I don't think the majority's worldview needs more coddling as a way to solve this problem.
the issue is still return on investment. if 98% of their customers wont be using something, they can hardly justify investing time into it. the "worldview" is irrelevant in this case.
I don't think the majority's worldview needs more coddling as a way to solve this problem.
the issue is still return on investment. if 98% of their customers wont be using something, they can hardly justify investing time into it. the "worldview" is irrelevant in this case.
I don't think the majority's worldview needs more coddling as a way to solve this problem.
the issue is still return on investment. if 98% of their customers wont be using something, they can hardly justify investing time into it. the "worldview" is irrelevant in this case.
AFAIK the facebook "genders" are just words/titles you can select. if all the OP wants are words/titles im sure that wouldnt take long. if people want to blend male/female costume options, that would probably require actual time to make costumes work on different gender models. so it depends on which option people are actually asking for.
I don't think the majority's worldview needs more coddling as a way to solve this problem.
the issue is still return on investment. if 98% of their customers wont be using something, they can hardly justify investing time into it. the "worldview" is irrelevant in this case.
AFAIK the facebook "genders" are just words/titles you can select. if all the OP wants are words/titles im sure that wouldnt take long. if people want to blend male/female costume options, that would probably require actual time to make costumes work on different gender models. so it depends on which option people are actually asking for.
It required actual time to develop the segregated style in the first place. Now the argument seems to be becoming disturbingly utilitarian about "additional" investment versus who would use these features when they should have been made cross-factional for gender in the first place.
I don't think the majority's worldview needs more coddling as a way to solve this problem.
the issue is still return on investment. if 98% of their customers wont be using something, they can hardly justify investing time into it. the "worldview" is irrelevant in this case.
AFAIK the facebook "genders" are just words/titles you can select. if all the OP wants are words/titles im sure that wouldnt take long. if people want to blend male/female costume options, that would probably require actual time to make costumes work on different gender models. so it depends on which option people are actually asking for.
It required actual time to develop the segregated style in the first place. Now the argument seems to be becoming disturbingly utilitarian about "additional" investment versus who would use these features when they should have been made cross-factional for gender in the first place.
That's not the right framing for the issue.
how it hypothetically should have been done in the first place doesnt change the current situation. adjusting/removing/changing the current gender settings would take X amount of work time. so as a business, they have to decide whether they return would be worth the X amount of time.
if you think working on something that the majority of customers wont use is a valid use of time, i think the KDF and ROM should get some attention before the tailor. PVP too.
I don't see the logic in changing the games set mechanics for something trivial. One that could be remedied by simply choosing from the two genders they already have available and want to begin with. But I have seen the introduction of new hair styles, if this can be done easy enough, this can be remedied by simply allowing for all the same hair choices and allowing for your tailor-time imaginations to take over from there.
The only way we'll ever see something like this ingame is if Cryptic can figure out how to monetize it. If Cryptic sees there is a valid return on investment from this before they commit the man hours, payroll, and development time to it, they would probably make it available ingame. Some day. Right about the time they fix PvP. Or give the KDF those Dahar Master long coats we've been after them for years about. OP, I'm not trying to rain on your parade. But for a lot of players, unless it makes their character or ship shoot better, fly faster, and turn tighter, they're not interested. Which means they will spend no time or money on it. Which in turn means Cryptic will probably not do something such as this.
A six year old boy and his starship. Living the dream.
The only way we'll ever see something like this ingame is if Cryptic can figure out how to monetize it. If Cryptic sees there is a valid return on investment from this before they commit the man hours, payroll, and development time to it, they would probably make it available ingame. Some day. Right about the time they fix PvP. Or give the KDF those Dahar Master long coats we've been after them for years about. OP, I'm not trying to rain on your parade. But for a lot of players, unless it makes their character or ship shoot better, fly faster, and turn tighter, they're not interested. Which means they will spend no time or money on it. Which in turn means Cryptic will probably not do something such as this.
I agree that we'll never see it. But there's a difference between highlighting that this is what will happen and saying that this is what should happen as others here have justified.
I did not imply or infer it should not happen. I stated reasons why it probably will not. But who benefits from this? How does it improve or enhance gameplay in STO for everyone? How does it make playing STO a richer, more rewarding experience for every player? Because we're speaking of a game here. Something done in free time for entertainment.
A six year old boy and his starship. Living the dream.
But who benefits from this? How does it improve or enhance gameplay in STO for everyone? How does it make playing STO a richer, more rewarding experience for every player? Because we're speaking of a game here. Something done in free time for entertainment.
This isn't the first time this discussion has popped up in the forums and I'm sure it won't be the last.
Honestly, there is a simple way for the devs to make everyone happy ... unlock all the character-related fields for each character so the user can select any species and make it male, female, or "custom" and unlock the tailor so that all possible appearance choices are available.
In short, don't lock players into a preset appearance, gender or sex.
That way people can create a heterosexual male human wearing traditionally male clothing, a trans male Vulcan wearing traditionally female clothing, a female Gorn wearing a traditionally male KDF warrior uniform ... whatever.
This allows every player to make their own choices about the character that represents them in the game.
IDIC rocks.
I agree with this
As for OP's views on Rigillians we would need more people to actually as that particular species before we went that far.
It required actual time to develop the segregated style in the first place.
Yes it did, but at the same time it eased issues when building your character model, because by far the most humans are physically built in one of two shapes, which we associate with "male" and "female" (and which do not necessarily have anything to do with your gender, only with appearance). Yes, there are others, but comparatively few, and most of them are similar enough to one of the basic archetypes that you can use it. Still some to go, but other rare different looks aren't accustomed either (more extreme sizes, which probably would be the easiest one to do, arms of different length, many others). So as a basis for building a character model, this binary approach has a huge advantage.
At the same time, reading the link you provided about gender options, if I read through them I feel like there are less than stated only with different names/spellings (If I am wrong in this I'd be happy to be educated, because I know little enough). So the terms aren't even settled, which means the list is filled with redundancies and possibly at the same time not even exhaustive. So as a drop down it wouldn't make sense, it could only be a write in. That you can already do in your bio. And I am not aware (again, correct me if I am wrong) that gender plays a role at any time during gameplay and is displayed to anybody but yourself.
So in the end, the only working solution I would see, that wouldn't need a huge potential reprogramming (basic characteristics of the avatar are very difficult to change, as has been stated numerous times by devs when talk was about careers or races, and would need more or less a completely new program core) is an option to display any gender you type in instead of the default "male"/"female" when you open your info. Which could by extension of course also apply to any boff, thus solving the issue about multi-gendered species, which the game as it is will certainly not be able to simply accomodate.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
Instead of a character creator that forces us to choose between male or female, we should have one that doesn't have that choice. All the options are in the creator itself and lets you create the character how you want it and how it looks. If we look at the real world and its people, the difference between male and female aren't that great.
In computer games the differences between male and female are purely cosmetic. I don't know any game where the female differ from the male in stats. Think about it. A game where the males are slightly stronger and the females have better 'soft' skills. The game developper would be in for a very serious debate.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
If this is simply a matter of immersion, whereby a player feels like THEY are at the helm of a Federation starship, then I'm all for that. It's a video game afterall. I honestly don't see the need to justify it.
For starters it assumes that there will even be Transgender people in the 24th century. For all we know gender dysphoria could be treated very differently, both socially and medically. We're also talking about using non-canonical material as justification for the inclusion of such options.
To be clear, I'm not arguing against the idea. I just think that coming from the standpoint of "this is a video game and I, a RL person in the 21st century, want to be a Starfleet/KDF/Rom officer" is all the reason that is needed.
Sooo much easier to shout loudly and point fingers than it is to present your opinion in an adult fashion, isn't it?
After all, whoever shouts the loudest and gets the most attention wins, right?
A six year old boy and his starship. Living the dream.
Sexual dimorphism is a fact, not an opinion. There are significant differences between masculine and feminine features. The character creator reflects this reality. The character creator also allows a player to 'feminize' a masculine model and 'masculinize' a female model.
If a person wishes to play a transgendered or gender ambivalent or gender other character, s/he need only open the character creator, decide if the character leans toward one body type or the other, and choose that as the 'gender' realizing that it is a mechanical limitation having nothing whatsoever to do with the character that player wishes to roleplay. Just because the tag says 'Female' there is no reason to feel like you must play a female character. Your 'Female' selection is, for your character, nothing more than a body phenotype, having nothing to do with the character's actual gender.
I don't really see what the issue is, other than some folk wanting to validate their life choices by imposing it in a place where it really has no meaning. In the real world LGBTQ++ people exist. So what? It's not a big deal any more, and it's growing into a smaller and smaller deal every day. By the time of Trek, LGBTQ++ people will be considered people. That's it. Just people.
I'm not here to ERP, so your gender choices are, to me, irrelevant, just as is the choice of Sulu's character to have a husband on the new Trek movie. My response is, "So? What has this got to do with the story? Or is this just to make a point?"
I don't need to know with whom or how any character in the Star Trek universe has sex, and that includes your character. It's not relevant to the story. Note: I also don't want to participate in Straight ERP, so don't feel like you are being singled out because you chose a non-straight character.
If one wishes to be accepted as normal one must realize that normal means nobody cares.
This thread seems like a step backward. You are requesting that someone define your gender identity for you at the click of a drop down menu. I'm not satisfied with the quality of the character bio fields (Text isn't even justified) but it's as valid a location to detail your gender and sexual preferences as share what a great shuttle pilot you are or how you enjoy holo novels about the old west. Whatever constitutes your Captain's identity that you feel is worth sharing can be communicated there.
Gender within Star Trek isn't so easily nailed down as the two "types" we have optioned within the MMO but with the morphing capabilities on the engine are a kindness that offer greater versatility than most other games out there. Star Trek did feature alien species whose gender was more diversified than that of humans. Using existing tools you could create a credible J'nali or a non canon Andorian who sits somewhere between male and female. Sadly I don't think there is enough interest in continued development of the bio system as a whole for further improvements to be made. Pity they didn't do another pass on the internal bio system rather than sinking dev time into the road to nowhere captain app from a few years ago.
Gender choice should be expanded to "Male/Female/Other" - this is the way many countries legislation does it and it would grant all species a gender choice even if there is no visual difference between male and female Gorn, for example. Otherwise the gender setting simply chooses one preset of character models and you simply have to use the one that comes closest to what you like your Captain to look like. It's not perfect but sufficient (people are basically unable to create female with small chest sizes, for example. Reason for that was something about being afraid of mistaken characters for minors or some dung like that). Specifics, as stated before, can be written in the bio field, although I personally do not understand why my Captain's sexual preference or gender identidy would somehow affect their duties or what they do in-game.
^ 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
If they were doing it from scratch, it would probably be simple to leave off gender options from the ui and have the tailor freeform. I doubt they'll go back and make adjustments now though. It would be cool though if they found some other way of referencing the more unusual gender combinations in the lore. It makes species more interesting and unique to see more sides to their history, biology and culture.
Sexual dimorphism is a fact, not an opinion. There are significant differences between masculine and feminine features. The character creator reflects this reality. The character creator also allows a player to 'feminize' a masculine model and 'masculinize' a female model.
If a person wishes to play a transgendered or gender ambivalent or gender other character, s/he need only open the character creator, decide if the character leans toward one body type or the other, and choose that as the 'gender' realizing that it is a mechanical limitation having nothing whatsoever to do with the character that player wishes to roleplay. Just because the tag says 'Female' there is no reason to feel like you must play a female character. Your 'Female' selection is, for your character, nothing more than a body phenotype, having nothing to do with the character's actual gender.
I don't really see what the issue is, other than some folk wanting to validate their life choices by imposing it in a place where it really has no meaning. In the real world LGBTQ++ people exist. So what? It's not a big deal any more, and it's growing into a smaller and smaller deal every day. By the time of Trek, LGBTQ++ people will be considered people. That's it. Just people.
I'm not here to ERP, so your gender choices are, to me, irrelevant, just as is the choice of Sulu's character to have a husband on the new Trek movie. My response is, "So? What has this got to do with the story? Or is this just to make a point?"
I don't need to know with whom or how any character in the Star Trek universe has sex, and that includes your character. It's not relevant to the story. Note: I also don't want to participate in Straight ERP, so don't feel like you are being singled out because you chose a non-straight character.
If one wishes to be accepted as normal one must realize that normal means nobody cares.
Your logic is sound. I would tend to agree, the game is fine as it is and the current choices are sufficient for our needs in game. There is no label check when we login, because no one cares. When we are in a queue, the only thing that would matter is, 'is this person able to keep up?' Outside of the missions, personal appearance is just a show off of who spent the most on costume unlocks. The gender issue comes down to if you want to look feminine or masculine, the game can't do it all for you, let's use some imagination too, I enjoy tailor-time!
Example; I had to color the First Contact costume to look like the Voyager one until I obtained that specific costume unlock for myself. Imagination.
Example; I had to color the First Contact costume to look like the Voyager one until I obtained that specific costume unlock for myself. Imagination.
I know what you mean, but comparing uniform styles to gender identity isn't the most understanding of positions.
And I think identity is something a lot of people here don't quite get (generally, not just this topic). Most people don't realise the impact the potrayal of identity in the media has. Imagine growing up as a kid watching TV, along with everyone else, and seeing that every time someone like you is on screen that they are a servant, a criminal, dumb, the person who dies at the end, the sidekick or - in many cases - just never even mentioned. The hero of every story is someone you don't identify with - they are someone else and you are - at best - in the background being some out dated cliche; much like you end up being treated in real life. Then imagine a show comes on screen where for the first time someone like you is visible and treated with respect, maybe even the hero. I can tell you, that feeling is amazing. It makes a huge difference to you growing up. It made a huge difference to many people watching Star Trek as children. People like Whoppie Goldberg for instance. Please don't dismiss every attempt at including a minority as some token PC rubbish that doesn't matter because "who cares", "it doesn't matter" and "how is this relevant to the story". You never really realise how much it matters until you are that kid watching the same kind of person win the day every day of the year then one day you see yourself on screen and for the first time in your life you believe in yourself and have hope that in the future things will get better. Even if you still get shouted at as you walk to school, you stand a few inches taller and aim higher, because you have hope. I'm sure someone can explain better than I, but my point is please don't assume this is all bull - people get passionate about this because it matters.
But FB has a customer base in the, what is it, a billion registered probably half that active? Compared to this game. FB actually has a reason to make the adjustment to support as many different groups as possible, because all of them will have significant numbers. There is an actual financial reward to it for them.
I don't think sucessful businesses should always look at the bottom line on issues like these though. A change like this can be a positive advertisement to the many people who support Trans rights, not just to those who are Trans. So I don't think the claim it isn't logical financially and effort wise to change something 'trivial' (it isn't trivial to some people), isn't entirely accurate.
While I appreciate people's desire for super-specific character customization, I think I and the 98.7% of the player base who would have zero use for this would rather the programming time and UI tweaking go to somewhat more broad-based benefits.
This is a lousy appeal to spend time only on the majority and does not mean the accommodation should not be done.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Comments
the issue is still return on investment. if 98% of their customers wont be using something, they can hardly justify investing time into it. the "worldview" is irrelevant in this case.
You have to start somewhere.
AFAIK the facebook "genders" are just words/titles you can select. if all the OP wants are words/titles im sure that wouldnt take long. if people want to blend male/female costume options, that would probably require actual time to make costumes work on different gender models. so it depends on which option people are actually asking for.
It required actual time to develop the segregated style in the first place. Now the argument seems to be becoming disturbingly utilitarian about "additional" investment versus who would use these features when they should have been made cross-factional for gender in the first place.
That's not the right framing for the issue.
how it hypothetically should have been done in the first place doesnt change the current situation. adjusting/removing/changing the current gender settings would take X amount of work time. so as a business, they have to decide whether they return would be worth the X amount of time.
if you think working on something that the majority of customers wont use is a valid use of time, i think the KDF and ROM should get some attention before the tailor. PVP too.
I agree that we'll never see it. But there's a difference between highlighting that this is what will happen and saying that this is what should happen as others here have justified.
And now you have too.
I agree with this
As for OP's views on Rigillians we would need more people to actually as that particular species before we went that far.
Yes it did, but at the same time it eased issues when building your character model, because by far the most humans are physically built in one of two shapes, which we associate with "male" and "female" (and which do not necessarily have anything to do with your gender, only with appearance). Yes, there are others, but comparatively few, and most of them are similar enough to one of the basic archetypes that you can use it. Still some to go, but other rare different looks aren't accustomed either (more extreme sizes, which probably would be the easiest one to do, arms of different length, many others). So as a basis for building a character model, this binary approach has a huge advantage.
At the same time, reading the link you provided about gender options, if I read through them I feel like there are less than stated only with different names/spellings (If I am wrong in this I'd be happy to be educated, because I know little enough). So the terms aren't even settled, which means the list is filled with redundancies and possibly at the same time not even exhaustive. So as a drop down it wouldn't make sense, it could only be a write in. That you can already do in your bio. And I am not aware (again, correct me if I am wrong) that gender plays a role at any time during gameplay and is displayed to anybody but yourself.
So in the end, the only working solution I would see, that wouldn't need a huge potential reprogramming (basic characteristics of the avatar are very difficult to change, as has been stated numerous times by devs when talk was about careers or races, and would need more or less a completely new program core) is an option to display any gender you type in instead of the default "male"/"female" when you open your info. Which could by extension of course also apply to any boff, thus solving the issue about multi-gendered species, which the game as it is will certainly not be able to simply accomodate.
In computer games the differences between male and female are purely cosmetic. I don't know any game where the female differ from the male in stats. Think about it. A game where the males are slightly stronger and the females have better 'soft' skills. The game developper would be in for a very serious debate.
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
For starters it assumes that there will even be Transgender people in the 24th century. For all we know gender dysphoria could be treated very differently, both socially and medically. We're also talking about using non-canonical material as justification for the inclusion of such options.
To be clear, I'm not arguing against the idea. I just think that coming from the standpoint of "this is a video game and I, a RL person in the 21st century, want to be a Starfleet/KDF/Rom officer" is all the reason that is needed.
Sooo much easier to shout loudly and point fingers than it is to present your opinion in an adult fashion, isn't it?
After all, whoever shouts the loudest and gets the most attention wins, right?
If a person wishes to play a transgendered or gender ambivalent or gender other character, s/he need only open the character creator, decide if the character leans toward one body type or the other, and choose that as the 'gender' realizing that it is a mechanical limitation having nothing whatsoever to do with the character that player wishes to roleplay. Just because the tag says 'Female' there is no reason to feel like you must play a female character. Your 'Female' selection is, for your character, nothing more than a body phenotype, having nothing to do with the character's actual gender.
I don't really see what the issue is, other than some folk wanting to validate their life choices by imposing it in a place where it really has no meaning. In the real world LGBTQ++ people exist. So what? It's not a big deal any more, and it's growing into a smaller and smaller deal every day. By the time of Trek, LGBTQ++ people will be considered people. That's it. Just people.
I'm not here to ERP, so your gender choices are, to me, irrelevant, just as is the choice of Sulu's character to have a husband on the new Trek movie. My response is, "So? What has this got to do with the story? Or is this just to make a point?"
I don't need to know with whom or how any character in the Star Trek universe has sex, and that includes your character. It's not relevant to the story. Note: I also don't want to participate in Straight ERP, so don't feel like you are being singled out because you chose a non-straight character.
If one wishes to be accepted as normal one must realize that normal means nobody cares.
Gender within Star Trek isn't so easily nailed down as the two "types" we have optioned within the MMO but with the morphing capabilities on the engine are a kindness that offer greater versatility than most other games out there. Star Trek did feature alien species whose gender was more diversified than that of humans. Using existing tools you could create a credible J'nali or a non canon Andorian who sits somewhere between male and female. Sadly I don't think there is enough interest in continued development of the bio system as a whole for further improvements to be made. Pity they didn't do another pass on the internal bio system rather than sinking dev time into the road to nowhere captain app from a few years ago.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Your logic is sound. I would tend to agree, the game is fine as it is and the current choices are sufficient for our needs in game. There is no label check when we login, because no one cares. When we are in a queue, the only thing that would matter is, 'is this person able to keep up?' Outside of the missions, personal appearance is just a show off of who spent the most on costume unlocks. The gender issue comes down to if you want to look feminine or masculine, the game can't do it all for you, let's use some imagination too, I enjoy tailor-time!
Example; I had to color the First Contact costume to look like the Voyager one until I obtained that specific costume unlock for myself. Imagination.
I know what you mean, but comparing uniform styles to gender identity isn't the most understanding of positions.
And I think identity is something a lot of people here don't quite get (generally, not just this topic). Most people don't realise the impact the potrayal of identity in the media has. Imagine growing up as a kid watching TV, along with everyone else, and seeing that every time someone like you is on screen that they are a servant, a criminal, dumb, the person who dies at the end, the sidekick or - in many cases - just never even mentioned. The hero of every story is someone you don't identify with - they are someone else and you are - at best - in the background being some out dated cliche; much like you end up being treated in real life. Then imagine a show comes on screen where for the first time someone like you is visible and treated with respect, maybe even the hero. I can tell you, that feeling is amazing. It makes a huge difference to you growing up. It made a huge difference to many people watching Star Trek as children. People like Whoppie Goldberg for instance. Please don't dismiss every attempt at including a minority as some token PC rubbish that doesn't matter because "who cares", "it doesn't matter" and "how is this relevant to the story". You never really realise how much it matters until you are that kid watching the same kind of person win the day every day of the year then one day you see yourself on screen and for the first time in your life you believe in yourself and have hope that in the future things will get better. Even if you still get shouted at as you walk to school, you stand a few inches taller and aim higher, because you have hope. I'm sure someone can explain better than I, but my point is please don't assume this is all bull - people get passionate about this because it matters.
Because?
I support them adding the options.
But FB has a customer base in the, what is it, a billion registered probably half that active? Compared to this game. FB actually has a reason to make the adjustment to support as many different groups as possible, because all of them will have significant numbers. There is an actual financial reward to it for them.
I don't think sucessful businesses should always look at the bottom line on issues like these though. A change like this can be a positive advertisement to the many people who support Trans rights, not just to those who are Trans. So I don't think the claim it isn't logical financially and effort wise to change something 'trivial' (it isn't trivial to some people), isn't entirely accurate.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.