It DOES matter! The rest of it was for THEIR benefit. Only the first 2 were to the players benefit. If the customer (player in this case) is not happy. You lose business. That's common sense. Seems to me a good amount of the people in these 150+ pages are NOT happy. My suggestion allows them to keep business as opposed to having it tank, badly. A big issue is that the developers don't like to listen to the players if they lose ANY money. Money matters more to them than the game itself. Unlike the players who are the opposite. So the conflict is easy to spot. My suggestion was a compromise from both sides. It seems to me you agree( from the business POV) with their nonsense. You are so focused on the idea that they would be losing money that you've turned a blind eye to what it my suggestion would mean in its entirety. So here's a question, if you are not here to get your money's worth, why are you here?
I pointed out the flaw with your idea, plain and simple. They will not give refunds, which is exactly what your idea boils down to. I don't have to agree with Cryptic/PWE's plan to see that.
You posted your idea and repeatedly asked others to read it or asked what they thought of it. I read it and told you what I thought. Apparently, everyone else was the smart enough not to give you feedback on it; especially if you are going to take it so personally.
"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."
My suggestion is that we do away with the current to be T6 ships and make T6 versions of every current 10 console T5 ship and allow full Trade ins. So we get our zen back for our paid for ships and that zen can go toward, if not pay, for the T6 version. Lobi/lockbox/event ships should get the upgrade to T6 free just as proposed. Mirror skins should be available to all ships. The hybrid boff slot, trait, increased hull + shields, and +1 console slot would be included in the T6 T5s. And then there are the case exceptions. What if I didn't purchase the C-store version or there was not one available? You would have to pay the difference to upgrade, which is fair since you have invested less. But this is because of Cryptic/PWE decision to not make a c-store version. What if I ground for everything and didn't pay a cent? well think of this as a bonus for grinding your rear off . This way people will be equal, be able to fly the ships they like, and this will appeal to long time players AND Cryptic/PWE will be able to make a profit still. Of course, new players will have to pay for everything outright which is direct profit for Cryptic/PWE.
1. Remember, the "goal" of Cryptic, in their quest to make money, is to have fugly powerful ships and "competitive" canon(esque) ships. Please advise me how making everything a T6 is going to convince you to invest in the fugly?
2. I have, on my Fed, the Thunderchild, Nebula, Gladius, Rhode Island. All 4 I don't use anywhere. What if I trade these ships in (all of them) for the Zen refund, then apply all that zen to a singluar T6? With leftovers to buy some BOff slots or upgrade a Vesta to T5U...
And how does the trade in work? All existing copies of the ship in player's shiplists gets removed? I might buy my Fed Tac a JHEC, then trade in my Armitage - but all 4 of my Feds have the Armitage in their shipyard. Do all 4 of them disappear?
Oh, if you might have forgotten, all but the Thunderchild came from "summer event type C-store giveaways". I'm sure Cryptic would love me trading in all those "free" ships to get a "not intended to be free" ship... Please note, this is different than me grinding them. They are free, truly free, all I had to do was login, click claim, and enjoy...
And if you were going to attempt to block those trade-ins, how would you discern the fact that I got mine for free, but some since-beta type player might have actually bought the nebula because at one time it was a high-end Sci/cruiser hybrid...
3. It's hard to be "certain" until the pricing schemes are released, but do keep in mind the following: I'm "anticipating" that T6s will follow the pricing schema that exists today, which is +500 zen per "tier". This would put the new T6s at either 2500 (2000 for a T5+1 +500) or 3,000 (high-end T5.5 "fleet equivalent) = 2500 +500 more). Galaxy-X (C-store) I paid 2000 for oh so long ago, potential T5U "upgrade" price of 500 = 2500. Vesta at 2500 + 500 upgrade = 3000... Yeah, it sucks for the "new guy" that's gonna have to click through a C-store purchase then the upgrade process, but isn't that already akin to the C-store then Fleet Module then visit to fleet yard to get, say, that Fleet Galaxy-X?
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]
I pointed out the flaw with your idea, plain and simple. They will not give refunds, which is exactly what your idea boils down to. I don't have to agree with Cryptic/PWE's plan to see that.
You posted your idea and repeatedly asked others to read it or asked what they thought of it. I read it and told you what I thought. Apparently, everyone else was the smart enough not to give you feedback on it; especially if you are going to take it so personally.
I didn't take it personally, you just didn't have anything substantial enough to back up your opinion. Your reasoning is as follows: They won't give you a refund because it's a refund. Well of course they won't... because none of us will give it a chance. Especially PWE/Cryptic. The long and short of it is, Cryptic/PWE care more about money than the game. We, the players, trekkies, and gamers care more about the game than money and that's why we paid for our stuff to begin with. What PWE/Cryptic is doing is taking advantage of us. All of us. regardless if we want to admit it. Yes, we can still use what we paid for, but there would be little point in doing so (for DR). Yes, our stats will remain the same, but our builds won't be relatively the same. That's why we say our ships (for this thread anyways) is being rendered obsolete. We are not whining, we are just stating fact. My suggestion will work if we the players AND Cryptic/PWE give it a chance. I know for a fact that my idea would have a better result than their current proposed plan. One of the messages of Star Trek was cooperation on a massive scale. How can we achieve that if we are calling each other names, getting upset, and not giving anybody a chance? You shooting down my idea, to me, is no different than when man thought we couldn't go to the moon. As the saying goes, you never know until you try. So, by that, being anything but optimistic will not result in progress. As people have said, progression is inevitable, both in-game and out. So, please, don't step in the way of progress, thanks.
Not off topic, I was responding to a specific poster questions AND a common bandied about axiom around here.
People take for granted that their old ships will be suddenly useless and not capable of doing anything. This has been stated subtly and not so subtly by many. It is in fact, simply not true and has been stated not to be true by Dev's in blog posts.
However, since that fact and view doesn't support their sense of self-entitlement, many people ignore it or claim the opposite. At that point, in my view and opinion, they become whiners, not players.
Don't like it when someone calls a spade and spade? Don't be one of them. Otherwise, deal with it.
I'm not sure such a inflammatory post even deserves a rensponse, but ok...
First of all to your earlier question, yes, I'm fully aware that there are Cryptic designs in the game already, thanks for strawmanning words into my mouth. The point is the ratio of original vs classic ships that you'll actually see being used. If the new made up ships have a leg up, eventually that's all we'll see, that's just the nature of the game. How many Defiants do you see nowadays? This will only get MUCH worse going forward.
Why does it matter? Because it sets the athmosphere if you feel like you are in a Star Trek game or not. I don't have anything against people who want to fly those ships, but if 4 out of 5 ships in a queue are no longer Star Trek, then I'm not in the game I signed up for.
And CBS approval makes it Star Trek, oh please, I rarely laughed that hard. All CBS approval means is that it looks inoffensive enough so that CBS is happy to take the licencing money.
Now for the content difficulty part, it's not about being able to do those missions or not. I can do all current missions in a T3 ship easily enough. But I don't. Why? Because I'm also a gamer and I know my math, and I hate wasting my and everyone else's time by gimping myself with a ****ty ship. I play to win and that means maximizing my potential as a player. And that means using the best ships and gear. It's that simple.
1. Remember, the "goal" of Cryptic, in their quest to make money, is to have fugly powerful ships and "competitive" canon(esque) ships. Please advise me how making everything a T6 is going to convince you to invest in the fugly?
2. I have, on my Fed, the Thunderchild, Nebula, Gladius, Rhode Island. All 4 I don't use anywhere. What if I trade these ships in (all of them) for the Zen refund, then apply all that zen to a singluar T6? With leftovers to buy some BOff slots or upgrade a Vesta to T5U...
And how does the trade in work? All existing copies of the ship in player's shiplists gets removed? I might buy my Fed Tac a JHEC, then trade in my Armitage - but all 4 of my Feds have the Armitage in their shipyard. Do all 4 of them disappear?
Oh, if you might have forgotten, all but the Thunderchild came from "summer event type C-store giveaways". I'm sure Cryptic would love me trading in all those "free" ships to get a "not intended to be free" ship... Please note, this is different than me grinding them. They are free, truly free, all I had to do was login, click claim, and enjoy...
And if you were going to attempt to block those trade-ins, how would you discern the fact that I got mine for free, but some since-beta type player might have actually bought the nebula because at one time it was a high-end Sci/cruiser hybrid...
3. It's hard to be "certain" until the pricing schemes are released, but do keep in mind the following: I'm "anticipating" that T6s will follow the pricing schema that exists today, which is +500 zen per "tier". This would put the new T6s at either 2500 (2000 for a T5+1 +500) or 3,000 (high-end T5.5 "fleet equivalent) = 2500 +500 more). Galaxy-X (C-store) I paid 2000 for oh so long ago, potential T5U "upgrade" price of 500 = 2500. Vesta at 2500 + 500 upgrade = 3000... Yeah, it sucks for the "new guy" that's gonna have to click through a C-store purchase then the upgrade process, but isn't that already akin to the C-store then Fleet Module then visit to fleet yard to get, say, that Fleet Galaxy-X?
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
It's interesting that you bring up Ferengi and the Rules of Acquisition. One of the rules (I don't remember which) states that: Good customers are like latinum. Cherish them. This is exactly what we are NOT being treated as. Now to your suggestion, I would agree to it only if the refund was full and that the T6 ships would cost 2500 Zen. That way its a transfer of investment rather than a cash grab. This,too, should apply to MK XII gear as well. Will I miss my T5 ships? Hell yeah I will. It's not fair for your suggestion to even be a viable option but if it doesn't make my investment obsolete, I guess it could work. But the designers need to change the appearance of the T6 ships. The fed one looks like a heavy cruiser and an advanced escort had a baby and it was raised by species 8472.:o
I'm glad someone thought the same way I did on either allowing some ships to be grandfathered over into the upgrade for T5-U in Delta Rising or Reimburse for the Tier 5 ships we trade in for zen to be used for T6 ships. And yeah guess the Ferangi phrase was a bit of a kicker to the folks at Perfectworld and Cryptic. Rather that they want to go with the idea again is either good or bad to say being that even such an idea to them may have them ruffling their feathers about not getting much profit anyway. But as with such things money pays the staff, and money makes the company go round. At least in their thoughts. My opinion of applying the same idea for consoles is in your favor "gameverseman." Personally I'm not too upset about T6 and T5-U. But to apply cost upon cost instead of a grandfather clause or even reimbursement toward a trade in zen for T6 limits such options. Guess this one on T5 Upgrades as a topic will probably be called, the "Investment Wars". And like any debate or conflict there are always two sides. The only thing in the end is will Perfectworld listen? Or make us all heed to their boot is another question. Only time can tell.
I didn't take it personally, you just didn't have anything substantial enough to back up your opinion. Your reasoning is as follows: They won't give you a refund because it's a refund. Well of course they won't... because none of us will give it a chance. Especially PWE/Cryptic. The long and short of it is, Cryptic/PWE care more about money than the game. We, the players, trekkies, and gamers care more about the game than money and that's why we paid for our stuff to begin with. What PWE/Cryptic is doing is taking advantage of us. All of us. regardless if we want to admit it. Yes, we can still use what we paid for, but there would be little point in doing so (for DR). Yes, our stats will remain the same, but our builds won't be relatively the same. That's why we say our ships (for this thread anyways) is being rendered obsolete. We are not whining, we are just stating fact. My suggestion will work if we the players AND Cryptic/PWE give it a chance. I know for a fact that my idea would have a better result than their current proposed plan. One of the messages of Star Trek was cooperation on a massive scale. How can we achieve that if we are calling each other names, getting upset, and not giving anybody a chance? You shooting down my idea, to me, is no different than when man thought we couldn't go to the moon. As the saying goes, you never know until you try. So, by that, being anything but optimistic will not result in progress. As people have said, progression is inevitable, both in-game and out. So, please, don't step in the way of progress, thanks.
Well, I am sorry that I decided to keep it simple. Next time I will give a three to five paragraph dissertation to overstate the obvious.
They won't give a refund, because we already purchased the ships as is. The EULA states that gameplay may change.
"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."
I'm glad someone thought the same way I did on either allowing some ships to be grandfathered over into the upgrade for T5-U in Delta Rising or Reimburse for the Tier 5 ships we trade in for zen to be used for T6 ships. And yeah guess the Ferangi phrase was a bit of a kicker to the folks at Perfectworld and Cryptic. Rather that they want to go with the idea again is either good or bad to say being that even such an idea to them may have them ruffling their feathers about not getting much profit anyway. But as with such things money pays the staff, and money makes the company go round. At least in their thoughts. My opinion of applying the same idea for consoles is in your favor "gameverseman." Personally I'm not too upset about T6 and T5-U. But to apply cost upon cost instead of a grandfather clause or even reimbursement toward a trade in zen for T6 limits such options. Guess this one on T5 Upgrades as a topic will probably be called, the "Investment Wars". And like any debate or conflict there are always two sides. The only thing in the end is will Perfectworld listen? Or make us all heed to their boot is another question. Only time can tell.
Believe it or not, it was your suggestion that inspired my refined one. Yours alone wouldn't work because, as pointed out by sohtoh, its a refund and businesses don't like refunds. So I modified it to be more a compromise but people, I guess, just don't want to compromise. So like you said, "only time can tell".
Well, I am sorry that I decided to keep it simple. Next time I will give a three to five paragraph dissertation to overstate the obvious.
They won't give a refund, because we already purchased the ships as is. The EULA states that gameplay may change.
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.
Believe it or not, it was your suggestion that inspired my refined one. Yours alone wouldn't work because, as pointed out by sohtoh, its a refund and businesses don't like refunds. So I modified it to be more a compromise but people, I guess, just don't want to compromise. So like you said, "only time can tell".
It's not upset at all. In fact, I am glad someone is picking up the banner on the idea and refining it. I'm actually glad there is someone responding and carrying the idea. After all a suggestion, refined with innovation and collaberation is definately a good combo to make a product even better. Heck even if I invented something and someone made it better? I be amazed. I think for me the overall goal is just getting the idea out, someone catching on to it and making it better. That's all I wanted to see. Again "gaverseman" I love the idea hope this gets out to them.
But the wording on reimburse was not refund. Think trade in Tier V, and that trade in is credited in zen to be used toward T6. Hope that clears things up.
It's not upset at all. In fact, I am glad someone is picking up the banner on the idea and refining it. I'm actually glad there is someone responding and carrying the idea. After all a suggestion, refined with innovation and collaberation is definately a good combo to make a product even better. Heck even if I invented something and someone made it better? I be amazed. I think for me the overall goal is just getting the idea out, someone catching on to it and making it better. That's all I wanted to see. Again "gaverseman" I love the idea hope this gets out to them.
As do I.... As do I. Well refund is probably not the best word since we still are not getting our money back and am only getting zen back which is only good in-game anyways. Thanks for the clarification.
You made a good point. It was be logical to put a security measure in place that only allows you to spend the zen on the T6. Perhaps instead of zen, it could be like upgrade points or tokens but have the same value. So 2000 zen = 2000 UP or UT. 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
You did not address the points of "multiple ship trade ins". I believe that your plan was built around a 1/1 trade in - give up 1x ship, pay difference, get 1x new ship. I illustrated a potential flaw in plan there.
You also don't address the business need of fugly=power, canon=flown for looks with a slight loss in power but "still competitive". You are taking the fan's viewpoint that canon+power is what we should be flying. Again, I reference 2 multi-thousand post threads asking for the Galaxy to be "canon+power", and Cryptic's "response" to same - minor tweaks as response to first, continued lack of changes as response to second.
Yes, it sucks that this is how Cryptic wants to do things, but they've found that people are willing to pay for both the Canon ships and the fugly ships, so that they can have high power for when it's necessary and the canon ships for when they want that "full-on Star Trek experience" - and still feel that they're "contributing to the team" unless they're a "14 year old min-maxer"...
You also failed to prove that the anticipated pricing structure (one step T6 at 2500-3000 zen vs multi-step 2000+500, 2000+500+500, 2500+500 to T5U) does not bring in the same level of profit for Cryptic as "trade in a 2500, buy a 3000" would. However, as I illustrated in my multi-ship trade in deal, even with your "proposed trade in currency" I could give up Nebula and Gladius for, say, a new Vesta or a (hopeful) T6 Connie.
And before someone rides me as a schill, I am a fan. Look at my sig - I'm wanting a T5U/T6 Connie. "My ideal" ship is the one I watched, in reruns, when I was in kindergarden (which was late '70s btw) before TMP was released. I feel "slighted" that all the TNG fans - of any sort - have their TV ships. Because Geko loves the Excelsior, that's T5, and soon to be T5U. But poor ToS fans, we have to suffer in TNG, "barely competitive T1", or "fugly" ships because someone says so. Trek is more than just the ship, and I'm capable of flying non-canon or semi-canon designs to enjoy the entire setting... And, I understand / accept (at varying levels) the need for a corporation to please stockholders / make money while attempting to make things fun and challenging for the fans / players. My support for T5U comes, semi-reluctantly, because I understand that if my Vesta = T6, they only get $5 or $10 out of me. If my Vesta = T5U, then they get the $5 for the Vesta use, plus (eventually) the $25-30 for the actual T6. Many of us are "semi willing" to do so in support of the game instead of insisting on the cheapest / best route for us with no care to whether this expansion's income level pleases the PWE execs enough to let Cryptic keep doing their thing vs. the decision to send in the overseer that makes this a Chinese Grind and really tries to push the "typical F2P churn" style of major player alienation and collection of new meat that pays through the nose...
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]
After all, a suggestion, refined with innovation and collaboration is definitely a good combo to make a product even better. Heck, even if I invented something and someone made it better? I'd be amazed. I think, for me, the overall goal is just getting the idea out, someone catching on to it, and making it better.
That, folks, is how you are suppose to improve a game. Not bicker among ourselves about it.
Well, I am sorry that I decided to keep it simple. Next time I will give a three to five paragraph dissertation to overstate the obvious.
They won't give a refund, because we already purchased the ships as is. The EULA states that gameplay may change.
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.
You did not address the points of "multiple ship trade ins". I believe that your plan was built around a 1/1 trade in - give up 1x ship, pay difference, get 1x new ship. I illustrated a potential flaw in plan there.
You also don't address the business need of fugly=power, canon=flown for looks with a slight loss in power but "still competitive". You are taking the fan's viewpoint that canon+power is what we should be flying. Again, I reference 2 multi-thousand post threads asking for the Galaxy to be "canon+power", and Cryptic's "response" to same - minor tweaks as response to first, continued lack of changes as response to second.
Yes, it sucks that this is how Cryptic wants to do things, but they've found that people are willing to pay for both the Canon ships and the fugly ships, so that they can have high power for when it's necessary and the canon ships for when they want that "full-on Star Trek experience" - and still feel that they're "contributing to the team" unless they're a "14 year old min-maxer"...
You also failed to prove that the anticipated pricing structure (one step T6 at 2500-3000 zen vs multi-step 2000+500, 2000+500+500, 2500+500 to T5U) does not bring in the same level of profit for Cryptic as "trade in a 2500, buy a 3000" would. However, as I illustrated in my multi-ship trade in deal, even with your "proposed trade in currency" I could give up Nebula and Gladius for, say, a new Vesta or a (hopeful) T6 Connie.
And before someone rides me as a schill, I am a fan. Look at my sig - I'm wanting a T5U/T6 Connie. "My ideal" ship is the one I watched, in reruns, when I was in kindergarden (which was late '70s btw) before TMP was released. I feel "slighted" that all the TNG fans - of any sort - have their TV ships. Because Geko loves the Excelsior, that's T5, and soon to be T5U. But poor ToS fans, we have to suffer in TNG, "barely competitive T1", or "fugly" ships because someone says so. Trek is more than just the ship, and I'm capable of flying non-canon or semi-canon designs to enjoy the entire setting... And, I understand / accept (at varying levels) the need for a corporation to please stockholders / make money while attempting to make things fun and challenging for the fans / players. My support for T5U comes, semi-reluctantly, because I understand that if my Vesta = T6, they only get $5 or $10 out of me. If my Vesta = T5U, then they get the $5 for the Vesta use, plus (eventually) the $25-30 for the actual T6. Many of us are "semi willing" to do so in support of the game instead of insisting on the cheapest / best route for us with no care to whether this expansion's income level pleases the PWE execs enough to let Cryptic keep doing their thing vs. the decision to send in the overseer that makes this a Chinese Grind and really tries to push the "typical F2P churn" style of major player alienation and collection of new meat that pays through the nose...
I did edit my original response, It should answer your questions you mentioned. If it doesn't, please let me know. I'd be happy to work it out with you or anyone else who wants to improve my idea rather than shooting it down .
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.
There is one problem with what you said, since the T6 price is unknown, getting only 2/3s our zen back will more than likely not cover the T6. So, in that case, it would no longer be a swap. If I trade in my T5s, I don't want to be left hanging without a ship lol. Thats where dareau's idea of multiple ship trade in comes in. I should be allowed to trade in multiple ships for whatever I choose. (logic dictates it would be a T6 ship and something else depending on prices.). This way, nobody feels it's a wasted investment. that should take most of the "whining" out of the mix. But what I was saying ghobepong is that the existing T5s should be bumped to T6 as well. That way we aren't stuck with whatever the T6s will be. IMO, I'd prefer to fly the Gal X over the shown T6s, but performance comes first before looks I guess.
You did not address the points of "multiple ship trade ins". I believe that your plan was built around a 1/1 trade in - give up 1x ship, pay difference, get 1x new ship. I illustrated a potential flaw in plan there.
You also don't address the business need of fugly=power, canon=flown for looks with a slight loss in power but "still competitive". You are taking the fan's viewpoint that canon+power is what we should be flying. Again, I reference 2 multi-thousand post threads asking for the Galaxy to be "canon+power", and Cryptic's "response" to same - minor tweaks as response to first, continued lack of changes as response to second.
Yes, it sucks that this is how Cryptic wants to do things, but they've found that people are willing to pay for both the Canon ships and the fugly ships, so that they can have high power for when it's necessary and the canon ships for when they want that "full-on Star Trek experience" - and still feel that they're "contributing to the team" unless they're a "14 year old min-maxer"...
You also failed to prove that the anticipated pricing structure (one step T6 at 2500-3000 zen vs multi-step 2000+500, 2000+500+500, 2500+500 to T5U) does not bring in the same level of profit for Cryptic as "trade in a 2500, buy a 3000" would. However, as I illustrated in my multi-ship trade in deal, even with your "proposed trade in currency" I could give up Nebula and Gladius for, say, a new Vesta or a (hopeful) T6 Connie.
And before someone rides me as a schill, I am a fan. Look at my sig - I'm wanting a T5U/T6 Connie. "My ideal" ship is the one I watched, in reruns, when I was in kindergarden (which was late '70s btw) before TMP was released. I feel "slighted" that all the TNG fans - of any sort - have their TV ships. Because Geko loves the Excelsior, that's T5, and soon to be T5U. But poor ToS fans, we have to suffer in TNG, "barely competitive T1", or "fugly" ships because someone says so. Trek is more than just the ship, and I'm capable of flying non-canon or semi-canon designs to enjoy the entire setting... And, I understand / accept (at varying levels) the need for a corporation to please stockholders / make money while attempting to make things fun and challenging for the fans / players. My support for T5U comes, semi-reluctantly, because I understand that if my Vesta = T6, they only get $5 or $10 out of me. If my Vesta = T5U, then they get the $5 for the Vesta use, plus (eventually) the $25-30 for the actual T6. Many of us are "semi willing" to do so in support of the game instead of insisting on the cheapest / best route for us with no care to whether this expansion's income level pleases the PWE execs enough to let Cryptic keep doing their thing vs. the decision to send in the overseer that makes this a Chinese Grind and really tries to push the "typical F2P churn" style of major player alienation and collection of new meat that pays through the nose...
Dareau, the problem is not the idea of just one ship. Although Verseman might have edited it in his post. The idea here in "general" is being allowed to trade in a ship that we already have and use it toward a Tier 6 itself in general. Right now the idea on the table that Perfectworld wants to do here for T5-U is either charge $5, to $10 worth in Zen to upgrade each ship. And this is also toward ships we even purchased from the Z store like the "Dreadnaught Carrier" and so forth. Lets look at this "again"
X=$10
Now I have five starships I want to upgrade.
5 x X= $50
Wow, I just upgraded five starships for the total price of a Ship Bundle. I feel extra special. Now for kicks and giggles "again"
X=$5
5 x X= $25
Oh goody, I just upgraded five starships for the price of one Z Store Starship.
Now, is it just me? Or does this sound like a Ferangi and a Vulcan debating logic and profit during a Romulan Ale bar conversation here? Brilliant!
There is one problem with what you said, since the T6 price is unknown, getting only 2/3s our zen back will more than likely not cover the T6. So, in that case, it would no longer be a swap. If I trade in my T5s, I don't want to be left hanging without a ship lol. Thats where dareau's idea of multiple ship trade in comes in. I should be allowed to trade in multiple ships for whatever I choose. (logic dictates it would be a T6 ship and something else depending on prices.). This way, nobody feels it's a wasted investment. that should take most of the "whining" out of the mix. But what I was saying ghobepong is that the existing T5s should be bumped to T6 as well. That way we aren't stuck with whatever the T6s will be. IMO, I'd prefer to fly the Gal X over the shown T6s, but performance comes first before looks I guess.
Eh, I'm just trying to get the general idea out there Verseman. What the heck, BRING ME A BLOODWINE! Qa'PlaH!
Dareau, the problem is not the idea of just one ship. Although Verseman might have edited it in his post. The idea here in "general" is being allowed to trade in a ship that we already have and use it toward a Tier 6 itself in general. Right now the idea on the table that Perfectworld wants to do here for T5-U is either charge $5, to $10 worth in Zen to upgrade each ship. And this is also toward ships we even purchased from the Z store like the "Dreadnaught Carrier" and so forth. Lets look at this "again"
X=$10
Now I have five starships I want to upgrade.
5 x X= $50
Wow, I just upgraded five starships for the total price of a Ship Bundle. I feel extra special. Now for kicks and giggles "again"
X=$5
5 x X= $25
Oh goody, I just upgraded five starships for the price of one Z Store Starship.
Now, is it just me? Or does this sound like a Ferangi and a Vulcan debating logic and profit during a Romulan Ale bar conversation here? Brilliant!
I look at is as more, we are getting the zen we paid for in exchange for what we purchased with the zen. But your break down works too.
Eh, I'm just trying to get the general idea out there Verseman. What the heck, BRING ME A BLOODWINE! Qa'PlaH!
The nice thing is, if we trade in multiple cstore ships toward a full T6 ship + something else, at least the T6 ship is account unlock so, like me, if we have multiple characters, we can claim the ship with them. . The more I think about it, the more I like our idea.
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.
Comments
I pointed out the flaw with your idea, plain and simple. They will not give refunds, which is exactly what your idea boils down to. I don't have to agree with Cryptic/PWE's plan to see that.
You posted your idea and repeatedly asked others to read it or asked what they thought of it. I read it and told you what I thought. Apparently, everyone else was the smart enough not to give you feedback on it; especially if you are going to take it so personally.
1. Remember, the "goal" of Cryptic, in their quest to make money, is to have fugly powerful ships and "competitive" canon(esque) ships. Please advise me how making everything a T6 is going to convince you to invest in the fugly?
2. I have, on my Fed, the Thunderchild, Nebula, Gladius, Rhode Island. All 4 I don't use anywhere. What if I trade these ships in (all of them) for the Zen refund, then apply all that zen to a singluar T6? With leftovers to buy some BOff slots or upgrade a Vesta to T5U...
And how does the trade in work? All existing copies of the ship in player's shiplists gets removed? I might buy my Fed Tac a JHEC, then trade in my Armitage - but all 4 of my Feds have the Armitage in their shipyard. Do all 4 of them disappear?
Oh, if you might have forgotten, all but the Thunderchild came from "summer event type C-store giveaways". I'm sure Cryptic would love me trading in all those "free" ships to get a "not intended to be free" ship... Please note, this is different than me grinding them. They are free, truly free, all I had to do was login, click claim, and enjoy...
And if you were going to attempt to block those trade-ins, how would you discern the fact that I got mine for free, but some since-beta type player might have actually bought the nebula because at one time it was a high-end Sci/cruiser hybrid...
3. It's hard to be "certain" until the pricing schemes are released, but do keep in mind the following: I'm "anticipating" that T6s will follow the pricing schema that exists today, which is +500 zen per "tier". This would put the new T6s at either 2500 (2000 for a T5+1 +500) or 3,000 (high-end T5.5 "fleet equivalent) = 2500 +500 more). Galaxy-X (C-store) I paid 2000 for oh so long ago, potential T5U "upgrade" price of 500 = 2500. Vesta at 2500 + 500 upgrade = 3000... Yeah, it sucks for the "new guy" that's gonna have to click through a C-store purchase then the upgrade process, but isn't that already akin to the C-store then Fleet Module then visit to fleet yard to get, say, that Fleet Galaxy-X?
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 didn't take it personally, you just didn't have anything substantial enough to back up your opinion. Your reasoning is as follows: They won't give you a refund because it's a refund. Well of course they won't... because none of us will give it a chance. Especially PWE/Cryptic. The long and short of it is, Cryptic/PWE care more about money than the game. We, the players, trekkies, and gamers care more about the game than money and that's why we paid for our stuff to begin with. What PWE/Cryptic is doing is taking advantage of us. All of us. regardless if we want to admit it. Yes, we can still use what we paid for, but there would be little point in doing so (for DR). Yes, our stats will remain the same, but our builds won't be relatively the same. That's why we say our ships (for this thread anyways) is being rendered obsolete. We are not whining, we are just stating fact. My suggestion will work if we the players AND Cryptic/PWE give it a chance. I know for a fact that my idea would have a better result than their current proposed plan. One of the messages of Star Trek was cooperation on a massive scale. How can we achieve that if we are calling each other names, getting upset, and not giving anybody a chance? You shooting down my idea, to me, is no different than when man thought we couldn't go to the moon. As the saying goes, you never know until you try. So, by that, being anything but optimistic will not result in progress. As people have said, progression is inevitable, both in-game and out. So, please, don't step in the way of progress, thanks.
I'm not sure such a inflammatory post even deserves a rensponse, but ok...
First of all to your earlier question, yes, I'm fully aware that there are Cryptic designs in the game already, thanks for strawmanning words into my mouth. The point is the ratio of original vs classic ships that you'll actually see being used. If the new made up ships have a leg up, eventually that's all we'll see, that's just the nature of the game. How many Defiants do you see nowadays? This will only get MUCH worse going forward.
Why does it matter? Because it sets the athmosphere if you feel like you are in a Star Trek game or not. I don't have anything against people who want to fly those ships, but if 4 out of 5 ships in a queue are no longer Star Trek, then I'm not in the game I signed up for.
And CBS approval makes it Star Trek, oh please, I rarely laughed that hard. All CBS approval means is that it looks inoffensive enough so that CBS is happy to take the licencing money.
Now for the content difficulty part, it's not about being able to do those missions or not. I can do all current missions in a T3 ship easily enough. But I don't. Why? Because I'm also a gamer and I know my math, and I hate wasting my and everyone else's time by gimping myself with a ****ty ship. I play to win and that means maximizing my potential as a player. And that means using the best ships and gear. It's that simple.
I'm glad someone thought the same way I did on either allowing some ships to be grandfathered over into the upgrade for T5-U in Delta Rising or Reimburse for the Tier 5 ships we trade in for zen to be used for T6 ships. And yeah guess the Ferangi phrase was a bit of a kicker to the folks at Perfectworld and Cryptic. Rather that they want to go with the idea again is either good or bad to say being that even such an idea to them may have them ruffling their feathers about not getting much profit anyway. But as with such things money pays the staff, and money makes the company go round. At least in their thoughts. My opinion of applying the same idea for consoles is in your favor "gameverseman." Personally I'm not too upset about T6 and T5-U. But to apply cost upon cost instead of a grandfather clause or even reimbursement toward a trade in zen for T6 limits such options. Guess this one on T5 Upgrades as a topic will probably be called, the "Investment Wars". And like any debate or conflict there are always two sides. The only thing in the end is will Perfectworld listen? Or make us all heed to their boot is another question. Only time can tell.
Well, I am sorry that I decided to keep it simple. Next time I will give a three to five paragraph dissertation to overstate the obvious.
They won't give a refund, because we already purchased the ships as is. The EULA states that gameplay may change.
Believe it or not, it was your suggestion that inspired my refined one. Yours alone wouldn't work because, as pointed out by sohtoh, its a refund and businesses don't like refunds. So I modified it to be more a compromise but people, I guess, just don't want to compromise. So like you said, "only time can tell".
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.
It's not upset at all. In fact, I am glad someone is picking up the banner on the idea and refining it. I'm actually glad there is someone responding and carrying the idea. After all a suggestion, refined with innovation and collaberation is definately a good combo to make a product even better. Heck even if I invented something and someone made it better? I be amazed. I think for me the overall goal is just getting the idea out, someone catching on to it and making it better. That's all I wanted to see. Again "gaverseman" I love the idea hope this gets out to them.
But the wording on reimburse was not refund. Think trade in Tier V, and that trade in is credited in zen to be used toward T6. Hope that clears things up.
As do I.... As do I. Well refund is probably not the best word since we still are not getting our money back and am only getting zen back which is only good in-game anyways. Thanks for the clarification.
You did not address the points of "multiple ship trade ins". I believe that your plan was built around a 1/1 trade in - give up 1x ship, pay difference, get 1x new ship. I illustrated a potential flaw in plan there.
You also don't address the business need of fugly=power, canon=flown for looks with a slight loss in power but "still competitive". You are taking the fan's viewpoint that canon+power is what we should be flying. Again, I reference 2 multi-thousand post threads asking for the Galaxy to be "canon+power", and Cryptic's "response" to same - minor tweaks as response to first, continued lack of changes as response to second.
Yes, it sucks that this is how Cryptic wants to do things, but they've found that people are willing to pay for both the Canon ships and the fugly ships, so that they can have high power for when it's necessary and the canon ships for when they want that "full-on Star Trek experience" - and still feel that they're "contributing to the team" unless they're a "14 year old min-maxer"...
You also failed to prove that the anticipated pricing structure (one step T6 at 2500-3000 zen vs multi-step 2000+500, 2000+500+500, 2500+500 to T5U) does not bring in the same level of profit for Cryptic as "trade in a 2500, buy a 3000" would. However, as I illustrated in my multi-ship trade in deal, even with your "proposed trade in currency" I could give up Nebula and Gladius for, say, a new Vesta or a (hopeful) T6 Connie.
And before someone rides me as a schill, I am a fan. Look at my sig - I'm wanting a T5U/T6 Connie. "My ideal" ship is the one I watched, in reruns, when I was in kindergarden (which was late '70s btw) before TMP was released. I feel "slighted" that all the TNG fans - of any sort - have their TV ships. Because Geko loves the Excelsior, that's T5, and soon to be T5U. But poor ToS fans, we have to suffer in TNG, "barely competitive T1", or "fugly" ships because someone says so. Trek is more than just the ship, and I'm capable of flying non-canon or semi-canon designs to enjoy the entire setting... And, I understand / accept (at varying levels) the need for a corporation to please stockholders / make money while attempting to make things fun and challenging for the fans / players. My support for T5U comes, semi-reluctantly, because I understand that if my Vesta = T6, they only get $5 or $10 out of me. If my Vesta = T5U, then they get the $5 for the Vesta use, plus (eventually) the $25-30 for the actual T6. Many of us are "semi willing" to do so in support of the game instead of insisting on the cheapest / best route for us with no care to whether this expansion's income level pleases the PWE execs enough to let Cryptic keep doing their thing vs. the decision to send in the overseer that makes this a Chinese Grind and really tries to push the "typical F2P churn" style of major player alienation and collection of new meat that pays through the nose...
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]
That, folks, is how you are suppose to improve a game. Not bicker among ourselves about it.
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.
Dareau, the problem is not the idea of just one ship. Although Verseman might have edited it in his post. The idea here in "general" is being allowed to trade in a ship that we already have and use it toward a Tier 6 itself in general. Right now the idea on the table that Perfectworld wants to do here for T5-U is either charge $5, to $10 worth in Zen to upgrade each ship. And this is also toward ships we even purchased from the Z store like the "Dreadnaught Carrier" and so forth. Lets look at this "again"
X=$10
Now I have five starships I want to upgrade.
5 x X= $50
Wow, I just upgraded five starships for the total price of a Ship Bundle. I feel extra special. Now for kicks and giggles "again"
X=$5
5 x X= $25
Oh goody, I just upgraded five starships for the price of one Z Store Starship.
Now, is it just me? Or does this sound like a Ferangi and a Vulcan debating logic and profit during a Romulan Ale bar conversation here? Brilliant!
Eh, I'm just trying to get the general idea out there Verseman. What the heck, BRING ME A BLOODWINE! Qa'PlaH!
The nice thing is, if we trade in multiple cstore ships toward a full T6 ship + something else, at least the T6 ship is account unlock so, like me, if we have multiple characters, we can claim the ship with them.
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.