costumes.
I'll add "Give us back a functional costume import" to the list. You can change your responses any time.
Asset search engines, for instance, would be a quality of life feature NOT affecting the end product seen by those who play the mission in the end. I do not consider these a basic "function" or "ability". We should set up a seperate poll for these things.
While I do agree, I seriously doubt we will get EVERYTHING tomorrow. Furthermore, while a better Foundry UI might make all our lifes easier, we should first focus on exactly those improvements/additions that directly affect the end product, i.e. the mission the players will see in the end. Quality of life perks are not part of that. Eventually, Cryptic is already well aware (Ipresume) of the things the in-game Foundry UI is lacking and that the Neverwinter-UGC concept of offering missions has to be ported over to STO. I see little we can do here as players/authors.
STOWiki admin.
Low gravity seems as if it might be an easy one, just a more extreme version of the existing low gravity effect - an asset, really, not a feature. I may be wrong about that, but it'd be good if not.
Isn't "Working despawn/hide animation for objects other than the player (e.g., different transporter effects)" the same thing as "Different NPC animations for (de-)spawning"? (Either way, I'm all for it.)
My character Tsin'xing
I thought of three more things that I think would make a real difference (and I've seen other people wishing for them, it's not just me):
- Ability to place player's Captain and BOffs as NPC contacts/enemies, the same as the player's BOffs are currently selectable as the face for a dialogue.
For one thing, you could occasionally give the captain a big speech that won't fit on a reply button. Sometimes that's just called for. For another, meeting yourself coming back is weird, and for proper Star Trek, you need weird from time to time. Mirror doubles, evil clones, Romulan impostors, flashbacks, illusions.Failing that, at least add the Captain to the list of options for a dialogue, alongside the BOffs.
- Individual enemies, not just groups.
Especially good if we do get the ability to send in the Captain alone, and they can fight a bad guy one-on-one.- Ability to give the player a (worthless, effect-less) item, and then to check for its presence as the trigger for something else later.
As well as improving immersion, it would also vastly increase the possibilities for doing triggers. For one thing, it would provide the long-wished-for way to carry choices forward from map to map, since you'd still have the item.I've added your suggestions, Wombat, and combined the animation-trigger thingy (You were right about that). I also remind everyone again, that all of you can go back and edit your votes at any time. Furthermore the list is shuffled for every voter, so we can exclude biased decisions due to that.
Link to poll: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1N63EiAr7ZhxN5pU92TGZBuw31wFLImV4tmt2Dga31ts/viewform
As of now, 23 persons have voted.
STOWiki admin.
Either way I hope people get what I was asking for...the ability to rotate an object upside down.
And another suggestion, it would make sense to restrict the players weapons to coincide with selecting and NPC's armament. If we are talking about recreating a 1 on 1 death match Kirk style then it would be an unfair advantage if we are left with our full arsenal while the NPC only has stones to throw at us.
I think everybody knows what's meant with "Y-axis rotation"
Weapon limitations for the players and mobs are already in the list.
STOWiki admin.
I think it would be easier to ask for all 3 axes.
I agree.
/10char
STOWiki admin.
STOWiki admin.
1) I want to reuse an item, for example I can use a console only once, there is a workaround that involves hiding the console and showing a new one so this is low priority to me but that would make the design faster.
2) most importantly I want to reuse hiding and showing indefinitely, for example if I place a npc with a dialog to open a door then I want to be able to ask him to close the door then open it later, indefinitely.
It is very important for designing a good maze because if you open door A then it closes doors B and C then if you open door B then it closes A and then you want to start over so all the doors would reset to their initial state, that sort of things.
3) the NPCs need to be able to lead and follow the player, for "let me show you the way" or "lead on, I'm going with you" kind of interactions.
4) beam up a npc with animation
5) blank an object name
Already on the list as "Trigger toggle". However, I had to close down editing of the list at some point and there was plenty of time to suggest things until then.
Also already in the list as "Different (de-)spawn animations..."
STOWiki admin.
In the meantime, there is another possible workaround for 1): Kirkfat's martini trick. You hide a Martini Glass inside or underneath the object, set it to appear when the first interact is complete, and use the martini glass for the second interact. It's demonstrated in one of Kirkfat's Foundry tutorials on YouTube - I think the clip may be called "Klingon Smash".
Somebody was discussing 5) just recently, and said that what they do is call the object "." or something like that, they say it hardly shows that way and the editor will still accept it as a name.
Yes, great pity we forgot 3), I should have thought of it myself, but still, we aren't going to get all of these and any would be a great help.
How's the poll coming along? I can't seem to see the results, unless I vote a second time, and as it doesn't know who I am (I don't have a Google account, on principle) that would be logged as a second lot of votes.
We're standing at 43 votes, with the current top five being
STOWiki admin.
I think those were the ones I voted for.
Link to the poll: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1N63EiAr7ZhxN5pU92TGZBuw31wFLImV4tmt2Dga31ts/viewform?usp=send_form
STOWiki admin.
Small craft didn't make it... I named my first mission Federation Spies because I wanted the feds to steal the player Starship then the goal would have been to take it back with a small craft.
But that was not possible so I had to change the whole story.
Yeah, I'm also surprised that it is obviously not in such a high demand.
STOWiki admin.
A foundry by commandermic
arcgames.com/en/forums#/discussion/comment/11723972
Many of your suggestions are already available to vote for in our poll:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1N63EiAr7ZhxN5pU92TGZBuw31wFLImV4tmt2Dga31ts/viewform
Please cast your vote if you have not done so yet.
STOWiki admin.
STOWiki admin.
THIS!
A million times, THIS!
I've been wanting this FORVER!
It would make creating a Diplomatic mission much more realistic, and interesting!
AND THIS!
They may have to choose a side at level 10, or whatever, but they also get the option to NOT choose a side....but they have no fun missions if they don't choose.
THIS would solve that problem, and simultaneously expand upon the RRF gameplay experience, and thus player yield.
ALSO, I'd like to be able to level my Foundry Captains again.
How else am I supposed to make an accurately scaled mission if I can't test it at the target level?
How; make it, publish it, receive numerous complaints while I slowly test it, then recreate it ALL OVER AGAIN to avoid the unnecessary low rating...because the Import/Copy function keeps copying the mission name, and description, but leaving out the actual MISSION.