I agree with sos. I run toons of both genders and my main is a male alien, even though I'm female IRL.
I have no problems running both genders, I have a female friend who prefers running mostly female avatars, though she also has a couple male avatars as well. This female friend identifies as asexual, so gender makes no difference to her.
Now a LTS and loving it.
Just because you spend money on this game, it does not entitle you to be a jerk if things don't go your way.
I have come to the conclusion that I have a memory like Etch-A-Sketch. I shake my head and forget everything.
Let's refrain from making any pseudo-political or baiting statements, please.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
How useful is this function to the playerbase? Will two players use this feature or two million?
How hard is it to accomplish? Is this a two minute, add a line of code problem? Or will it require an overhaul of the tailor and creator?
If it's easy to do and/or affects a lot of players, then certainly it should be added to the game. The more difficult it would be to do and/or the fewer players it affects, then the lower the priority should be.
Cryptic has a skeleton crew on STO, and their man/hours are finite. I wouldn't object to a revamp of the character creation and modification system, but I wouldn't advocate taking time away from new content development to do it.
For what it's worth, my vote is no. Use the resources this would require to do things which would benefit the majority of the playerbase. This is not a value judgement of transgendered people but a value judgement of game features.
For what it's worth, my vote is no. Use the resources this would require to do things which would benefit the majority of the playerbase.
If the criteria for [insert suggest here] is benefiting more than 50% of the player base not a whole lot is going to be added to STO. For example: any QOL feature, bug fix, or content update for the KDF/ROM. "Game design for the majority" simply wouldn't allow for it, it's not (and never has been) workable in exclusive practice. What the majority wants is worth considering (especially when it comes to the business model) but not as an absolute arbitrator on which ideas get considered (especially when it comes to QoL features, those can often be quite small scale.) Immediate functionality is important too.
Post edited by duncanidaho11 on
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
I agree with sos. I run toons of both genders and my main is a male alien, even though I'm female IRL.
I have no problems running both genders, I have a female friend who prefers running mostly female avatars, though she also has a couple male avatars as well. This female friend identifies as asexual, so gender makes no difference to her.
And I know women gamers who play male avatars. To quote her, if she is gonna be staring at an **** for 5 hours while she plays, it's gonna be an **** she wants to see for 5 hours. I really can't argue with that. Personally, I make female avatars in games because dress up is way more fun as a girl than a guy. So there are all sorts of reasons to do things.
This is pretty much me. If I have to stare at a backside for hours on end, it's going to be one that I want to stare at. Which is why I carefully choose my female avatars' attributes when creating them.
When I see other captains with beer guts or females with gargantuan jugs I have to shake my head and remind myself that if that's what they really want to stare at...then just move on with what I like to stare at.
Now a LTS and loving it.
Just because you spend money on this game, it does not entitle you to be a jerk if things don't go your way.
I have come to the conclusion that I have a memory like Etch-A-Sketch. I shake my head and forget everything.
I agree with sos. I run toons of both genders and my main is a male alien, even though I'm female IRL.
I have no problems running both genders, I have a female friend who prefers running mostly female avatars, though she also has a couple male avatars as well. This female friend identifies as asexual, so gender makes no difference to her.
And I know women gamers who play male avatars. To quote her, if she is gonna be staring at an **** for 5 hours while she plays, it's gonna be an **** she wants to see for 5 hours. I really can't argue with that. Personally, I make female avatars in games because dress up is way more fun as a girl than a guy. So there are all sorts of reasons to do things.
This is pretty much me. If I have to stare at a backside for hours on end, it's going to be one that I want to stare at. Which is why I carefully choose my female avatars' attributes when creating them.
When I see other captains with beer guts or females with gargantuan jugs I have to shake my head and remind myself that if that's what they really want to stare at...then just move on with what I like to stare at.
^^ THIS! EVER SO MUCH THIS! ^^
My exact thoughts too. I have a male or two, but I hardly play them.
I agree with sos. I run toons of both genders and my main is a male alien, even though I'm female IRL.
I have no problems running both genders, I have a female friend who prefers running mostly female avatars, though she also has a couple male avatars as well. This female friend identifies as asexual, so gender makes no difference to her.
And I know women gamers who play male avatars. To quote her, if she is gonna be staring at an **** for 5 hours while she plays, it's gonna be an **** she wants to see for 5 hours. I really can't argue with that. Personally, I make female avatars in games because dress up is way more fun as a girl than a guy. So there are all sorts of reasons to do things.
This is pretty much me. If I have to stare at a backside for hours on end, it's going to be one that I want to stare at. Which is why I carefully choose my female avatars' attributes when creating them.
When I see other captains with beer guts or females with gargantuan jugs I have to shake my head and remind myself that if that's what they really want to stare at...then just move on with what I like to stare at.
while I never got appeal of breast that look like someone inserted a full sized basketball against pectoral muscles of said ladies, each to their own I suppose.
with me for character selection it's of what I find asthetically pleasing and tradition, when I started playing RPGs (and other stories with actual characters) in the 90s and early 00s there was a trend that male characters looked they were muscle on muscle (and acted like dimwits if they had a personality to begin with), while female characters looked better and had better personalities or simply had them.
By the time that trend had changed I simply kept picking female avatars out of tradition and because I still consider the female form to be more asthetically pleasing to look at (well I am a man after all ).
Why anyone chooses anything is not really important. There are women who like to look on a woman's behind or a man's or both, or there are people that do not project themselves into the game at all and just create characters they find interesting or those that simply create a default one to simply play the game. To those who'd like the ability to change the gender of their character that shouldn't be barred if no technical reasons prevent it. If it is possible to add it as a tailor option, by all means, do it - for me and a few others, carefully crafting each character and BOFF and make them fit a theme is one of the main reasons to even play STO still after having achieved everything that is achievable with gameplay methods years ago already (since then, they just add more of the same - sometimes it helps to make some of my character themes improve, which is nice ).
Wether this is possible or not needs to be answered by a dev because everything else is just wild speculation on our end - I did the same, just assuming gender is in the same category as race or class or faction, but it might not be the case. @crypticjoejing should know (they make character costumes if I'm not mistaken? If joejing does ships, sorry for the ping ). If it is possible it's also true it may be low priority since it's more important to create new stuff that will secure a steady income stream - us oldtimers spending hours in the tailor doesn't really pay out as we have basically everything we want already.
Either way, without a comment on the technicalities we don't go anywhere
^ 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
For what it's worth, my vote is no. Use the resources this would require to do things which would benefit the majority of the playerbase.
If the criteria for [insert suggest here] is benefiting more than 50% of the player base not a whole lot is going to be added to STO. For example: any QOL feature, bug fix, or content update for the KDF/ROM. "Game design for the majority" simply wouldn't allow for it, it's not (and never has been) workable in exclusive practice. What the majority wants is worth considering (especially when it comes to the business model) but not as an absolute arbitrator on which ideas get considered (especially when it comes to QoL features, those can often be quite small scale.) Immediate functionality is important too.
Actually, that's nothing like the criteria I cited. My criteria is that the developers, who know how hard or easy this would be to implement, have to judge how much effort is required compared to how many players would benefit. If it is extremely easy to do then even if only one player benefits it should be done, and even if 99% of the players would benefit, if it takes more time than creating a new game engine, it should not be done.
The inflexibility of absoluteism makes value judgements impossible because everything is either 'right' or 'wrong' with very little room between. Games must be designed for the majority. This is simple logic, especially in a game which is already caters to a niche audience. Spending time on features which impact less than one percent of players while ignoring the many features such as bug fixes and new content which benefit many players is a guaranteed way to cause the game to fail, thus serving none of the players at all.
This cannot then be extrapolated as meaning features that benefit fewer players should never be implimented. Things which benefit small groups of players can benefit everyone in roundabout ways. But to judge where to devote developer time is always a cost/benefit analysis, and this means at some level the number of players affected must be a consideration.
It's the 25th century. You would think that a gender change would happen on the genetic level. I vote for totally random transporter accidents after queuing for a STF and then hitting decline.
Just do away with the concept of gender entirely in this game. Give the attention trolls what they want-the ability to do wacky things like combining the epic beard with the "bust" slider all the way to the right and a mini-skirt.
This cannot then be extrapolated as meaning features that benefit fewer players should never be implimented. Things which benefit small groups of players can benefit everyone in roundabout ways. But to judge where to devote developer time is always a cost/benefit analysis, and this means at some level the number of players affected must be a consideration.
Even incorporating cost this isn't a viable way of evaluating ideas on the forums. Just take the fact that we don't know the real cost of development on most features. We can speculate. In the event we get it right it's a redundant data point and if we get it inject discussion with an erroneous data point. I'm saying it's not useful for us (except in extreme cases, such as "this thing is totally impossible" which to get back to this thread for a moment changing genders for players/boffs may well be.)
For development, cost benefit decisions do matter but that can't be boiled down to if B/C>1 implement idea post haste (hyperbole, in the interest of clarity). And that's simply because benefit isn't a simple statistic. There's the scale but also the magnitude and context. Something might affect a large number of players but it might not do much. Compare that to a feature that only affects a few but it benefits them greatly (ex. Foundry top 3 system). Player numbers might not be the deciding factor there. Then consider exactly what's being improved. If it's a core feature of the game (ex. customization) then the effect might have disproportionate benefits because the absolute magnitude of the improvement might push the system beyond what other games are currently doing (ex. the expansion of sliders and head/skin types). If it's a random tangent, then the benefit might not result in a significant improvement for the game as it functions in the context of a marketplace (ex. the old exploration system as compared to procedurally generated exploration games). But then again, if that random tangent serves to increase diversity (ex. floaters on Risa) the benefit may be significant in the context of player psychology and behavior. The calculus also changes with internal dev factors too. If there's a lot going on in a relevant area, then the cost of spend dev time increases. If there isn't, then less objectively beneficial features (across all conceivable dimensions) may be easier to justify.
So...it really depends on the particulars and those can't be handled by an oversimplification of cost/benefit. Productive discussion has to dig deeper. (that's all I'm saying)
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
This cannot then be extrapolated as meaning features that benefit fewer players should never be implimented. Things which benefit small groups of players can benefit everyone in roundabout ways. But to judge where to devote developer time is always a cost/benefit analysis, and this means at some level the number of players affected must be a consideration.
Even incorporating cost this isn't a viable way of evaluating ideas on the forums. Just take the fact that we don't know the real cost of development on most features. We can speculate. In the event we get it right it's a redundant data point and if we get it inject discussion with an erroneous data point. I'm saying it's not useful for us (except in extreme cases, such as "this thing is totally impossible" which to get back to this thread for a moment changing genders for players/boffs may well be.)
For development, cost benefit decisions do matter but that can't be boiled down to if B/C>1 implement idea post haste (hyperbole, in the interest of clarity). And that's simply because benefit isn't a simple statistic. There's the scale but also the magnitude and context. Something might affect a large number of players but it might not do much. Compare that to a feature that only affects a few but it benefits them greatly (ex. Foundry top 3 system). Player numbers might not be the deciding factor there. Then consider exactly what's being improved. If it's a core feature of the game (ex. customization) then the effect might have disproportionate benefits because the absolute magnitude of the improvement might push the system beyond what other games are currently doing (ex. the expansion of sliders and head/skin types). If it's a random tangent, then the benefit might not result in a significant improvement for the game as it functions in the context of a marketplace (ex. the old exploration system as compared to procedurally generated exploration games). But then again, if that random tangent serves to increase diversity (ex. floaters on Risa) the benefit may be significant in the context of player psychology and behavior. The calculus also changes with internal dev factors too. If there's a lot going on in a relevant area, then the cost of spend dev time increases. If there isn't, then less objectively beneficial features (across all conceivable dimensions) may be easier to justify.
So...it really depends on the particulars and those can't be handled by an oversimplification of cost/benefit. Productive discussion has to dig deeper. (that's all I'm saying)
So, in giving a cost/benefit analysis of doing cost/benefit analyses, you have determined that they are more complex than B/C>1
But the idea you expressed is exactly the kind of calculation required for the devs to budget man/hours to any task. Yes, it's complicated. Sometimes the devs get it wrong. (I won't list each instance, I know you can mentally list your own pet projects which ended up missing the intended mark. Please don't post your list either.) But as complicated as such calculations can be, eventually it boils down to, "Is it worth development time for this?" And the answer, like so much in life, is a variable, not a hard, absolute, fact-based figure.
Decided to look into this, because I think it's something that you should be able to do. As many people suspected in this thread, it's a much greater technical challenge. The team might be able to set something up so that it'd be possible, but it would be a ton of work that we may not have the bandwidth for. I put a bug into some people's ears, we'll see what happens.
I was told the "easier" option would be to allow players to switch, but the switch would eliminate all of your saved costumes and all of your costume unlocks, which sounds like a nuclear option nobody wants.
I was told the "easier" option would be to allow players to switch, but the switch would eliminate all of your saved costumes and all of your costume unlocks, which sounds like a nuclear option nobody wants.
Very much so...interesting that there the easier (and horrifying) option exists. A tangential topic to this is the "species change token" which's been a flat out "no, prohibitively huge technical challenge" in past discussion. Any chance that could ride along this same bug in case of future (non-nuclear) developments?
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
The "nuclear" option wouldn't be that nuclear if costume unlocks that aren't c-store could be reclaimed either character or even account wide. Having to recreate saved costume slots is a no brainer making the switch. Maybe another "bug" could be set in someones ear to look into reclaimable costume unlocks? We can reclaim titles via the c-store (there is the "when the walls fell" title reclaim in the store for veterans) so maybe it'd be possible for costumes @ambassadorkael#6946
^ 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
The "nuclear" option wouldn't be that nuclear if costume unlocks that aren't c-store could be reclaimed either character or even account wide. Having to recreate saved costume slots is a no brainer making the switch. Maybe another "bug" could be set in someones ear to look into reclaimable costume unlocks? We can reclaim titles via the c-store (there is the "when the walls fell" title reclaim in the store for veterans) so maybe it'd be possible for costumes @ambassadorkael#6946
Dilthium store reclaim would be more conventional. Account unlocked lobi/dilithium/event/super-special event (worf beard/hair/sash) costumes would of course be awesome for us but that isn't how Cryptic's chosen to implement those costumes.
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Gender bender lockbox. Now if memory serves me well, the only thing I remember from Trek is that quark dresses himself as a woman and that other ferengi woman that becomes a male, so yeah women clothing for males and vice versa. Boom, done.
Gender bender lockbox. Now if memory serves me well, the only thing I remember from Trek is that quark dresses himself as a woman and that other ferengi woman that becomes a male, so yeah women clothing for males and vice versa. Boom, done.
1. Quark wasn't just dressed as a woman...(that's a major plot point in the episode)
2. What you're proposing would probably be a lot more challenging for Cryptic. Male and female clothing variants are built for different skeletons (character models). They can't be swapped between each other without creating massive clipping issues and other weirdness. Each item would have to be rebuilt and that would include every gender-exclusive character item. That's a huge load to throw onto the character artists and that probably would come at the cost of new content. So for a time-saving QoL feature for character revamps, it's not a good option.
3. Clothing tweak =/= character revamping. In the Foundry we can swap genders and species to create new characters (it's how the character selection process works.) That gives us a lot of flexibility in changing characters as we work through casts and plots. That's what I'd like to see, and opening the tailor certainly would not satisfy that.
So, no this doesn't work.
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
I am not saying they should rebuild every existing outfit, just new ones ( the long requested man skant from tng)
I think that's more moot then. Look, not everyone approaching this thread is doing so with their head-canon in mind. If gender becomes a tailor option then we get a lot more flexibility in how we handle evolving character ideas. That's good by itself and isn't satisfied at all just by including off-gender clothing options. It would also have a positive impact (IMO) on Boff exchange prices. ATM, there can be major discrepancies between species-gender-profession combinations are more expensive than their counterpart (ex. male FED-Klingon tactical, female Orion) because of the scarcity induced by only having half the available boffs meet the zeitgeist of the community. That can be limiting when it comes to the normal business of making crews (character ideas have to work around exchange cost). Add a Foundry-like gender option and that goes away, the entire pool of boffs within a given species-profession combination can satisfy demand from either side. So prices stabilize.
That doesn't make this any less of a technical challenge but it does mean that there is more of a payoff in finding a complete solution.
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Making gender a costume option would seem to solve the problem, but can it be separated out like that is the question.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Comments
I have no problems running both genders, I have a female friend who prefers running mostly female avatars, though she also has a couple male avatars as well. This female friend identifies as asexual, so gender makes no difference to her.
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
How useful is this function to the playerbase? Will two players use this feature or two million?
How hard is it to accomplish? Is this a two minute, add a line of code problem? Or will it require an overhaul of the tailor and creator?
If it's easy to do and/or affects a lot of players, then certainly it should be added to the game. The more difficult it would be to do and/or the fewer players it affects, then the lower the priority should be.
Cryptic has a skeleton crew on STO, and their man/hours are finite. I wouldn't object to a revamp of the character creation and modification system, but I wouldn't advocate taking time away from new content development to do it.
For what it's worth, my vote is no. Use the resources this would require to do things which would benefit the majority of the playerbase. This is not a value judgement of transgendered people but a value judgement of game features.
If the criteria for [insert suggest here] is benefiting more than 50% of the player base not a whole lot is going to be added to STO. For example: any QOL feature, bug fix, or content update for the KDF/ROM. "Game design for the majority" simply wouldn't allow for it, it's not (and never has been) workable in exclusive practice. What the majority wants is worth considering (especially when it comes to the business model) but not as an absolute arbitrator on which ideas get considered (especially when it comes to QoL features, those can often be quite small scale.) Immediate functionality is important too.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
This is pretty much me. If I have to stare at a backside for hours on end, it's going to be one that I want to stare at. Which is why I carefully choose my female avatars' attributes when creating them.
When I see other captains with beer guts or females with gargantuan jugs I have to shake my head and remind myself that if that's what they really want to stare at...then just move on with what I like to stare at.
^^ THIS! EVER SO MUCH THIS! ^^
My exact thoughts too. I have a male or two, but I hardly play them.
We come in peace, SHOOT TO KILL!
while I never got appeal of breast that look like someone inserted a full sized basketball against pectoral muscles of said ladies, each to their own I suppose.
with me for character selection it's of what I find asthetically pleasing and tradition, when I started playing RPGs (and other stories with actual characters) in the 90s and early 00s there was a trend that male characters looked they were muscle on muscle (and acted like dimwits if they had a personality to begin with), while female characters looked better and had better personalities or simply had them.
By the time that trend had changed I simply kept picking female avatars out of tradition and because I still consider the female form to be more asthetically pleasing to look at (well I am a man after all
Wether this is possible or not needs to be answered by a dev because everything else is just wild speculation on our end - I did the same, just assuming gender is in the same category as race or class or faction, but it might not be the case. @crypticjoejing should know (they make character costumes if I'm not mistaken? If joejing does ships, sorry for the ping
Either way, without a comment on the technicalities we don't go anywhere
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Actually, that's nothing like the criteria I cited. My criteria is that the developers, who know how hard or easy this would be to implement, have to judge how much effort is required compared to how many players would benefit. If it is extremely easy to do then even if only one player benefits it should be done, and even if 99% of the players would benefit, if it takes more time than creating a new game engine, it should not be done.
The inflexibility of absoluteism makes value judgements impossible because everything is either 'right' or 'wrong' with very little room between. Games must be designed for the majority. This is simple logic, especially in a game which is already caters to a niche audience. Spending time on features which impact less than one percent of players while ignoring the many features such as bug fixes and new content which benefit many players is a guaranteed way to cause the game to fail, thus serving none of the players at all.
This cannot then be extrapolated as meaning features that benefit fewer players should never be implimented. Things which benefit small groups of players can benefit everyone in roundabout ways. But to judge where to devote developer time is always a cost/benefit analysis, and this means at some level the number of players affected must be a consideration.
Even incorporating cost this isn't a viable way of evaluating ideas on the forums. Just take the fact that we don't know the real cost of development on most features. We can speculate. In the event we get it right it's a redundant data point and if we get it inject discussion with an erroneous data point. I'm saying it's not useful for us (except in extreme cases, such as "this thing is totally impossible" which to get back to this thread for a moment changing genders for players/boffs may well be.)
For development, cost benefit decisions do matter but that can't be boiled down to if B/C>1 implement idea post haste (hyperbole, in the interest of clarity). And that's simply because benefit isn't a simple statistic. There's the scale but also the magnitude and context. Something might affect a large number of players but it might not do much. Compare that to a feature that only affects a few but it benefits them greatly (ex. Foundry top 3 system). Player numbers might not be the deciding factor there. Then consider exactly what's being improved. If it's a core feature of the game (ex. customization) then the effect might have disproportionate benefits because the absolute magnitude of the improvement might push the system beyond what other games are currently doing (ex. the expansion of sliders and head/skin types). If it's a random tangent, then the benefit might not result in a significant improvement for the game as it functions in the context of a marketplace (ex. the old exploration system as compared to procedurally generated exploration games). But then again, if that random tangent serves to increase diversity (ex. floaters on Risa) the benefit may be significant in the context of player psychology and behavior. The calculus also changes with internal dev factors too. If there's a lot going on in a relevant area, then the cost of spend dev time increases. If there isn't, then less objectively beneficial features (across all conceivable dimensions) may be easier to justify.
So...it really depends on the particulars and those can't be handled by an oversimplification of cost/benefit. Productive discussion has to dig deeper. (that's all I'm saying)
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
So, in giving a cost/benefit analysis of doing cost/benefit analyses, you have determined that they are more complex than B/C>1
But the idea you expressed is exactly the kind of calculation required for the devs to budget man/hours to any task. Yes, it's complicated. Sometimes the devs get it wrong. (I won't list each instance, I know you can mentally list your own pet projects which ended up missing the intended mark. Please don't post your list either.) But as complicated as such calculations can be, eventually it boils down to, "Is it worth development time for this?" And the answer, like so much in life, is a variable, not a hard, absolute, fact-based figure.
Decided to look into this, because I think it's something that you should be able to do. As many people suspected in this thread, it's a much greater technical challenge. The team might be able to set something up so that it'd be possible, but it would be a ton of work that we may not have the bandwidth for. I put a bug into some people's ears, we'll see what happens.
I was told the "easier" option would be to allow players to switch, but the switch would eliminate all of your saved costumes and all of your costume unlocks, which sounds like a nuclear option nobody wants.
Very much so...interesting that there the easier (and horrifying) option exists. A tangential topic to this is the "species change token" which's been a flat out "no, prohibitively huge technical challenge" in past discussion. Any chance that could ride along this same bug in case of future (non-nuclear) developments?
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Dilthium store reclaim would be more conventional. Account unlocked lobi/dilithium/event/super-special event (worf beard/hair/sash) costumes would of course be awesome for us but that isn't how Cryptic's chosen to implement those costumes.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
1. Quark wasn't just dressed as a woman...(that's a major plot point in the episode)
2. What you're proposing would probably be a lot more challenging for Cryptic. Male and female clothing variants are built for different skeletons (character models). They can't be swapped between each other without creating massive clipping issues and other weirdness. Each item would have to be rebuilt and that would include every gender-exclusive character item. That's a huge load to throw onto the character artists and that probably would come at the cost of new content. So for a time-saving QoL feature for character revamps, it's not a good option.
3. Clothing tweak =/= character revamping. In the Foundry we can swap genders and species to create new characters (it's how the character selection process works.) That gives us a lot of flexibility in changing characters as we work through casts and plots. That's what I'd like to see, and opening the tailor certainly would not satisfy that.
So, no this doesn't work.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
I think that's more moot then. Look, not everyone approaching this thread is doing so with their head-canon in mind. If gender becomes a tailor option then we get a lot more flexibility in how we handle evolving character ideas. That's good by itself and isn't satisfied at all just by including off-gender clothing options. It would also have a positive impact (IMO) on Boff exchange prices. ATM, there can be major discrepancies between species-gender-profession combinations are more expensive than their counterpart (ex. male FED-Klingon tactical, female Orion) because of the scarcity induced by only having half the available boffs meet the zeitgeist of the community. That can be limiting when it comes to the normal business of making crews (character ideas have to work around exchange cost). Add a Foundry-like gender option and that goes away, the entire pool of boffs within a given species-profession combination can satisfy demand from either side. So prices stabilize.
That doesn't make this any less of a technical challenge but it does mean that there is more of a payoff in finding a complete solution.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch