Part of the issue, I think, is that people have different notions of what 'exploration' and 'new content' should be.
Some people want fully-scripted content of a style and tone similar to the existing TV series(es). Some are unhappy that the devs are unwilling or unable to produce this for them in sufficient quantities, believing that to be part of the devs' job, while others feel that the player-populated Foundry is an adequate or even superior substitute to a few dev-produced Featured Episodes per season.
Others don't want any sort of fully-scripted content, as they want to create and imagine their own stories rather than play something that the devs or another player came up with. They want a wide-open, procedural framework, a skeletal structure upon which they can hang their own narrative. They also enjoy the randomness, to whatever degree it is present, rather than having every detail of a given episode being exactly the same every time it's replayed. Even a small set of dice tables can suffice for this group, though of course they'd like more complexity than that bare minimum.
They were never advertised. Of course most players probably didn't know they existed. the percentage of players who use the forums and are always up to date on every feature of the game without it being waved in their face is about 1-2%
People have the comprehension skills and attention span of a drunken mushroom, at least that is what I have to assume when a major point stated by those responsible for removing the clusters was that people got lost in them. And when we design a game for people that get lost on a square shaped map without obstructions or objects whatsoever I have a really hard time arguing in favour of systems that do not spell everything out for you, I know.
It was impossible to get lost in the exploration clusters. No offense to the devs, but that was a lame, TRIBBLE excuse to remove them. Nothing more, nothing less. They could have been upfront about their reasons for the removal, or just kept quiet about their reasons, rather than giving one that insults our intelligence.
C'mon people this game is going on six years old and Cryptic is still dangling the exploration carrot in front of us as they did with pvp for five years. "update in the works", "ideas are on paper", "we're having many discussions", "something we want to do in the future" all taken right out of book of "replies to pvp questions". If I had told you six years ago that there will still be no real meaningful exploration in a Star Trek game by 2016 would you have believed me? I doubt it, True more people want exploration then ever wanted a pvp revamp so why are we getting the same excuses over the YEARS? It's simple Cryptic don't know what to do and refuse to take a risk heaven forbid a part of the game that's not monetized, anyway it should be clear to anyone not living in the delusional Cryptic bubble that exploration is now the new pvp nothing will ever be done at the six year mark and still no firm commitment just the good 'ol "it's "on the white board" or "scheduling conflicts" yeah right six years of "scheduling conflicts" Ok guys defend it
I cannot find fault with this statement spot on Op.
I personally would like to see "exploration" handled as a progressive system where you do missions to unlock more maps and special encounters.
You'd start by charting an unexplored cluster, which eventually unlocks the discovery of an inhabited planet and leads to a first contact. From there, you learn of a legend of another starfaring race which leads you to an uninhabited class M planet with ruins on it. On that planet, you start building an outpost and then supporting a small colony while you unlock the mysteries of the ruins. Like a fleet holding, the outpost/colony would develop over time but ought to be somewhat flexible about what structures/features get built and in what order. You would be involved in helping the colony survive a series of events and near disasters.
Ideally, it would take a long time to complete. It might or might not be a multi-player effort. The Devs could theoretically build it up over time and add new elements to it. I would expect that the fully-realized world would be the same for every character, but flexible in how you get to that point for each individual.
It would be an undertaking worthy of its own expansion. That's my vision. Will we see anything like that? Don't know. I'm not going to drive myself nuts worrying about it.
This here sounds pretty great. I'd like something like that, plus some of the ideas I head to keep trackof your progress and ideally have it for every star cluster/deep space region so you have different colonies to attend to and different stuff to discover. While the colonies thenselves can be standardized like ship interiors I'd feel great motivation to do that with randomized/varying hazards and events to take care of
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I personally would like to see "exploration" handled as a progressive system where you do missions to unlock more maps and special encounters.
You'd start by charting an unexplored cluster, which eventually unlocks the discovery of an inhabited planet and leads to a first contact. From there, you learn of a legend of another starfaring race which leads you to an uninhabited class M planet with ruins on it. On that planet, you start building an outpost and then supporting a small colony while you unlock the mysteries of the ruins. Like a fleet holding, the outpost/colony would develop over time but ought to be somewhat flexible about what structures/features get built and in what order. You would be involved in helping the colony survive a series of events and near disasters.
Ideally, it would take a long time to complete. It might or might not be a multi-player effort. The Devs could theoretically build it up over time and add new elements to it. I would expect that the fully-realized world would be the same for every character, but flexible in how you get to that point for each individual.
It would be an undertaking worthy of its own expansion. That's my vision. Will we see anything like that? Don't know. I'm not going to drive myself nuts worrying about it.
This here sounds pretty great. I'd like something like that, plus some of the ideas I head to keep trackof your progress and ideally have it for every star cluster/deep space region so you have different colonies to attend to and different stuff to discover. While the colonies thenselves can be standardized like ship interiors I'd feel great motivation to do that with randomized/varying hazards and events to take care of
Unfortunately, I can't see them creating multiple colony systems like this. Database storage becomes an issue, not to mention download size and map complexity.
So it ultimately boils down to "pseudo-exploration" if there's only one exploration "cluster". But it would be a more comprehensive experience than tacking a bunch of randomness together and calling it exploration. Having that First Contact experience is essential, I think, and adding a buildable colony helps satisfy the building itch for people who don't have the patience for the Foundry. The charting piece could be used as an additional way to collect crafting materials.
Unfortunately, I can't see them creating multiple colony systems like this. Database storage becomes an issue, not to mention download size and map complexity.
The magic of procedural generation is that you don't have to store the universe -- you can create billions of systems on the fly with a tiny seed, and then recreate it down to the most minute detail, as much or as little of it as you need, by plugging in the same seed. You don't have to store a huge static map, just an overlay of player alterations (much less daunting). They used something like this for the planetary surfaces in Star Wars Galaxies, back when the tech was more primitive.
Unfortunately, I can't see them creating multiple colony systems like this. Database storage becomes an issue, not to mention download size and map complexity.
The magic of procedural generation is that you don't have to store the universe -- you can create billions of systems on the fly with a tiny seed, and then recreate it down to the most minute detail, as much or as little of it as you need, by plugging in the same seed. You don't have to store a huge static map, just an overlay of player alterations (much less daunting). They used something like this for the planetary surfaces in Star Wars Galaxies, back when the tech was more primitive.
Provided you can actually do the procedural generation quickly enough that it can be hidden behind a loading screen. I wouldn't be so sure of that. If you can't, you have to procedurally generate lots of maps and release them like regular maps. The difference is that the procedural generation might take a few minutes or hours while a "hand-crafted" map might take days or weeks (and bind at least one environment artist to the task).
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Paying players to create foundry missions? Hell no. The foundry acts as a medium for star trek fans to create special fan fiction type content. Just like trekkies that create scripts, books and other star trek related items in their garage or basement.
The foundry acts as the place that true star trek fans can create their passion and share it with fellow fans, but most of the time you all want to create farm clicky missions.
All the threads are boiling down to the same thing, give me me free TRIBBLE for playing the game.
Provided you can actually do the procedural generation quickly enough that it can be hidden behind a loading screen. I wouldn't be so sure of that. If you can't, you have to procedurally generate lots of maps and release them like regular maps. The difference is that the procedural generation might take a few minutes or hours while a "hand-crafted" map might take days or weeks (and bind at least one environment artist to the task).
I'd have to cut some code to be sure (something I'd rather not do if I'm not getting paid), but it is at least theoretically possible to take the seed and a set of coordinates and generate only what's in line of sight or sensor range of that position, and it wouldn't take measurably longer to load than a static map.
The hard part is building an algorithm that generates planetscapes that are internally consistent, aesthetically pleasing, usable for gameplay, and of sufficient variability that each feels unique. I'm guilty of glossing over just how difficult it is to hit all those goals without the need for artist/modeler/environment designer tweaking. But it's entirely within the realm of the possible.
I know Cryptic has worked on procedural terrain. I think they got hung up on the usability parameter, not being able to deploy generated landscapes without some fairly extensive fixes. And I hope they haven't gotten discouraged and given up. Obviously it's secondary to keeping the theme park up and running -- any reasonable sandbox advocate knows and accepts that. But it's a secondary with unlimited potential.
Comments
Some people want fully-scripted content of a style and tone similar to the existing TV series(es). Some are unhappy that the devs are unwilling or unable to produce this for them in sufficient quantities, believing that to be part of the devs' job, while others feel that the player-populated Foundry is an adequate or even superior substitute to a few dev-produced Featured Episodes per season.
Others don't want any sort of fully-scripted content, as they want to create and imagine their own stories rather than play something that the devs or another player came up with. They want a wide-open, procedural framework, a skeletal structure upon which they can hang their own narrative. They also enjoy the randomness, to whatever degree it is present, rather than having every detail of a given episode being exactly the same every time it's replayed. Even a small set of dice tables can suffice for this group, though of course they'd like more complexity than that bare minimum.
It was impossible to get lost in the exploration clusters. No offense to the devs, but that was a lame, TRIBBLE excuse to remove them. Nothing more, nothing less. They could have been upfront about their reasons for the removal, or just kept quiet about their reasons, rather than giving one that insults our intelligence.
I cannot find fault with this statement spot on Op.
This here sounds pretty great. I'd like something like that, plus some of the ideas I head to keep trackof your progress and ideally have it for every star cluster/deep space region so you have different colonies to attend to and different stuff to discover. While the colonies thenselves can be standardized like ship interiors I'd feel great motivation to do that with randomized/varying hazards and events to take care of
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
You win the thread
Unfortunately, I can't see them creating multiple colony systems like this. Database storage becomes an issue, not to mention download size and map complexity.
So it ultimately boils down to "pseudo-exploration" if there's only one exploration "cluster". But it would be a more comprehensive experience than tacking a bunch of randomness together and calling it exploration. Having that First Contact experience is essential, I think, and adding a buildable colony helps satisfy the building itch for people who don't have the patience for the Foundry. The charting piece could be used as an additional way to collect crafting materials.
The magic of procedural generation is that you don't have to store the universe -- you can create billions of systems on the fly with a tiny seed, and then recreate it down to the most minute detail, as much or as little of it as you need, by plugging in the same seed. You don't have to store a huge static map, just an overlay of player alterations (much less daunting). They used something like this for the planetary surfaces in Star Wars Galaxies, back when the tech was more primitive.
The foundry acts as the place that true star trek fans can create their passion and share it with fellow fans, but most of the time you all want to create farm clicky missions.
All the threads are boiling down to the same thing, give me me free TRIBBLE for playing the game.
Also to reduce the odds of having a Borg drone trash talk you like an Orion slaver. That was weird. I head-canoned as one of Hughs people.
I'd have to cut some code to be sure (something I'd rather not do if I'm not getting paid), but it is at least theoretically possible to take the seed and a set of coordinates and generate only what's in line of sight or sensor range of that position, and it wouldn't take measurably longer to load than a static map.
The hard part is building an algorithm that generates planetscapes that are internally consistent, aesthetically pleasing, usable for gameplay, and of sufficient variability that each feels unique. I'm guilty of glossing over just how difficult it is to hit all those goals without the need for artist/modeler/environment designer tweaking. But it's entirely within the realm of the possible.
I know Cryptic has worked on procedural terrain. I think they got hung up on the usability parameter, not being able to deploy generated landscapes without some fairly extensive fixes. And I hope they haven't gotten discouraged and given up. Obviously it's secondary to keeping the theme park up and running -- any reasonable sandbox advocate knows and accepts that. But it's a secondary with unlimited potential.