You made a good point. It would be logical to put a security measure in place that only allows you to spend the zen received from the turn in on a T6. But, I don't see an issue doing what you said in #2 mostly because, like I said, it is still your zen that your originally bought. Perhaps instead of zen, it could be like upgrade points or tokens but have the same value. So 2000 zen = 2000 UP or UT(only if a security measure were to be put in place). There would be no T5-Us at all in my plan . Now to your first point, Cryptic can still release the current T6s for anyone who wants them (with adjustments to be made equal to everything else T6). People don't need to invest in fugly. They will just buy the non-fuglies. (these people being those who are new or do not own anything yet). If that's not enough, down the road fleet T6 can be introduced which will bring in money. Either way, with some creativity, it's still a doable plan
Is this the edited version you mentioned? If so, here goes:
When I trade in 2 for 1, Cryptic makes, that day, exactly zero income. This cannot be allowed to occur, they need at least a $5 input per player per ship to demonstrate to the PWE overlords that the expansion, and by extension game, is a viable money-maker.
When ship sales falls by, say, 40%, in that "last year vs. this year" counter, the PWE overlords will be questioning what happened. Up till this point, many players have bought both their "canon favorite" and "fugly but powerful" ships. Yes, even me the ToS fan has a Gal-X because, of the TNG ships, it's the one I can tolerate... I even have the basic T5 Intrepid from that 600 day Veteran token, I'm on the 3 month $30 deal and at about 630 days subscribed...
Can't be switching from "Canon vs Power" to "canon + power" unless the ships are going to double in price - if the sales drop is noticed, but the overall income / profit levels are unaffected, the bean counters will be happy.
Also, how would next year's projection of ship sales look? Consider that many Feddie cruiser pilots tend to stock either the Excelsior or Galaxy as their "canon" ship, and have bought the Oddy / Regent / Avenger - minimum of one, more likely 2, maybe even all 3, because the "Cryptic Fuglies that still at least look like something that might have been on TV" all have some funky in-game power that the Galaxy doesn't have (see frequently mentioned posts on Galaxy revamping). If the projections will show that a majority of the players won't invest because they're sticking to their "powerful canon" ship, bean counters won't like that...
Going back to my first counterpoint some - okay, let's say that we put in a "block" so that all trade ins are one for one, and Cryptic still churns their profit. What's stopping me from trading in my Thunderchild for an Intrepid? Right now, if I want a "high end" Intrepid they're gonna get $20-$30 from me, depending on prices and how far I want to take her, but your way opens the door for me to get her for $10-$15... (T3 Thunderchild's a 1000 zen ship IIRC)
Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
It pains me that so many people are suggesting various ways that Cryptic would have to shut down Star Trek Online. Yes, the game has its faults - it's far from perfect - but all these people making these grandiose and elaborate suggestions for ways to kill the game...it's just kind of sad. If they really hate STO or Cryptic that much, why not just walk away - why go to such extraordinary lengths to try to kill the game for others?
Content is NOT gameplay. We purchased content, NOT gameplay. Unless there is a statement in the EULA about purchased content, I don't think it applies. And we did not directly purchase the ship. We purchased Zen to get the ship. Which means we would not even be receiving a true refund if all we get is zen which is only good in-game anyways.
The issue here is not refund. It's trade in, there is a big difference between reimburse for something although I might have misworded. And this is not gameplay that is purchased, Verseman is right it is content.
Let's use the "Car Salesman" example here.
I buy a car.......I buy it brand new at the value. Now lets say that care has been driven, and of course a new model comes out. When that person whom we say payed full in value when buying that new car then, now it has been used. He wants to take that used model that is payed in full, kept in good shape and use it for trade in to buy that newer car. When that car is traded that value is credited toward the newer model.
Now I know we can't factor depreciation into starships with the z store. But what we can do is factor the credit of THAT starship into the trade in of another starship. It's not refund, it's trade in or swapping. Also known as, BARTERING! Well that's how we folks call it. It would be no loss or no love. Now, if Perfectworld wanted to only give well 2/3's credit in zen to that T6 starship? Understandable. Yes maybe you lose that Tier 5. But you gain the Tier 6. This kind of thing happens all the time even in games like World of Tanks when they nerf tanks that might be Premium. They will allow you to trade in for gold maybe to be used toward another tank. So if it can happen in other MMO's it can work out here as well.
I take it you two do not remember the Patrol Escort Retrofit. Owners of the Fleet Patrol Escort were not given an opportunity to have their ships upgraded when that ship was replaced by the Fleet Patrol Escort Retrofit. The EULA commenting on gameplay may change was referenced as being applicable as to why they did not retroactively change or upgrade the pre-existing ships.
Calling it a trade-in won't matter to the bean counters, they will still see it as a refund.
"I'm not big on telepaths myself. I'm not big on guns either. But if everyone else has them, I want to make sure I can get my hands on the biggest one I can."
So fleet ship which should been tier 6 in first place but where not because there was no tier 6 are going to cost more money to upgrade. Fleet should be included in lock box and lobi ship list.
My fleet, "Tactical Fleet Delta", has two T5 bases and two T3 bases. Needless to say we have been grinding for the last 3 years and we do not want to grind anymore. If, after reading all of these complaints about this ridicules plan of action, you "The Developers" still bring this into the mix. Then at least upgrade the Fleet ship to T6. This way you will not be losing 96% of your players. Thanks you for your time.
Fleet Admiral Raw
Is this the edited version you mentioned? If so, here goes:
When I trade in 2 for 1, Cryptic makes, that day, exactly zero income. This cannot be allowed to occur, they need at least a $5 input per player per ship to demonstrate to the PWE overlords that the expansion, and by extension game, is a viable money-maker.
When ship sales falls by, say, 40%, in that "last year vs. this year" counter, the PWE overlords will be questioning what happened. Up till this point, many players have bought both their "canon favorite" and "fugly but powerful" ships. Yes, even me the ToS fan has a Gal-X because, of the TNG ships, it's the one I can tolerate... I even have the basic T5 Intrepid from that 600 day Veteran token, I'm on the 3 month $30 deal and at about 630 days subscribed...
Can't be switching from "Canon vs Power" to "canon + power" unless the ships are going to double in price - if the sales drop is noticed, but the overall income / profit levels are unaffected, the bean counters will be happy.
Also, how would next year's projection of ship sales look? Consider that many Feddie cruiser pilots tend to stock either the Excelsior or Galaxy as their "canon" ship, and have bought the Oddy / Regent / Avenger - minimum of one, more likely 2, maybe even all 3, because the "Cryptic Fuglies that still at least look like something that might have been on TV" all have some funky in-game power that the Galaxy doesn't have (see frequently mentioned posts on Galaxy revamping). If the projections will show that a majority of the players won't invest because they're sticking to their "powerful canon" ship, bean counters won't like that...
Going back to my first counterpoint some - okay, let's say that we put in a "block" so that all trade ins are one for one, and Cryptic still churns their profit. What's stopping me from trading in my Thunderchild for an Intrepid? Right now, if I want a "high end" Intrepid they're gonna get $20-$30 from me, depending on prices and how far I want to take her, but your way opens the door for me to get her for $10-$15... (T3 Thunderchild's a 1000 zen ship IIRC)
PWE's prerogative is not the player's concern. Will it effect whether our suggestion will be taken? Probably. But we are not getting anything free out of this, so, IMO we would not be doing anything wrong by Cryptic. If we do 2 for 1's etc etc, they still will make money from those who have less or no ships. So, that day, they will still make money. As it stands, according to PWE, there has been a loss of 30% of PC players for their games in a recent stock report. They can't afford to push more people away. So it would be wise, for once, that they listen.
My fleet "Tactical Fleet Delta" has two T5 bases and two T3 bases, needless to say we have already been grinding for the last 3 years. We Dont want to grind anymore. If, after reading all of these complaints in this ridicules plan of action, you "The Developers" still want to bring this into the mix. Then at least upgrade the Fleet ship to T6. This way you will not be losing 96% of your players.
That's why ghobepong and I have come up with a suggestion to fix this "ridiculous plan" lol
Is this the edited version you mentioned? If so, here goes:
When I trade in 2 for 1, Cryptic makes, that day, exactly zero income. This cannot be allowed to occur, they need at least a $5 input per player per ship to demonstrate to the PWE overlords that the expansion, and by extension game, is a viable money-maker.
When ship sales falls by, say, 40%, in that "last year vs. this year" counter, the PWE overlords will be questioning what happened. Up till this point, many players have bought both their "canon favorite" and "fugly but powerful" ships. Yes, even me the ToS fan has a Gal-X because, of the TNG ships, it's the one I can tolerate... I even have the basic T5 Intrepid from that 600 day Veteran token, I'm on the 3 month $30 deal and at about 630 days subscribed...
Can't be switching from "Canon vs Power" to "canon + power" unless the ships are going to double in price - if the sales drop is noticed, but the overall income / profit levels are unaffected, the bean counters will be happy.
Also, how would next year's projection of ship sales look? Consider that many Feddie cruiser pilots tend to stock either the Excelsior or Galaxy as their "canon" ship, and have bought the Oddy / Regent / Avenger - minimum of one, more likely 2, maybe even all 3, because the "Cryptic Fuglies that still at least look like something that might have been on TV" all have some funky in-game power that the Galaxy doesn't have (see frequently mentioned posts on Galaxy revamping). If the projections will show that a majority of the players won't invest because they're sticking to their "powerful canon" ship, bean counters won't like that...
Going back to my first counterpoint some - okay, let's say that we put in a "block" so that all trade ins are one for one, and Cryptic still churns their profit. What's stopping me from trading in my Thunderchild for an Intrepid? Right now, if I want a "high end" Intrepid they're gonna get $20-$30 from me, depending on prices and how far I want to take her, but your way opens the door for me to get her for $10-$15... (T3 Thunderchild's a 1000 zen ship IIRC)
Right now Dareau, the idea first off about Cannon vs Power, Beam vs Cannon, Torpedo vs yadda yadda is a personal preference. And to note the ship alone doesn't always factor into the overall ability as well. What I find flawed here is the Boffs and Doffs that are used depending on condition of those officers. Then you also have weapons on energy type, plus traits and skills. Now yes I am NOT forgeting the fact that every ship has it's "abilities" here in each "class".
But the "idea" here would yes be a T5 Escort toward a T6 Escort, Science, Engineer, or whatever class the equivilent class it would be. But "lets not" forget about what ships for Tier 6 that they're coming out with here too. And that all does factor and play into this as well. That was also the reason why I did suggest that Z store ships could be grandfathered into Delta Rising for the T5-U. So if players wanted to? They could still play the same ones they like. It would just be grandfathered to the T5-U as well. As far as anyone knows T6 could be very different. Although the only thing about these upgrade fees in Z Store seem to get me concerned is also the consoles they might add, or even the special abilities upon level 60 might mean for respecing again. I "hope" that doesn't mean respecing my captain again even after Dyson. Heaven to Mergatroy! That would cause me to "Exit Stage Right" on the whole STO thing then. Well maybe.
PWE's prerogative is not the player's concern. Will it effect whether our suggestion will be taken? Probably. But we are not getting anything free out of this, so, IMO we would not be doing anything wrong by Cryptic. If we do 2 for 1's etc etc, they still will make money from those who have less or no ships. So, that day, they will still make money. As it stands, according to PWE, there has been a loss of 30% of PC players for their games in a recent stock report. They can't afford to push more people away. So it would be wise, for once, that they listen.
Yes, that's what I was told.... regardless, with this new expansion, if left unchanged, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a mass exodus. To better avoid that, our suggestion(s) should be taken a little more seriously.
...they are nevertheless looking to hire a Monetization Designer.
"We are currently looking for a full-time Monetization Designer to work on our exciting new and ongoing projects. This design position is responsible for driving the monetization strategy of our games. Were looking for candidates that love to utilize game player data to make the ultimate player experience for our customers."
PWE's prerogative is not the player's concern. Will it effect whether our suggestion will be taken? Probably. But we are not getting anything free out of this, so, IMO we would not be doing anything wrong by Cryptic. If we do 2 for 1's etc etc, they still will make money from those who have less or no ships. So, that day, they will still make money. As it stands, according to PWE, there has been a loss of 30% of PC players for their games in a recent stock report. They can't afford to push more people away. So it would be wise, for once, that they listen.
Not sure about the profit loss. But on the part about player loss? Well if this involves anything with some of the expansion and gaming content added, then we factor the player base feel on the expanded content including this one? I could say it is plausible. But right now my only thought is trying to come up with something that Perfectworld would at least hear out. But again this is Perfectworld and if they don't listen well "Maybe we aren't as valuable as Latium" and "One short walk out the airlock" when it comes to STO gaming.
Not sure about the profit loss. But on the part about player loss? Well if this involves anything with some of the expansion and gaming content added, then we factor the player base feel on the expanded content including this one? I could say it is plausible. But right now my only thought is trying to come up with something that Perfectworld would at least hear out. But again this is Perfectworld and if they don't listen well "Maybe we aren't as valuable as Latium" and "One short walk out the airlock" when it comes to STO gaming.
If the new content is even pretty good there will not be any exodus. On the contrary there will be emigration.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
PWE's prerogative is not the player's concern. Will it effect whether our suggestion will be taken? Probably. But we are not getting anything free out of this, so, IMO we would not be doing anything wrong by Cryptic. If we do 2 for 1's etc etc, they still will make money from those who have less or no ships. So, that day, they will still make money. As it stands, according to PWE, there has been a loss of 30% of PC players for their games in a recent stock report. They can't afford to push more people away. So it would be wise, for once, that they listen.
PWE's prerogative is our concern. Whenever a game shows a lack of profit, the shareholders will begin to clamor for "cost savings" so they get their profit, and at these times the game(s) that are showing the least profit and/or loss are either drastically remade in an attempt to turn a profit or shut down. I, for one, don't want a drastic rebuild/shutdown. Therefore, I at least attempt to consider what's decent for both us and PWE.
On that note, remember that income is posted quarterly. The "monetary sources" you intend to use to finance your T6 purchases were accounted for many quarters ago - dang close to 8 if my memory serves in the case of my Thunderchild. Whatever plan we come up with has to influence that 4th qtr 2014 income statement, not use everything from past ones...
Now, would bypassing this T5U / T6 thing potentially cut back on further losses, or maybe convince the departed to return? Perhaps. Would those who came back significantly influence the Q4 '14 report? Yep. Would it project favorably for Q1 '15 and on? Maybe, maybe not - see what I described in the instance of not needing further ships because the canon ones are doing good enough to hold up to T6 and - since the precedent would be set, T7 content...
Right now Dareau, the idea first off about Cannon vs Power, Beam vs Cannon, Torpedo vs yadda yadda is a personal preference. And to note the ship alone doesn't always factor into the overall ability as well. What I find flawed here is the Boffs and Doffs that are used depending on condition of those officers. Then you also have weapons on energy type, plus traits and skills. Now yes I am NOT forgeting the fact that every ship has it's "abilities" here in each "class".
But the "idea" here would yes be a T5 Escort toward a T6 Escort, Science, Engineer, or whatever class the equivilent class it would be. But "lets not" forget about what ships for Tier 6 that they're coming out with here too. And that all does factor and play into this as well. That was also the reason why I did suggest that Z store ships could be grandfathered into Delta Rising for the T5-U. So if players wanted to? They could still play the same ones they like. It would just be grandfathered to the T5-U as well. As far as anyone knows T6 could be very different. Although the only thing about these upgrade fees in Z Store seem to get me concerned is also the consoles they might add, or even the special abilities upon level 60 might mean for respecing again. I "hope" that doesn't mean respecing my captain again even after Dyson. Heaven to Mergatroy! That would cause me to "Exit Stage Right" on the whole STO thing then. Well maybe.
I'm not talking "in game weapon selections". I'm talking having a "canon" - aka was on screen - ship vs these current "looks like they might have been on TV at some point" to the "completely wild mating of Fed ships and Elachi" blue-hulled, scanlined "monstrosities".
Right now, many of us Trek Gamers have both a "canon" ship, like my Gal-X, and non-canon ship(s). Some of the "around since Beta" types have multiple cruisers - say they start with an Excelsior. They bought the Oddy to try her out - and went back to the Excel cause it's "canon and useful". Regent comes out, same thing - buy, try, and either stick with her (cause it can reskin into a canon Sovvy) or go back to Excelsior. Avenger, another trial, perhaps they abandon her for the Excel because the Avenger is a KDF ship in a Fed hull and they want "Fed gameplay". Beancounter sees a $20 to $25 investment per year per player doing this. If the Excelsior or Galaxy were truly "powerful enough" to not need a more powerful version like the Oddy / Regent / Avenger, then Beancounter sees just the one investment and wonders how to get more money out of said player...
Geko has said, from day 1 and the murmurs that a new tier was coming - that the design process was being geared to give us both a "T6 equivalent" for our current stuff, and the "full on T6" with all the bells and whistles. At this second, we don't know enough to see if, financially and statistically, these claims of "T5U being competitive with T6" will hold true. As of right this second, it does somewhat seem to be on track to do so, especially with the "current 10 console T5.5 "fleet" grade ships" - they're gonna wind up with an 11th console and the "usual" fleet upgrades to hull / shields vs. a full-on T6 having a 13th BOff power and the specialist BOffs...
Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
...they are nevertheless looking to hire a Monetization Designer.
"We are currently looking for a full-time Monetization Designer to work on our exciting new and ongoing projects. This design position is responsible for driving the monetization strategy of our games. Were looking for candidates that love to utilize game player data to make the ultimate player experience for our customers."
This is like the restaurant that gets the idea to see if they can also charge for parking
You ever read Cryptic people talking about declining player base is normal. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecy.
There are other space games out there, some of them even want more players
If the new content is even pretty good there will not be any exodus. On the contrary there will be emigration.
They hope for emigration for money sake. But the threat of an exodus has been mentioned many times in this thread. Most of which are probably just shooting off their mouthes (myself included) but people have already left. I no longer have any incentive to play. That's another bottom line.
I take it you two do not remember the Patrol Escort Retrofit. Owners of the Fleet Patrol Escort were not given an opportunity to have their ships upgraded when that ship was replaced by the Fleet Patrol Escort Retrofit. The EULA commenting on gameplay may change was referenced as being applicable as to why they did not retroactively change or upgrade the pre-existing ships.
Calling it a trade-in won't matter to the bean counters, they will still see it as a refund.
Exactly. If it's not a sale, it's a loss. Losses mean lack of profit. And corporations run on profit. No profit means no game.
Also, this idea fails to take into consideration the mechanics of how the "trade in" would actually work in game. If you de-unlock an account wide unlock, what happens to your already claimed gear? Poof into the aether? While you're using it?
But the real reason that idea is doomed is that it conflicts with the first rule of business: people are only customers when they buy stuff. People who demand stuff for free are an annoyance.
If the new content is even pretty good there will not be any exodus. On the contrary there will be emigration.
If they lose the whales they lose everything. They already admitted their noob retention is miserable. And its the whales that are being punished the most by these changes.
Exactly. If it's not a sale, it's a loss. Losses mean lack of profit. And corporations run on profit. No profit means no game.
Also, this idea fails to take into consideration the mechanics of how the "trade in" would actually work in game. If you de-unlock an account wide unlock, what happens to your already claimed gear? Poof into the aether? While you're using it?
But the real reason that idea is doomed is that it conflicts with the first rule of business: people are only customers when they buy stuff. People who demand stuff for free are an annoyance.
As for the loss of profit, they can reduce the refund value. As for re-locking stuff in use, demand that player delete the universal console(s) in question (and weaps) and retire the ship(s) in question before allowing re-lock/refund.
If they lose the whales they lose everything. They already admitted their noob retention is miserable. And its the whales that are being punished the most by these changes.
Punished? they're the ones who'll care LEAST. Peeps who buy masterkeys by the dozens will barely flinch at paying 500z to upgrade a ship as an account unlock.
Punished? they're the ones who'll care LEAST. Peeps who buy masterkeys by the dozens will barely flinch at paying 500z to upgrade a ship as an account unlock.
Wholesale abandonment is their reward for being loyal customers. Thank you for putting all that money into fleets and lockboxes, now here's a slice of FU pie. Just because they're wealthy and dont care about $100 per month or whatever, doesnt mean they want to get pissed on.
If they lose the whales they lose everything. They already admitted their noob retention is miserable. And its the whales that are being punished the most by these changes.
eh, i've made my point enough so I'll let y'all be. I'm excited about the new content and looking forward to it. I'm also very used to upgrading gear so this is no great burden for me. The fleet credits might be tight unless there's a new big holding. Other than that no worries here.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
As for the loss of profit, they can reduce the refund value. As for re-locking stuff in use, demand that player delete the universal console(s) in question (and weaps) and retire the ship(s) in question before allowing re-lock/refund.
Exactly! and then the character(s) that lose the ship(s) can then fly the T6. And if the cost is reduced than multi-turn in should be allowed.
Wholesale abandonment is their reward for being loyal customers. Thank you for putting all that money into fleets and lockboxes, now here's a slice of FU pie. Just because their wealthy and dont care about $100 per month or whatever, doesnt mean they want to get pissed on.
Abandonment? They'll be the ones with the most new toys to play with. I'd hardly call that being abandoned....
Comments
Is this the edited version you mentioned? If so, here goes:
When I trade in 2 for 1, Cryptic makes, that day, exactly zero income. This cannot be allowed to occur, they need at least a $5 input per player per ship to demonstrate to the PWE overlords that the expansion, and by extension game, is a viable money-maker.
When ship sales falls by, say, 40%, in that "last year vs. this year" counter, the PWE overlords will be questioning what happened. Up till this point, many players have bought both their "canon favorite" and "fugly but powerful" ships. Yes, even me the ToS fan has a Gal-X because, of the TNG ships, it's the one I can tolerate... I even have the basic T5 Intrepid from that 600 day Veteran token, I'm on the 3 month $30 deal and at about 630 days subscribed...
Can't be switching from "Canon vs Power" to "canon + power" unless the ships are going to double in price - if the sales drop is noticed, but the overall income / profit levels are unaffected, the bean counters will be happy.
Also, how would next year's projection of ship sales look? Consider that many Feddie cruiser pilots tend to stock either the Excelsior or Galaxy as their "canon" ship, and have bought the Oddy / Regent / Avenger - minimum of one, more likely 2, maybe even all 3, because the "Cryptic Fuglies that still at least look like something that might have been on TV" all have some funky in-game power that the Galaxy doesn't have (see frequently mentioned posts on Galaxy revamping). If the projections will show that a majority of the players won't invest because they're sticking to their "powerful canon" ship, bean counters won't like that...
Going back to my first counterpoint some - okay, let's say that we put in a "block" so that all trade ins are one for one, and Cryptic still churns their profit. What's stopping me from trading in my Thunderchild for an Intrepid? Right now, if I want a "high end" Intrepid they're gonna get $20-$30 from me, depending on prices and how far I want to take her, but your way opens the door for me to get her for $10-$15... (T3 Thunderchild's a 1000 zen ship IIRC)
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
I take it you two do not remember the Patrol Escort Retrofit. Owners of the Fleet Patrol Escort were not given an opportunity to have their ships upgraded when that ship was replaced by the Fleet Patrol Escort Retrofit. The EULA commenting on gameplay may change was referenced as being applicable as to why they did not retroactively change or upgrade the pre-existing ships.
Calling it a trade-in won't matter to the bean counters, they will still see it as a refund.
My fleet, "Tactical Fleet Delta", has two T5 bases and two T3 bases. Needless to say we have been grinding for the last 3 years and we do not want to grind anymore. If, after reading all of these complaints about this ridicules plan of action, you "The Developers" still bring this into the mix. Then at least upgrade the Fleet ship to T6. This way you will not be losing 96% of your players. Thanks you for your time.
Fleet Admiral Raw
That's why ghobepong and I have come up with a suggestion to fix this "ridiculous plan" lol
Right now Dareau, the idea first off about Cannon vs Power, Beam vs Cannon, Torpedo vs yadda yadda is a personal preference. And to note the ship alone doesn't always factor into the overall ability as well. What I find flawed here is the Boffs and Doffs that are used depending on condition of those officers. Then you also have weapons on energy type, plus traits and skills. Now yes I am NOT forgeting the fact that every ship has it's "abilities" here in each "class".
But the "idea" here would yes be a T5 Escort toward a T6 Escort, Science, Engineer, or whatever class the equivilent class it would be. But "lets not" forget about what ships for Tier 6 that they're coming out with here too. And that all does factor and play into this as well. That was also the reason why I did suggest that Z store ships could be grandfathered into Delta Rising for the T5-U. So if players wanted to? They could still play the same ones they like. It would just be grandfathered to the T5-U as well. As far as anyone knows T6 could be very different. Although the only thing about these upgrade fees in Z Store seem to get me concerned is also the consoles they might add, or even the special abilities upon level 60 might mean for respecing again. I "hope" that doesn't mean respecing my captain again even after Dyson. Heaven to Mergatroy! That would cause me to "Exit Stage Right" on the whole STO thing then. Well maybe.
PWRD's doing bad, eh?
http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/144890/why-perfect-world-co-pwrd-could-beat-earnings-estimates-again
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2434355-perfect-worlds-pwrd-ceo-robert-xiao-on-q2-2014-results-earnings-call-transcript
Well Virusdancer does have a good point. They're making money either way.
Yes, that's what I was told.... regardless, with this new expansion, if left unchanged, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a mass exodus. To better avoid that, our suggestion(s) should be taken a little more seriously.
Right, so it's no sweat off their back if our suggestion were to be implemented.
Yes, the game has gotten more and more monetized - it's likely to continue in that fashion.
While the following position is not necessarily directly related to Star Trek Online...
http://crypticstudios.com/node/126
...they are nevertheless looking to hire a Monetization Designer.
"We are currently looking for a full-time Monetization Designer to work on our exciting new and ongoing projects. This design position is responsible for driving the monetization strategy of our games. Were looking for candidates that love to utilize game player data to make the ultimate player experience for our customers."
Not sure about the profit loss. But on the part about player loss? Well if this involves anything with some of the expansion and gaming content added, then we factor the player base feel on the expanded content including this one? I could say it is plausible. But right now my only thought is trying to come up with something that Perfectworld would at least hear out. But again this is Perfectworld and if they don't listen well "Maybe we aren't as valuable as Latium" and "One short walk out the airlock" when it comes to STO gaming.
Unfortunately... yes.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
PWE's prerogative is our concern. Whenever a game shows a lack of profit, the shareholders will begin to clamor for "cost savings" so they get their profit, and at these times the game(s) that are showing the least profit and/or loss are either drastically remade in an attempt to turn a profit or shut down. I, for one, don't want a drastic rebuild/shutdown. Therefore, I at least attempt to consider what's decent for both us and PWE.
On that note, remember that income is posted quarterly. The "monetary sources" you intend to use to finance your T6 purchases were accounted for many quarters ago - dang close to 8 if my memory serves in the case of my Thunderchild. Whatever plan we come up with has to influence that 4th qtr 2014 income statement, not use everything from past ones...
Now, would bypassing this T5U / T6 thing potentially cut back on further losses, or maybe convince the departed to return? Perhaps. Would those who came back significantly influence the Q4 '14 report? Yep. Would it project favorably for Q1 '15 and on? Maybe, maybe not - see what I described in the instance of not needing further ships because the canon ones are doing good enough to hold up to T6 and - since the precedent would be set, T7 content...
I'm not talking "in game weapon selections". I'm talking having a "canon" - aka was on screen - ship vs these current "looks like they might have been on TV at some point" to the "completely wild mating of Fed ships and Elachi" blue-hulled, scanlined "monstrosities".
Right now, many of us Trek Gamers have both a "canon" ship, like my Gal-X, and non-canon ship(s). Some of the "around since Beta" types have multiple cruisers - say they start with an Excelsior. They bought the Oddy to try her out - and went back to the Excel cause it's "canon and useful". Regent comes out, same thing - buy, try, and either stick with her (cause it can reskin into a canon Sovvy) or go back to Excelsior. Avenger, another trial, perhaps they abandon her for the Excel because the Avenger is a KDF ship in a Fed hull and they want "Fed gameplay". Beancounter sees a $20 to $25 investment per year per player doing this. If the Excelsior or Galaxy were truly "powerful enough" to not need a more powerful version like the Oddy / Regent / Avenger, then Beancounter sees just the one investment and wonders how to get more money out of said player...
Geko has said, from day 1 and the murmurs that a new tier was coming - that the design process was being geared to give us both a "T6 equivalent" for our current stuff, and the "full on T6" with all the bells and whistles. At this second, we don't know enough to see if, financially and statistically, these claims of "T5U being competitive with T6" will hold true. As of right this second, it does somewhat seem to be on track to do so, especially with the "current 10 console T5.5 "fleet" grade ships" - they're gonna wind up with an 11th console and the "usual" fleet upgrades to hull / shields vs. a full-on T6 having a 13th BOff power and the specialist BOffs...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
You ever read Cryptic people talking about declining player base is normal. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecy.
There are other space games out there, some of them even want more players
They hope for emigration for money sake. But the threat of an exodus has been mentioned many times in this thread. Most of which are probably just shooting off their mouthes (myself included) but people have already left. I no longer have any incentive to play. That's another bottom line.
Also, this idea fails to take into consideration the mechanics of how the "trade in" would actually work in game. If you de-unlock an account wide unlock, what happens to your already claimed gear? Poof into the aether? While you're using it?
But the real reason that idea is doomed is that it conflicts with the first rule of business: people are only customers when they buy stuff. People who demand stuff for free are an annoyance.
My character Tsin'xing
If they lose the whales they lose everything. They already admitted their noob retention is miserable. And its the whales that are being punished the most by these changes.
^
| He's not the only one that feels this way. This can lead to an exodus of this game. Note: I said COULD.
As for the loss of profit, they can reduce the refund value. As for re-locking stuff in use, demand that player delete the universal console(s) in question (and weaps) and retire the ship(s) in question before allowing re-lock/refund.
Agreed!! They are forcing us to pay for the T6 ships and I will simply not comply. Looks like I will be switching to Star Citizen.
My character Tsin'xing
I to feel this way and will be walking with them
eh, i've made my point enough so I'll let y'all be. I'm excited about the new content and looking forward to it. I'm also very used to upgrading gear so this is no great burden for me. The fleet credits might be tight unless there's a new big holding. Other than that no worries here.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Exactly! and then the character(s) that lose the ship(s) can then fly the T6. And if the cost is reduced than multi-turn in should be allowed.
My character Tsin'xing