I am an MMO addict (i find solo games boring and linear) I refuse to use steam unless forced. Most MMO's I play offer a version not on steam which I pick. Unless you know the number of people who use the arc client and not the steam client its a bit of a shot in the dark. Its very possible that there are more arc users then steam users since steams rep is actually not that good if people are offered an alternative to not use steam there are a lot of people who take it. With the introduction of their new arc client its very possible that people who were using steam because they had no choice may have switched to arc instead to get away from steam.
Without knowing info such as that there is no way of knowing if those who are not playing STO on steam are not playing STO period or have switched to the arc client (like I did)
You're trying too hard. You pick me out, because you dissagree with me. I can live with that. My Gnashing statement holds. The Angst being conjured here is apparent in your post (above).
I wish you could post something about the actual debate going on, and try not singling out one turn of phrase for a scree.
Where is that guy that keeps telling me to stay on topic now?
No, I'm picking you out because you arrogantly claim to know what the the issues I and everyone else have with the game are, which lead us to a desire for a change in the management of the game. I didn't put words in your mouth, but you were arrogant enough to put words into everyone's mouth.
And teeth gnashing? Can you see me? Again, are you claiming to be a telepath? Have a camera installed in everyone's home?
Back under the bridge now.
It is a pretty big gamble to make, with millions and millions of dollars at stake. I'm not saying it could not happen, I am just saying that wishing death on STO (as opposed to perhaps being persistent with constructive feedback) is a fool's errand.
I like STO. I do not like all of the facets. I do not like all of the recent changes.
But it's still a game I believe Cryptic has gotten mostly right. And I would not wish death on this game for a snowball's chance in hell of a miracle Star Trek MMO that somehow results in everybody being happy.
Alien Domain for instance... a browser-based game. Star Trek doesn't exactly dazzle and amaze people as much as people on the forums (including me) sometimes wish it did. And not the kind of people with the raw financial capital to see STO as something they could do better.
I don't think anyone in this thread wishes death on STO as bitter a pill as some of the comments on either side may be.
Someone who argues that the management needs to change isn't done doing business with STO and doesn't want the game to fail. They want to find the game more appealing and don't think the existing management team can convince them to find it more appealing.
I think, taken properly, that's a great challenge for the present management team to try to meet.
Even if STO is doing everything right, PWE stock is down over 20% in under a month. Which can impact STO even if STO is profitable and doing everything right. Management could be replaced while doing everything right simply due to PWE's volatility. The single best thing, I think, for management to do is to create goodwill with the community that can help them secure their position.
STO may be performing and management could get replaced (barring contracts) for not performing ENOUGH or not performing MORE, expected to prop up other divisions. Whereas if management is well liked and that becomes part of the goodwill value of the product, they have the defense that removing them would devalue PWE's assets.
I am an MMO addict (i find solo games boring and linear) I refuse to use steam unless forced.
That statement, in regards to STO vs. single player games which include most of the richest open-world, non-linear gameplay available, is hysterical.
As to the OP -
Yes, a change in leadership might help. But I think a lot of the bad stuff is coming from higher than anyone in Cryptic. I sincerely believe that the accounting based directives are coming from PWE, not from some fall guys at Cryptic.
My guess is "hope" keeps people not playing but posting on the forums. For others, its a path of sad realization and closure. Grieving takes time. The worst "haters" here love the game, or did at some point.
I am a single-game player recently forced onto Steam when my old laptop died and I had no real choice except Steam to avoid installing Arc, since the old launcher was not one of the items that made it onto the backup drive before the prior laptop had a catastrophic HD failure. So while some Steam users are multi-game players, some are not; the reason I reinstalled with Steam dad on the advice of my fleet that it was the better of the two options.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
That statement, in regards to STO vs. single player games which include most of the richest open-world, non-linear gameplay available, is hysterical.
As to the OP -
.
Well they are have you played some of the new single player games 70 bucks and 2 days later your finished playing it then it sits on a shelf never to be played again (well these days its digital download for 70 bucks which you dont even have a coaster afterwards..) . At least I had coasters when digital was not popular (yes once i finished with a single player game I made a coaster out of the cd I kid you not so I stopped playing them)
I don't think anyone in this thread wishes death on STO as bitter a pill as some of the comments on either side may be.
Someone who argues that the management needs to change isn't done doing business with STO and doesn't want the game to fail. They want to find the game more appealing and don't think the existing management team can convince them to find it more appealing.
I think, taken properly, that's a great challenge for the present management team to try to meet.
Even if STO is doing everything right, PWE stock is down over 20% in under a month. Which can impact STO even if STO is profitable and doing everything right. Management could be replaced while doing everything right simply due to PWE's volatility. The single best thing, I think, for management to do is to create goodwill with the community that can help them secure their position.
STO may be performing and management could get replaced (barring contracts) for not performing ENOUGH or not performing MORE, expected to prop up other divisions. Whereas if management is well liked and that becomes part of the goodwill value of the product, they have the defense that removing them would devalue PWE's assets.
I agree with most of this. I think people asking for management to change, however, is the wrong way to go about having a better STO experience.
They clearly are not immune to player feedback. We have seen changes recently in some of the systems. I would most certainly love to see more changes.
I think there are some people at PWE/Cryptic who are out of touch with the community, but it can more easily be resolved by encouraging them to take part, instead of wishing them to go away in the hopes of something better.
I do not think I am willing to ask for various people to quit (or shift from their position in Cryptic) in the slim hope that new people filling the role will somehow wave a magic wand and make things better. This has happened before with things like Gozer (after he left the prototype tech drop rates increase dramatically after he said the never would), but it should by no means be considered the norm.
Things can always be worse than they currently are. I have a feeling if there was new management, nothing substantial would change because the driving force behind their decisions have very little to do with management and more to do with Perfect World's influence. Some publishers are more involved than others, and I sincerely believe their influence over Cryptic is what results in some of these decisions many of us do not like.
If management is changed, it is my opinion we're just going to have a case of "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
And if that is the case, it's a waste of customer energy that could be better channeled through other forms of communication.
I disagree, it is just as likely an argument that STO players find gaming through the IP Star Trek rather than any multiplatform Gaming tool.
My hypothesis is that the connection bewteen Steam users and the general population of STO players it is not grounded in fact at all. I don;t need to prove there isn;t a representative connection, it's your job to prove one, given your statement.
The only thing the Steam mumbers are useful for are conparisons to other Steam munbers. That is obvious.
Steam users can represent non-Steam users who are sufficiently similar though. THAT is why he's telling you to take a statistics class.
And there is a better case to be made that at least a substantial number of non-Steam users if not a majority are statistically represented by Steam users.
And those users who are not Steam users or represented well by Steam users? Well, they might have been more likely to quit or less likely to quit but I find it dubious that the number of them would increase substantially at this point.
Which would make it very reasonable to suggest that a decline in Steam users represents an overall decline in users.
It could be somewhat more people leaving if Trek fans are more fickle. It could be fewer people leaving. I can't see a way that you could have a net increase in players if the Steam charts are consistently and visibly down.
Players who are like Steam players can be accurately modeled for based on Steam player data.
Well they are have you played some of the new single player games 70 bucks and 2 days later your finished playing it then it sits on a shelf never to be played again (well these days its digital download for 70 bucks which you dont even have a coaster afterwards..) . At least I had coasters when digital was not popular (yes once i finished with a single player game I made a coaster out of the cd I kid you not so I stopped playing them)
:P
No, I have never spent $70 on a game with a 48 hour (assuming no sleep whatsoever over two days) completion.
And I have about 90 single player or non-MMO multiplayer titles in my Steam Library, as well as a few on Origin, a 50+ on GoG, and a classic 100 CD wallet full. The vast majority fall into two categories - cheap or free, or AAA titles with long completion times, and huge replay value. I don't spend money on games without research.
Even the original Baldur's gate was longer than 48 hours worth of gameplay. And, despite it being highly story driven, it was significantly more of a sandbox than STO is.
STO is arguably the most limited, linear, unpleasantly grindy MMO I have ever played, and I have played almost every AAA MMO, and a lot of indy titles. I still love the hell out of it - it's Trek. And I am willing to put up with some garbage in order to play a Trek game. But not just purely insulting cashgrabs, and an obvious uncaring attitude towards long-term sustainability.
My guess is "hope" keeps people not playing but posting on the forums. For others, its a path of sad realization and closure. Grieving takes time. The worst "haters" here love the game, or did at some point.
I disagree, it is just as likely an argument that STO players find gaming through the IP Star Trek rather than any multiplatform Gaming tool.
My hypothesis is that the connection bewteen Steam users and the general population of STO players it is not grounded in fact at all. I don;t need to prove there isn;t a representative connection, it's your job to prove one, given your statement.
The only thing the Steam mumbers are useful for are conparisons to other Steam munbers. That is obvious.
I'm going to be a nice as I can be and say you have no idea at all what you're talking about. Review some even the most basics in statistics will 'maybe' help you understand, but either way I don't really care what you do, but you're making yourself look silly with these statements.
I also don't care about the steam numbers. At the end of the day, what I care about is what my friends are doing and what the queues are doing (as they are[were]my favorite type of content to play). What I see is, nothing more than a bunch of 0s and my friends have all but one, left.
This is what I care about because it directly effects me and how I can enjoy the game. Well, I'm playing other games that my friends have found, and the grass is much greener and more enjoyable.
I like Star Trek, but I think I was just too hung up on the fact that the game had the name Star Trek in it. The game itself, has aged, and looks like something you'd play on a tablet, not on a PC and is just not an enjoyable experience.
Retired. I'm now in search for that perfect space anomaly.
My advice to Cryptic management is simple but perhaps counterintuitive:
When a customer calls for you to get fired as management, it's because they want to put cash INTO your business. They perceive your current approach as getting in the way of them spending money on your product.
When a shareholder calls for you to get fired as management, it's because they want the stock to stabilize or change course and they want to pull money OUT OF your business. They perceive your current approach as damaging their ability to sell at a profit, either in the short or long run.
Having customers call for your head represents an opportunity for profit.
I like Star Trek, but I think I was just too hung up on the fact that the game had the name Star Trek in it. The game itself, has aged, and looks like something you'd play on a tablet, not on a PC and is just not an enjoyable experience.
My guess is "hope" keeps people not playing but posting on the forums. For others, its a path of sad realization and closure. Grieving takes time. The worst "haters" here love the game, or did at some point.
I'm going to be a nice as I can be and say you have no idea at all what you're talking about. Review some even the most basics in statistics will 'maybe' help you understand, but either way I don't really care what you do, but you're making yourself look silly with these statements.
I also don't care about the steam numbers. At the end of the day, what I care about is what my friends are doing and what the queues are doing (as they are[were]my favorite type of content to play). What I see is, nothing more than a bunch of 0s and my friends have all but one, left.
Dude...if you DONT care why read the forums...Keep on grinding till your eyes bleed and keep saying to yourself...BEST EXPANSION EVER...VIVA CRYPTIC!!! :cool:
How do you now they pretend that everything is okay? When was the last time you spoke with Geko?
Why do you think they would pretend and ignore everything? What do they have to gain? It's not like the forums suddenly become quit and relaxed for it, or that players that leave reconsider because Cryptic pretends everything is fine?
We also all know that there a patch or maintenance comes usually once a week.
We also know that big changes usually take time. Anyone remember that tacofangs said in response to a Winter Event thread that the event was basically already done and the only thing that you could still give useful ideas to would be something like the Summer Event, which is still several months off.
In the Priority One interview with Jesse Heinig, he mentioned ideas for how to make the upgrade system more user friendly, but he warned to expect the changes before next year.
That is the kind of time frames you have to think in. Anything between 1 week to 6 months. That's a wide span, but it should remind you that just because they listen to feedback and decide to enact changes doesn't mean they will automatically come a week later.
You think a new leadership would do it any faster?
Nobody's going to pretend that everybody likes everything about DR or even the game in general, but I agree with this.
Even if they wanted to change something, it takes time to do it right no matter who's in charge. Look what happens when they rush changes because of an exploit. They end up spending more time fixing the fix.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Dude...if you DONT care why read the forums...Keep on grinding till your eyes bleed and keep saying to yourself...BEST EXPANSION EVER...VIVA CRYPTIC!!! :cool:
But the forums are more enjoyable than the game itself at this point.
Hey, you never know, things might turn around.....you just...never...know...:o
Retired. I'm now in search for that perfect space anomaly.
Nobody's going to pretend that everybody likes everything about DR or even the game in general, but I agree with this.
Even if they wanted to change something, it takes time to do it right no matter who's in charge. Look what happens when they rush changes because of an exploit. They end up spending more time fixing the fix.
You are completely correct.
HOWEVER.
Even though it would risk feeding the trolls, and even if it means the person making the official statement becomes a sacrificial lamb, someone should be doing real damage control on this.
The longer this forum infighting goes on, the worse this game will look to prospective players, and the more likely that the mods (meaning you and Askray primarily) may receive a mandate to aggressively start whitewashing the forums.
And honestly, the more I get the chance to think about and elaborate the issues I have with STO right now, the less and less nostalgic I feel about the game - at this point, I don't feel that even if everything I perceive as negative changed, I would relish coming back.
Someone needs to either go under the bus now, or go under the bus later for promising, then not delivering, changes.
My guess is "hope" keeps people not playing but posting on the forums. For others, its a path of sad realization and closure. Grieving takes time. The worst "haters" here love the game, or did at some point.
No, I have never spent $70 on a game with a 48 hour (assuming no sleep whatsoever over two days) completion.
And I have about 90 single player or non-MMO multiplayer titles in my Steam Library, as well as a few on Origin, a 50+ on GoG, and a classic 100 CD wallet full. The vast majority fall into two categories - cheap or free, or AAA titles with long completion times, and huge replay value. I don't spend money on games without research.
Even the original Baldur's gate was longer than 48 hours worth of gameplay. And, despite it being highly story driven, it was significantly more of a sandbox than STO is.
STO is arguably the most limited, linear, unpleasantly grindy MMO I have ever played, and I have played almost every AAA MMO, and a lot of indy titles. I still love the hell out of it - it's Trek. And I am willing to put up with some garbage in order to play a Trek game. But not just purely insulting cashgrabs, and an obvious uncaring attitude towards long-term sustainability.
lol whatever man there is no such thing as a linear MMO the players are what make it non-linear due to unpredictability. There is also some semblance of a working economy (such as one can have in artificial circumstances and players can drive it or tank prices etc and there is a social life and personally npc are not very good at that kind of social interaction with their pre-programmed answers.
here are some titles of have tried that had me finishing them in a weekend
mass effect 4 and 3 when they were new
batman arkham when it was new
those are the last two i played they cost me between 50-70 bucks as they were new releases.
playing a computer for everything is boring that is why I enjoy pugs and pvp and open ground zones because its the players that give stuff the non-linear thing but any single player game I have played you start at the beginning and are given a set of objectives to complete and there is an easy/medium and hard to it
the only games I can think that are not like this are those with multiplayer elements in them like minecraft or tour of duty or something and then.. I ignore the single player bits and make a B line for the multiplayer bits.
so you can feel as you like but this is MY experience this is how *I* feel. Its nice you feel differently but I am sorry single player games last for me one weekend or possibly two if i am lucky and then end up as coasters if I purchased a dvd copy of it.
so sorry if you disagree i wont be changing my views on single player games :eek:
Well, to boldy go and exterminate all intelligent life not wanting to ally themselves with us isnt exactly trek-like. STO just takes the facade, but not the idea of star trek.
lol whatever man there is no such thing as a linear MMO the players are what make it non-linear due to unpredictability. There is also some semblance of a working economy (such as one can have in artificial circumstances and players can drive it or tank prices etc and there is a social life and personally npc are not very good at that kind of social interaction with their pre-programmed answers.
so sorry if you disagree i wont be changing my views on single player games :eek:
I don't expect you to change your mind.
Just bear in mind that the "non-linearity" you are describing in an MMO is the same non-linearity experienced in a chat room, or the forums (actually, that explains why I am here instead of ingame).
The game is still a straight up, full on legshackles experience, you are just getting a lot more swearing, trolling, and lunacy, with a few decent people scattered around.
My guess is "hope" keeps people not playing but posting on the forums. For others, its a path of sad realization and closure. Grieving takes time. The worst "haters" here love the game, or did at some point.
Well, to boldy go and exterminate all intelligent life not wanting to ally themselves with us isnt exactly trek-like. STO just takes the facade, but not the idea of star trek.
Yeah I should have been more specific - seeing a Trek ship swoop by still elicits an emotional response from me, but no, the game isn't Trek, it just plays and preys upon the iconography of Trek, even more so of late.
It's Trek in about the same way Galaxy Quest is Trek.
My guess is "hope" keeps people not playing but posting on the forums. For others, its a path of sad realization and closure. Grieving takes time. The worst "haters" here love the game, or did at some point.
The game is still a straight up, full on legshackles experience, you are just getting a lot more swearing, trolling, and lunacy, with a few decent people scattered around.
I put meany heads on ignore. When I disovered MMO's I pretty much all but stopped single player games I still pick them up once and awhile and each time I do the same thing the last ones are the ones I named. OH I even tried sims 4 cost me a mint. Same experience though I find them borring lol
Anytime I have fun is when others are involved such as FiFa soccer is fun, plants and zombies multiplayer etc where I am playing with other players.
This is the only dynamic element in any game so given my options since computer programmed things are more boring then real people and there are no real people in single player games then.. I pick MMO's.
Human beings are the only thing that will cause this lack of linearity. Not pre-programmed AI.
Yeah I should have been more specific - seeing a Trek ship swoop by still elicits an emotional response from me, but no, the game isn't Trek, it just plays and preys upon the iconography of Trek, even more so of late.
It's Trek in about the same way Galaxy Quest is Trek.
Thanks for the correction.
Actually, Galaxy Quest was very meaningful and well thought out. The same cannot be said for STO. In fact, I'd say GQ did Trek better than STO.
How do Steam Players differ from non-Steam players. There are some statistical ways to make the leap and be able to use the Steam numbers to reflect the general population, but we don;t have them.
How many STO players play other Steam games? How many players just stopped using Steam to log in to STO? How many of the fewer Steam-STO players stopped playing STO, and how many of those stopped because of DR?
There is no real, valid way to just suppose the drop in Steam numbers is an overall drop, and then even less to assume that drop was due to DR?
My argument doesn;t support your view, so therefore it is invalid..... I get it.
Again, it is a reasonable assumption that most non-Steam game users are like most Steam game users. Arguing they are different requires an affirmative defense.
I gave you a partial affirmative defense but unless you can argue that to be a substantial number, well... You can easily argue that they'd be less likely to leave but arguing they'd be more likely to join as new players (when even Cryptic has indicated that new players are not a driving force of DR's success) then you can't really argue a net increase.
There is a decline in Steam users.
A segment of players who do not use Steam must be represented by Steam users.
A segment of players who do not use Steam may be poorly represented by Steam users but are unlikely to be more likely to increase.
UNLESS
The Steam charts are in error.
AND/OR
Geko was lying and understating the success of the expansion in bringing in new players. Who would have to fall into the category of non-Steam users who are not represented by Steam users.
A statistical argument is going to have to start with the statistics and evidence we have available. Citing flaws in that evidence require an affirmative defense. Claiming that the decline may be less than estimated takes some reasonable argument. Claiming that there is no decline in users takes an extraordinarily high burden of evidence.
All you're saying is that you don't want to have a statistical argument because you are, personally, satisfied. In which case, you should stop reiterating your satisfaction and let people who want to look at the stats look at the stats.
The argumentative tack you've taken is a variation on science denial. The earth may not be experiencing global warming and the current consensus of evidence may be in error. However, until you can demonstrate how it is in error, a scientist (even an amateur scientist) goes with the evidence they have while acknowledging limitations. They don't presuppose what they cannot prove and then try to disprove a negative. That is an article of faith, not science.
My guess is "hope" keeps people not playing but posting on the forums. For others, its a path of sad realization and closure. Grieving takes time. The worst "haters" here love the game, or did at some point.
Again, it is a reasonable assumption that most non-Steam game users are like most Steam game users. Arguing they are different requires an affirmative defense.
A statistical argument is going to have to start with the statistics and evidence we have available. Citing flaws in that evidence require an affirmative defense. Claiming that the decline may be less than estimated takes some reasonable argument. Claiming that there is no decline in users takes an extraordinarily high burden of evidence.
.
you have no way of knowing how many of these steam users just switched to arc and uninstalled steam. I did that and I know others who did that.
That is the stat your missing.
There may have been a decline but that decline does not take into account what users did after they stopped playing STO on steam. Remember also that wallet thing on steam doesn't work very well and people making direct purchases of zen without using steam have a lot less hassle then those who do use steam.
Where is that guy that keeps telling Me to stay on topic now?
Forget it. Leviathan and others are all doing it now, and I can't very well report all of you to the GMs/mods. You opened this can of worms in the first place, it's your problem now. (read: You get what you ask for.)
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
I am not pleased with many facets of Delta Rising. But I have more good things to say about STO than bad, and Geko and many other devs who I have differences of opinions with are behind some of those good things I have to say about the game.
Actually, Galaxy Quest was very meaningful and well thought out. The same cannot be said for STO. In fact, I'd say GQ did Trek better than STO.
I suggest that's partly because, as a parody, they reinforced tropes.
STO has dodged tropes. There is no, strictly speaking, lethal holodeck malfunction or transporter accident in STO. None of the time travel in STO is accidental with the possible exception of Temporal Ambassador. There are no planets based on a single characteristic or era of earth civilization. Nobody plays musical instruments or stages plays except via DOffing. I cannot recall seeing a bridge shake or a console explode outside of the Foundary. Nobody gets seduced by aliens except as a combat mechanic. Junior security officers are never killed on an away mission alongside a captain to illustrate the danger of a threat or the burden of command. You very rarely bluff your way into advantage in space combat or engage in banter.
These are all things you would expect to see overflowing in a symbolic representation of Star Trek. I think Galaxy Quest hits all of them. I think STO manages to hit almost none of them.
I think perhaps a part of that was an attempt to play things straight here as opposed to broadly. But broad takes work in an MMO. Straight takes are bland.
Now look at something like the approximate breakdown of a Trek episode. How much time is spent on the ship, a planet, or showing space combat? What's the structure of a Trek episode? Generally an A plot and a B plot which merge to a single solution.
Again, I think maybe Cryptic was at least in part concerned with something that could be taken seriously by non-fans and largely concerned with technical hurdles. But it did make for a less authentic Trek experience, particularly without Trek cast members to reinforce the setting.
Comments
Without knowing info such as that there is no way of knowing if those who are not playing STO on steam are not playing STO period or have switched to the arc client (like I did)
No, I'm picking you out because you arrogantly claim to know what the the issues I and everyone else have with the game are, which lead us to a desire for a change in the management of the game. I didn't put words in your mouth, but you were arrogant enough to put words into everyone's mouth.
And teeth gnashing? Can you see me? Again, are you claiming to be a telepath? Have a camera installed in everyone's home?
Back under the bridge now.
I don't think anyone in this thread wishes death on STO as bitter a pill as some of the comments on either side may be.
Someone who argues that the management needs to change isn't done doing business with STO and doesn't want the game to fail. They want to find the game more appealing and don't think the existing management team can convince them to find it more appealing.
I think, taken properly, that's a great challenge for the present management team to try to meet.
Even if STO is doing everything right, PWE stock is down over 20% in under a month. Which can impact STO even if STO is profitable and doing everything right. Management could be replaced while doing everything right simply due to PWE's volatility. The single best thing, I think, for management to do is to create goodwill with the community that can help them secure their position.
STO may be performing and management could get replaced (barring contracts) for not performing ENOUGH or not performing MORE, expected to prop up other divisions. Whereas if management is well liked and that becomes part of the goodwill value of the product, they have the defense that removing them would devalue PWE's assets.
That statement, in regards to STO vs. single player games which include most of the richest open-world, non-linear gameplay available, is hysterical.
As to the OP -
Yes, a change in leadership might help. But I think a lot of the bad stuff is coming from higher than anyone in Cryptic. I sincerely believe that the accounting based directives are coming from PWE, not from some fall guys at Cryptic.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Well they are have you played some of the new single player games 70 bucks and 2 days later your finished playing it then it sits on a shelf never to be played again (well these days its digital download for 70 bucks which you dont even have a coaster afterwards..) . At least I had coasters when digital was not popular (yes once i finished with a single player game I made a coaster out of the cd I kid you not so I stopped playing them)
:P
I agree with most of this. I think people asking for management to change, however, is the wrong way to go about having a better STO experience.
They clearly are not immune to player feedback. We have seen changes recently in some of the systems. I would most certainly love to see more changes.
I think there are some people at PWE/Cryptic who are out of touch with the community, but it can more easily be resolved by encouraging them to take part, instead of wishing them to go away in the hopes of something better.
I do not think I am willing to ask for various people to quit (or shift from their position in Cryptic) in the slim hope that new people filling the role will somehow wave a magic wand and make things better. This has happened before with things like Gozer (after he left the prototype tech drop rates increase dramatically after he said the never would), but it should by no means be considered the norm.
Things can always be worse than they currently are. I have a feeling if there was new management, nothing substantial would change because the driving force behind their decisions have very little to do with management and more to do with Perfect World's influence. Some publishers are more involved than others, and I sincerely believe their influence over Cryptic is what results in some of these decisions many of us do not like.
If management is changed, it is my opinion we're just going to have a case of "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
And if that is the case, it's a waste of customer energy that could be better channeled through other forms of communication.
Steam users can represent non-Steam users who are sufficiently similar though. THAT is why he's telling you to take a statistics class.
And there is a better case to be made that at least a substantial number of non-Steam users if not a majority are statistically represented by Steam users.
And those users who are not Steam users or represented well by Steam users? Well, they might have been more likely to quit or less likely to quit but I find it dubious that the number of them would increase substantially at this point.
Which would make it very reasonable to suggest that a decline in Steam users represents an overall decline in users.
It could be somewhat more people leaving if Trek fans are more fickle. It could be fewer people leaving. I can't see a way that you could have a net increase in players if the Steam charts are consistently and visibly down.
Players who are like Steam players can be accurately modeled for based on Steam player data.
No, I have never spent $70 on a game with a 48 hour (assuming no sleep whatsoever over two days) completion.
And I have about 90 single player or non-MMO multiplayer titles in my Steam Library, as well as a few on Origin, a 50+ on GoG, and a classic 100 CD wallet full. The vast majority fall into two categories - cheap or free, or AAA titles with long completion times, and huge replay value. I don't spend money on games without research.
Even the original Baldur's gate was longer than 48 hours worth of gameplay. And, despite it being highly story driven, it was significantly more of a sandbox than STO is.
STO is arguably the most limited, linear, unpleasantly grindy MMO I have ever played, and I have played almost every AAA MMO, and a lot of indy titles. I still love the hell out of it - it's Trek. And I am willing to put up with some garbage in order to play a Trek game. But not just purely insulting cashgrabs, and an obvious uncaring attitude towards long-term sustainability.
I'm going to be a nice as I can be and say you have no idea at all what you're talking about. Review some even the most basics in statistics will 'maybe' help you understand, but either way I don't really care what you do, but you're making yourself look silly with these statements.
I also don't care about the steam numbers. At the end of the day, what I care about is what my friends are doing and what the queues are doing (as they are[were]my favorite type of content to play). What I see is, nothing more than a bunch of 0s and my friends have all but one, left.
This is what I care about because it directly effects me and how I can enjoy the game. Well, I'm playing other games that my friends have found, and the grass is much greener and more enjoyable.
I like Star Trek, but I think I was just too hung up on the fact that the game had the name Star Trek in it. The game itself, has aged, and looks like something you'd play on a tablet, not on a PC and is just not an enjoyable experience.
When a customer calls for you to get fired as management, it's because they want to put cash INTO your business. They perceive your current approach as getting in the way of them spending money on your product.
When a shareholder calls for you to get fired as management, it's because they want the stock to stabilize or change course and they want to pull money OUT OF your business. They perceive your current approach as damaging their ability to sell at a profit, either in the short or long run.
Having customers call for your head represents an opportunity for profit.
QFT
/10char
Dude...if you DONT care why read the forums...Keep on grinding till your eyes bleed and keep saying to yourself...BEST EXPANSION EVER...VIVA CRYPTIC!!! :cool:
Nobody's going to pretend that everybody likes everything about DR or even the game in general, but I agree with this.
Even if they wanted to change something, it takes time to do it right no matter who's in charge. Look what happens when they rush changes because of an exploit. They end up spending more time fixing the fix.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
But the forums are more enjoyable than the game itself at this point.
Hey, you never know, things might turn around.....you just...never...know...:o
You are completely correct.
HOWEVER.
Even though it would risk feeding the trolls, and even if it means the person making the official statement becomes a sacrificial lamb, someone should be doing real damage control on this.
The longer this forum infighting goes on, the worse this game will look to prospective players, and the more likely that the mods (meaning you and Askray primarily) may receive a mandate to aggressively start whitewashing the forums.
And honestly, the more I get the chance to think about and elaborate the issues I have with STO right now, the less and less nostalgic I feel about the game - at this point, I don't feel that even if everything I perceive as negative changed, I would relish coming back.
Someone needs to either go under the bus now, or go under the bus later for promising, then not delivering, changes.
lol whatever man there is no such thing as a linear MMO the players are what make it non-linear due to unpredictability. There is also some semblance of a working economy (such as one can have in artificial circumstances and players can drive it or tank prices etc and there is a social life and personally npc are not very good at that kind of social interaction with their pre-programmed answers.
here are some titles of have tried that had me finishing them in a weekend
mass effect 4 and 3 when they were new
batman arkham when it was new
those are the last two i played they cost me between 50-70 bucks as they were new releases.
playing a computer for everything is boring that is why I enjoy pugs and pvp and open ground zones because its the players that give stuff the non-linear thing but any single player game I have played you start at the beginning and are given a set of objectives to complete and there is an easy/medium and hard to it
the only games I can think that are not like this are those with multiplayer elements in them like minecraft or tour of duty or something and then.. I ignore the single player bits and make a B line for the multiplayer bits.
so you can feel as you like but this is MY experience this is how *I* feel. Its nice you feel differently but I am sorry single player games last for me one weekend or possibly two if i am lucky and then end up as coasters if I purchased a dvd copy of it.
so sorry if you disagree i wont be changing my views on single player games :eek:
see statements like this are not necessary but hey what to i know i find single player games borring
Well, to boldy go and exterminate all intelligent life not wanting to ally themselves with us isnt exactly trek-like. STO just takes the facade, but not the idea of star trek.
I don't expect you to change your mind.
Just bear in mind that the "non-linearity" you are describing in an MMO is the same non-linearity experienced in a chat room, or the forums (actually, that explains why I am here instead of ingame).
The game is still a straight up, full on legshackles experience, you are just getting a lot more swearing, trolling, and lunacy, with a few decent people scattered around.
Yeah I should have been more specific - seeing a Trek ship swoop by still elicits an emotional response from me, but no, the game isn't Trek, it just plays and preys upon the iconography of Trek, even more so of late.
It's Trek in about the same way Galaxy Quest is Trek.
Thanks for the correction.
I put meany heads on ignore. When I disovered MMO's I pretty much all but stopped single player games I still pick them up once and awhile and each time I do the same thing the last ones are the ones I named. OH I even tried sims 4 cost me a mint. Same experience though I find them borring lol
Anytime I have fun is when others are involved such as FiFa soccer is fun, plants and zombies multiplayer etc where I am playing with other players.
This is the only dynamic element in any game so given my options since computer programmed things are more boring then real people and there are no real people in single player games then.. I pick MMO's.
Human beings are the only thing that will cause this lack of linearity. Not pre-programmed AI.
Actually, Galaxy Quest was very meaningful and well thought out. The same cannot be said for STO. In fact, I'd say GQ did Trek better than STO.
Again, it is a reasonable assumption that most non-Steam game users are like most Steam game users. Arguing they are different requires an affirmative defense.
I gave you a partial affirmative defense but unless you can argue that to be a substantial number, well... You can easily argue that they'd be less likely to leave but arguing they'd be more likely to join as new players (when even Cryptic has indicated that new players are not a driving force of DR's success) then you can't really argue a net increase.
There is a decline in Steam users.
A segment of players who do not use Steam must be represented by Steam users.
A segment of players who do not use Steam may be poorly represented by Steam users but are unlikely to be more likely to increase.
UNLESS
The Steam charts are in error.
AND/OR
Geko was lying and understating the success of the expansion in bringing in new players. Who would have to fall into the category of non-Steam users who are not represented by Steam users.
A statistical argument is going to have to start with the statistics and evidence we have available. Citing flaws in that evidence require an affirmative defense. Claiming that the decline may be less than estimated takes some reasonable argument. Claiming that there is no decline in users takes an extraordinarily high burden of evidence.
All you're saying is that you don't want to have a statistical argument because you are, personally, satisfied. In which case, you should stop reiterating your satisfaction and let people who want to look at the stats look at the stats.
The argumentative tack you've taken is a variation on science denial. The earth may not be experiencing global warming and the current consensus of evidence may be in error. However, until you can demonstrate how it is in error, a scientist (even an amateur scientist) goes with the evidence they have while acknowledging limitations. They don't presuppose what they cannot prove and then try to disprove a negative. That is an article of faith, not science.
Another fair point.
I stand corrected again.
I must me getting tired, I'm just spewing poor Trek metaphors at this point.
you have no way of knowing how many of these steam users just switched to arc and uninstalled steam. I did that and I know others who did that.
That is the stat your missing.
There may have been a decline but that decline does not take into account what users did after they stopped playing STO on steam. Remember also that wallet thing on steam doesn't work very well and people making direct purchases of zen without using steam have a lot less hassle then those who do use steam.
Forget it. Leviathan and others are all doing it now, and I can't very well report all of you to the GMs/mods. You opened this can of worms in the first place, it's your problem now. (read: You get what you ask for.)
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
I suggest that's partly because, as a parody, they reinforced tropes.
STO has dodged tropes. There is no, strictly speaking, lethal holodeck malfunction or transporter accident in STO. None of the time travel in STO is accidental with the possible exception of Temporal Ambassador. There are no planets based on a single characteristic or era of earth civilization. Nobody plays musical instruments or stages plays except via DOffing. I cannot recall seeing a bridge shake or a console explode outside of the Foundary. Nobody gets seduced by aliens except as a combat mechanic. Junior security officers are never killed on an away mission alongside a captain to illustrate the danger of a threat or the burden of command. You very rarely bluff your way into advantage in space combat or engage in banter.
These are all things you would expect to see overflowing in a symbolic representation of Star Trek. I think Galaxy Quest hits all of them. I think STO manages to hit almost none of them.
I think perhaps a part of that was an attempt to play things straight here as opposed to broadly. But broad takes work in an MMO. Straight takes are bland.
Now look at something like the approximate breakdown of a Trek episode. How much time is spent on the ship, a planet, or showing space combat? What's the structure of a Trek episode? Generally an A plot and a B plot which merge to a single solution.
Again, I think maybe Cryptic was at least in part concerned with something that could be taken seriously by non-fans and largely concerned with technical hurdles. But it did make for a less authentic Trek experience, particularly without Trek cast members to reinforce the setting.