As the game steadily became easier and easier over time, my EC profits have declined, and the exchange prices for the good stuff haven't decreased either. Basically requiring me to do more grinding of the same soulless (easy) content over and over to make end's meet as it were.
I didn't see this happening, but I'm slowly starting to agree with Nabreeki. I've had it with the casual crowd. Your time has run out.
Walk away. When nabreeki starts to make sense, it's time to walk away.
It's not often that Nabreeki does make a valid point. But, at times he can. His point on perma-death is valid and well reasoned. Though perma-death for STO is an extreme step to take.
From it however, we also came up with ways to help alleviate the extremity of it. Such as the Ghost Ship, Second Life, and Metaphasic Radiation ideas that allows the player to recover some, if not all, of what they would have otherwise lost.
There was also the decomission/medical leave idea. Not as extreme as perma-death. But, it would work to make people think about how they approached the game.
Just like the reduction/increase of rewards based of that players performance is another extreme. Granted, it's less of an extreme and doesn't hurt the casual player as much. It just slows down their ability to progress through reps and such, until they step up and work out the means to survive to get the better rewards.
I'm not all for wiping out the casual crowd. They are generally the ones that tend to buy most everything. This in mostly based around the amount of time they get to play. Also as it was stated by someone earlier on in the thread. Not all casuals are against having more challenging content. Some would actually welcome it.
I can say, there are things that Nabreeki an I have agreed on, and things we haven't. But when he makes a valid point, or good suggestion, all I can do is scratch my head and say, "I didn't see that one coming." Then stop and think about what was said, this way, if I can come up with something that goes with it. All well and good. If not, I just carry on. No need to walk away. Just no need to reply, unless I think of something.
This game is gonna die an earlier death than it should if they keep catering to the crowd of incompetents (and by incompetent, I mean totally r'tarded beyond even basic motor function.) This is the easiest MMO I am playing right now, and it has to change.
Even my overpowered 55k Magicka shield-spam build in ESO can still be killed in advanced dungeons if I'm not careful.
I remember the golden days right after DR was released when HGE was the bomb. Plekton was worth alot more than it is now, and there was less powercreep enough to make the challenge feel fun and right. This was when PublicEliteSTF was brimming with activity before it steadily became a ghost town.
Right now, I can practically solo HGE with any class.
And furthmore, when the pvp endeavor was up, me and my friends were swatting 90% of the players we encountered in literally less than a second! Was it fun? Of course not. It showed 90% of the playerbase don't know the game at all even to elementary levels, and are only there to fool around and waste time (and these are the only people Cryptic listens to).
I'm pretty sure perma-death will never happen considering many factors I will not go into for obvious reasons, but if something similar should happen, it will definitely cleanse the game proper. The whiners will not be missed, and the serious players will prosper.
I didn't see this happening, but I'm slowly starting to agree with Nabreeki. I've had it with the casual crowd. Your time has run out.
Walk away. When nabreeki starts to make sense, it's time to walk away.
Fortunately his or her proposal isn't making much sense.
It may make sense if we're willing to ignore that we're only moving in circles and that any argument boils down to 'I just want this, because there are some players I consider undesirable'. And to support that, we've been talking about other niches being chased away. Which is a strange line of reasoning if you're arguing for something that will affect literally everyone in the game as I've stated before - rather than making a change that will only affect a small subsection of players.
Which brings us back again to the costs and the possible effects for Cryptic's revenue if they made these changes.
Though I guess it would be unfair to blame Nabreeki or any others who support this idea for ignoring this subject even though it, ultimately, is the most relevant question imo. They only have as much to work with as those opposing the idea, which isn't much. No data on which players pay the most or how many players who currently pay, would be willing to pay for such a disrupting feature are just two examples of missing data.
The whiners will not be missed, and the serious players will prosper.
Are all undesirables whiners? Are all whiners undesirable?
What criteria should I meet if I want to be considered a serious player and am allowed to stay? All this talk about large groups of players that have not been made explicit is cute and all, but it doesn't really help anyone determine if they should 'shape up or ship out'.
Apparently we need to get rid of Bajorans - which isn't much of a surprise but beyond that, how do we determine who's going to stay and who has to leave? Is there some sort of list with criteria, or should we perhaps add a visual marker on those players whose characters are to be removed? If so, could we pick yellow as the colour for that marker?
Stagnant in the sense of 'getting more of the same' btw. We're still getting new things, new actors, episodes, ships and so on after all so in that sense it is far from stagnant.
Maybe I'm just not getting it, but why are you actually playing an MMO if all you want to do is chasing people away?
Because what breeks does, always, is poke at conversations, trying to get other people stirred up. I strongly doubt he cares one way or the other about the proposal, it's the arguing/fighting that he lives for. It's sad, but there you go.
Careful Jon, he's gonna use either of his cards:
-"you have mental issues for getting annoyed with my constant behavior, but I'm a truly good person so I'm here to help you go through it"
-"stop derailing the thread, you're not contributing and that makes you a sad person"
-"such aggressiveness, stop trying to kill off brilliant ideas because you're refusing revolutionary changes"
-"Come on now, this idea is so helpful and the best hope for the game it's on par with Dukat's idea to heroically exterminate the evil Bajorans"
-"culling the playerbase of its toxic-based-on-my-own-flawless-logic elements is the best thing ever. Send them to their death, let RNGesus sort them out!"
No doubt, which makes all this lashing out all the more surprising. Whatever you're going through, Jon, we're here for you.
Well, that was fast.
Back to the topic, I'll say it's far too late and may even be harmful to the game to even consider such thing as extreme punishment for dying. Those who pay more are those with the most available moment and they're not often the most patient, experienced or willing to reach the highest DPS.
When a game gives you that many choices of abilities, people tend to experiment with various goals: some focus on getting the most DPS, others on survival, others on healing, others on the visual style, others on a mix of some or all. As long as they have fun, participate and don't annoy other players, what's wrong with that? Heck, if it's so easy to do enough DPS to take down things like Unimatrices, then why would you be bothered by an inexperienced but friendly player who's struggling but doesn't actively harm the progress of your mission?
Should we punish those who experiment for their own fun since they're given the tools to experiment? Should the game go "Oh, you made a mistake/were surprised by the difficulty/picked a ship and build that actually don't match your playstyle/got a lag spike? Too bad, you lose! Good day, sir! Fork out the money if you wanna recover your stuff."
Some might say "chill out bro, it's only a game", and nobody agrees more than I do on that matter. Therefore exactly because it's just a game, what's wrong with having some hardcore challenges? It's not like you're gonna die in real life. The "Second-lIfers" are actually the ones crying about difficulties, because to them, the game IS a second life, and therefore their skin is as thin as paper when someone sends them pixelated insults, or even simple criticism about their performance.
I repeat, exactly because it's only a video-game, the perma-death option would not offend me. If anything, it would actually provide a genuine form of STRATEGIC entertainment, that I haven't had in a long, long time in this game.
Besides, the thought of becoming a Kobali kind of excites me.
Some might say "chill out bro, it's only a game", and nobody agrees more than I do on that matter. Therefore exactly because it's just a game, what's wrong with having some hardcore challenges? It's not like you're gonna die in real life. The "Second-lIfers" are actually the ones crying about difficulties, because to them, the game IS a second life, and therefore their skin is as thin as paper when someone sends them pixelated insults, or even simple criticism about their performance.
I repeat, exactly because it's only a video-game, the perma-death option would not offend me. If anything, it would actually provide a genuine form of STRATEGIC entertainment, that I haven't had in a long, long time in this game.
And what about the money spent?
If perma-death means losing real-life money, I'm sorry, but I will NOT be happy about it. I'm already not happy with some monetary practices some game companies have been doing (like the first progression system of the upcoming Star Wars Battlefront II, before they began to back-pedal after the rage it caused), so if not only there are lockboxes, but you can also lose their unlocks, I'm gonna have to say "this is where I stop you right now".
Some might say "chill out bro, it's only a game", and nobody agrees more than I do on that matter. Therefore exactly because it's just a game, what's wrong with having some hardcore challenges? It's not like you're gonna die in real life. The "Second-lIfers" are actually the ones crying about difficulties, because to them, the game IS a second life, and therefore their skin is as thin as paper when someone sends them pixelated insults, or even simple criticism about their performance.
I repeat, exactly because it's only a video-game, the perma-death option would not offend me. If anything, it would actually provide a genuine form of STRATEGIC entertainment, that I haven't had in a long, long time in this game.
Besides, the thought of becoming a Kobali kind of excites me.
Strategic entertainment would be more like players having to coordinate their efforts in order to achieve a long-term goal, in a sector space-wide event for example. That's strategic, avoiding dead comes closer to tactical issues.
I'm happy that perma-death wouldn't offend you. It may offend others though, simply because, indeed, this is a game. In real life, there are consequences to all our actions. In a game, people just want to do stuff without worrying all the time what might happen. It's a way to escape real life where everything already has consequences.
Which doesn't mean that nothing should have consequences in a game, but such consequences shouldn't make the game unplayable. And that's exactly what would happen if you would punish players with removing their ship or gear when they die, meaning they have to collect zen with sub-optimal gear (which can easily become a viscious cycle cause who's to say that you won't die again while collecting the resources to get your gear back?) or pay with real money.
There are so many things wrong with the idea and too many elements haven't been thought out properly, with multiple pitfalls apparently not even considered since, unless I have missed it, this is the first time someone actually mentions that things become even harder and death more likely once you lose your first ship and best gear.
Another way to put it is "I want the same risk and adrenaline rush of dying once as I would in the real life military, except when I die, it's only in a game".
Another way to put it is "I want the same risk and adrenaline rush of dying once as I would in the real life military, except when I die, it's only in a game".
High risk, high reward.
Starfleet isn't a military
Seriously though, if you want that, you can delete your toon or ship, or discard some gear. Why force it on others?
I wouldn't just assume that those who are playing this game, are playing it because they want to experience the thrills of being in the military. They are, as they have been called before, more likely to be Kirk fanboys who just want to play a Trek MMO.
Another way to put it is "I want the same risk and adrenaline rush of dying once as I would in the real life military, except when I die, it's only in a game".
High risk, high reward.
Starfleet isn't a military
Seriously though, if you want that, you can delete your toon or ship, or discard some gear. Why force it on others?
I wouldn't just assume that those who are playing this game, are playing it because they want to experience the thrills of being in the military. They are, as they have been called before, more likely to be Kirk fanboys who just want to play a Trek MMO.
Commit suicide? No fun. Besides, you may have taken my statement about the military too literally. What I really meant is any adventerous life-threatening situation.
Oh I agree that the game has become stagnant. But it has endured, which by itself is an accomplishment.
I just don't see how killing off large parts of the playerbase is going to help anyone.
It has endured, because it has 'Star Trek' in the title, and it allows people to play Captain Kirk. Make it too hard or costly to do just that, and people will not want to play or pay.
And it wouldn't help anyone, because this is just Another Merry Trolling from Dental, as was the 'leave your fleet and auction your minigame token to the best paying fleet' nonsense last month... As you say, this is bad idea, and now going in circles
Some might say "chill out bro, it's only a game", and nobody agrees more than I do on that matter. Therefore exactly because it's just a game, what's wrong with having some hardcore challenges? It's not like you're gonna die in real life. The "Second-lIfers" are actually the ones crying about difficulties, because to them, the game IS a second life, and therefore their skin is as thin as paper when someone sends them pixelated insults, or even simple criticism about their performance.
I repeat, exactly because it's only a video-game, the perma-death option would not offend me. If anything, it would actually provide a genuine form of STRATEGIC entertainment, that I haven't had in a long, long time in this game.
Besides, the thought of becoming a Kobali kind of excites me.
If such a penalty applies ONLY to UltraHardcoreNightmare Queues, then fine. But not to everyone across the board on ALL content. The 'Second-Lifers' are the ones paying to keep this game viable, because they're spending their Real World Money, in the game. SpaceRich-here-since-beta players, can get all the SpaceWealth they need via in-game mechanics built up over 7 years. They don't need to spend Real Money, so they don't support the game. They just use it. People who have spent out on gear, are not going to keep doing so if they keep getting killed. They'll just get bored and leave. Quickly. So which is the more valuable playerbase to cater to?
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Anyway, I think I'm going to leave this thread for what it is since I'm just repeating myself and others who have already made excellent points why a perma-death feature is unwanted, unlikely to happen and even unnecessary since it's already there and available to those players who find it interesting.
I was about to say that if you want to play a high risk game, where you could possibly lose insane amounts of money if you just want to keep playing, you should go and play EVE but then I realised that that argument has also already been made.
Continuing seems rather pointless for now since all counter-arguments are entirely ignored and evaded and just the same rhetoric repeated over and over again. It still all boils down to 'I want this'. Ok, then do it. No one's going to stop you.
The game is not balanced towards this type of game play its an arcade shooter DPS is what the game has been balanced around... to make this 1 small change would require the game and jobs to be re-balanced the trinity system would need to be buffed up to make your captains role mean something.
All the PVE missions would need their mechanics changed to work with this new type of game play too, now don't get me wrong I would love it! but since the game launched many years ago they went down the DPS path and its now too much work to correct that mistake and they will not do anything unless it will produce a profit$$ they have said that time and time again.
Another way to put it is "I want the same risk and adrenaline rush of dying once as I would in the real life military, except when I die, it's only in a game".
High risk, high reward.
In which case, may I respectfully enquire whether you play EvE online? Because honestly, it sounds like EvE, with it's highly competetive nature and perma-death of ships, would be perfect for you.
Oh I would, but you see, I play STO exactly because it has a ground combat - and that's just as good as its space combat. Eve has no ground combat, and SWTOR's space-combat is... eh.
Then we have Star Citizen, but that game is gonna be alpha until I grow a big white beard.
And furthmore, when the pvp endeavor was up, me and my friends were swatting 90% of the players we encountered in literally less than a second! Was it fun? Of course not. It showed 90% of the playerbase don't know the game at all even to elementary levels, and are only there to fool around and waste time (and these are the only people Cryptic listens to).
I'm pretty sure perma-death will never happen considering many factors I will not go into for obvious reasons, but if something similar should happen, it will definitely cleanse the game proper. The whiners will not be missed, and the serious players will prosper.
Hey Tre, yeah you're right...
And we could say much of that lack of skill is due to people going full DPS/glass cannon (or just spreading themselves too thin-due to lack of knowledge) on their skill trees, and foregoing proper defense and resistances.
Which is in and of itself an indication that PvE has become way too easy these days, as you, and many others elude to...
STO's extremely soft learning curve caters to the players of the lowest common denominator. It rewards the casual player just for existing and going through the motions. There is no incentive to improve.
With a perma-death system implemented... it certainly would put fear into the hearts and minds of the casual (and elite players alike), which is why some feel threatened by ideas like Nabreeki, and OP put forth.
Even I was a little skeptical at first, and thought an Elite Hardcore mode would be a better option...
But if we had no choice in the matter.... It would defiantly get the adrenaline pumping and heart rate up. The game would become more addictive with the fear of death on every horizon enhancing the experience.
It would also add that "Trek feeling" of going into out into unknown space/territory, against unknown odds, unknown technology. Never knowing when the next threat is coming. Being in a situation like that sure does makes a crew work more efficiently and to the best of their abilities. It forces them too, or they will perish.
If I wasn't so used to how the game works currently.. I'd be all for playing STO in such a dynamic, thrilling manner.
Because in the end, why would most casual players try to understand a game more then the basics when one can simply "La-La-La-La Space Barbie, RP" their way to victory 99% of the time ?
There's no incentive to improve unless you play PvP or reach for DPS records.
99% of the playerbase avoids these activities, and continues to be rewarded heavily for simply existing.
Eh, in any event, there's been lots of good feedback, ideas and suggestions here from many posters who are discussing this in a calm, serious manner.
(Rather then those who are flying off the handle because they may feel threatened by even the slightest notion of the idea.)
As an aside, sometimes I fantasize about how great it might be to be part of Starfleet or the Klingon Empire IRL (because STO, and the show to some extent foster this idea that nothing bad can happen to you)... then I think, wait, no.. If this were real, it would be nothing like STO, there'd be too much danger, stress, time away from home, risk of death. And it would be one of the hardest most demanding (but awesome) jobs you could ever get.
STO doesn't translate that "fear of the unknown" sentiment well to our consoles or PC.
It's like there's no consequences to our actions, and the game is not "better off" for it.
I think there's much potential in the idea.
And will continue reading this thread with interest.
Comments
It's not often that Nabreeki does make a valid point. But, at times he can. His point on perma-death is valid and well reasoned. Though perma-death for STO is an extreme step to take.
From it however, we also came up with ways to help alleviate the extremity of it. Such as the Ghost Ship, Second Life, and Metaphasic Radiation ideas that allows the player to recover some, if not all, of what they would have otherwise lost.
There was also the decomission/medical leave idea. Not as extreme as perma-death. But, it would work to make people think about how they approached the game.
Just like the reduction/increase of rewards based of that players performance is another extreme. Granted, it's less of an extreme and doesn't hurt the casual player as much. It just slows down their ability to progress through reps and such, until they step up and work out the means to survive to get the better rewards.
I'm not all for wiping out the casual crowd. They are generally the ones that tend to buy most everything. This in mostly based around the amount of time they get to play. Also as it was stated by someone earlier on in the thread. Not all casuals are against having more challenging content. Some would actually welcome it.
I can say, there are things that Nabreeki an I have agreed on, and things we haven't. But when he makes a valid point, or good suggestion, all I can do is scratch my head and say, "I didn't see that one coming." Then stop and think about what was said, this way, if I can come up with something that goes with it. All well and good. If not, I just carry on. No need to walk away. Just no need to reply, unless I think of something.
I guess if you want to kill the game, sure.
I Support Disco | Disco is Love | Disco is Life
Even my overpowered 55k Magicka shield-spam build in ESO can still be killed in advanced dungeons if I'm not careful.
Right now, I can practically solo HGE with any class.
I'm pretty sure perma-death will never happen considering many factors I will not go into for obvious reasons, but if something similar should happen, it will definitely cleanse the game proper. The whiners will not be missed, and the serious players will prosper.
Fortunately his or her proposal isn't making much sense.
It may make sense if we're willing to ignore that we're only moving in circles and that any argument boils down to 'I just want this, because there are some players I consider undesirable'. And to support that, we've been talking about other niches being chased away. Which is a strange line of reasoning if you're arguing for something that will affect literally everyone in the game as I've stated before - rather than making a change that will only affect a small subsection of players.
Which brings us back again to the costs and the possible effects for Cryptic's revenue if they made these changes.
Though I guess it would be unfair to blame Nabreeki or any others who support this idea for ignoring this subject even though it, ultimately, is the most relevant question imo. They only have as much to work with as those opposing the idea, which isn't much. No data on which players pay the most or how many players who currently pay, would be willing to pay for such a disrupting feature are just two examples of missing data.
Are all undesirables whiners? Are all whiners undesirable?
What criteria should I meet if I want to be considered a serious player and am allowed to stay? All this talk about large groups of players that have not been made explicit is cute and all, but it doesn't really help anyone determine if they should 'shape up or ship out'.
Apparently we need to get rid of Bajorans - which isn't much of a surprise but beyond that, how do we determine who's going to stay and who has to leave? Is there some sort of list with criteria, or should we perhaps add a visual marker on those players whose characters are to be removed? If so, could we pick yellow as the colour for that marker?
I just don't see how killing off large parts of the playerbase is going to help anyone.
-"you have mental issues for getting annoyed with my constant behavior, but I'm a truly good person so I'm here to help you go through it"
-"stop derailing the thread, you're not contributing and that makes you a sad person"
-"such aggressiveness, stop trying to kill off brilliant ideas because you're refusing revolutionary changes"
-"Come on now, this idea is so helpful and the best hope for the game it's on par with Dukat's idea to heroically exterminate the evil Bajorans"
-"culling the playerbase of its toxic-based-on-my-own-flawless-logic elements is the best thing ever. Send them to their death, let RNGesus sort them out!"
Well, that was fast.
Back to the topic, I'll say it's far too late and may even be harmful to the game to even consider such thing as extreme punishment for dying. Those who pay more are those with the most available moment and they're not often the most patient, experienced or willing to reach the highest DPS.
When a game gives you that many choices of abilities, people tend to experiment with various goals: some focus on getting the most DPS, others on survival, others on healing, others on the visual style, others on a mix of some or all. As long as they have fun, participate and don't annoy other players, what's wrong with that? Heck, if it's so easy to do enough DPS to take down things like Unimatrices, then why would you be bothered by an inexperienced but friendly player who's struggling but doesn't actively harm the progress of your mission?
Should we punish those who experiment for their own fun since they're given the tools to experiment? Should the game go "Oh, you made a mistake/were surprised by the difficulty/picked a ship and build that actually don't match your playstyle/got a lag spike? Too bad, you lose! Good day, sir! Fork out the money if you wanna recover your stuff."
I repeat, exactly because it's only a video-game, the perma-death option would not offend me. If anything, it would actually provide a genuine form of STRATEGIC entertainment, that I haven't had in a long, long time in this game.
Besides, the thought of becoming a Kobali kind of excites me.
If perma-death means losing real-life money, I'm sorry, but I will NOT be happy about it. I'm already not happy with some monetary practices some game companies have been doing (like the first progression system of the upcoming Star Wars Battlefront II, before they began to back-pedal after the rage it caused), so if not only there are lockboxes, but you can also lose their unlocks, I'm gonna have to say "this is where I stop you right now".
Strategic entertainment would be more like players having to coordinate their efforts in order to achieve a long-term goal, in a sector space-wide event for example. That's strategic, avoiding dead comes closer to tactical issues.
I'm happy that perma-death wouldn't offend you. It may offend others though, simply because, indeed, this is a game. In real life, there are consequences to all our actions. In a game, people just want to do stuff without worrying all the time what might happen. It's a way to escape real life where everything already has consequences.
Which doesn't mean that nothing should have consequences in a game, but such consequences shouldn't make the game unplayable. And that's exactly what would happen if you would punish players with removing their ship or gear when they die, meaning they have to collect zen with sub-optimal gear (which can easily become a viscious cycle cause who's to say that you won't die again while collecting the resources to get your gear back?) or pay with real money.
There are so many things wrong with the idea and too many elements haven't been thought out properly, with multiple pitfalls apparently not even considered since, unless I have missed it, this is the first time someone actually mentions that things become even harder and death more likely once you lose your first ship and best gear.
High risk, high reward.
Starfleet isn't a military
Seriously though, if you want that, you can delete your toon or ship, or discard some gear. Why force it on others?
I wouldn't just assume that those who are playing this game, are playing it because they want to experience the thrills of being in the military. They are, as they have been called before, more likely to be Kirk fanboys who just want to play a Trek MMO.
Commit suicide? No fun. Besides, you may have taken my statement about the military too literally. What I really meant is any adventerous life-threatening situation.
Which game will you be migrating to when this one shuts down following what Cryptic percieve as a lack of income?
It has endured, because it has 'Star Trek' in the title, and it allows people to play Captain Kirk. Make it too hard or costly to do just that, and people will not want to play or pay.
And it wouldn't help anyone, because this is just Another Merry Trolling from Dental, as was the 'leave your fleet and auction your minigame token to the best paying fleet' nonsense last month... As you say, this is bad idea, and now going in circles
If such a penalty applies ONLY to UltraHardcoreNightmare Queues, then fine. But not to everyone across the board on ALL content. The 'Second-Lifers' are the ones paying to keep this game viable, because they're spending their Real World Money, in the game. SpaceRich-here-since-beta players, can get all the SpaceWealth they need via in-game mechanics built up over 7 years. They don't need to spend Real Money, so they don't support the game. They just use it. People who have spent out on gear, are not going to keep doing so if they keep getting killed. They'll just get bored and leave. Quickly. So which is the more valuable playerbase to cater to?
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
I was about to say that if you want to play a high risk game, where you could possibly lose insane amounts of money if you just want to keep playing, you should go and play EVE but then I realised that that argument has also already been made.
Continuing seems rather pointless for now since all counter-arguments are entirely ignored and evaded and just the same rhetoric repeated over and over again. It still all boils down to 'I want this'. Ok, then do it. No one's going to stop you.
But I'm done here for now.
All the PVE missions would need their mechanics changed to work with this new type of game play too, now don't get me wrong I would love it! but since the game launched many years ago they went down the DPS path and its now too much work to correct that mistake and they will not do anything unless it will produce a profit$$ they have said that time and time again.
Oh I would, but you see, I play STO exactly because it has a ground combat - and that's just as good as its space combat. Eve has no ground combat, and SWTOR's space-combat is... eh.
Then we have Star Citizen, but that game is gonna be alpha until I grow a big white beard.
Hey Tre, yeah you're right...
And we could say much of that lack of skill is due to people going full DPS/glass cannon (or just spreading themselves too thin-due to lack of knowledge) on their skill trees, and foregoing proper defense and resistances.
Which is in and of itself an indication that PvE has become way too easy these days, as you, and many others elude to...
STO's extremely soft learning curve caters to the players of the lowest common denominator. It rewards the casual player just for existing and going through the motions. There is no incentive to improve.
With a perma-death system implemented... it certainly would put fear into the hearts and minds of the casual (and elite players alike), which is why some feel threatened by ideas like Nabreeki, and OP put forth.
Even I was a little skeptical at first, and thought an Elite Hardcore mode would be a better option...
But if we had no choice in the matter.... It would defiantly get the adrenaline pumping and heart rate up. The game would become more addictive with the fear of death on every horizon enhancing the experience.
It would also add that "Trek feeling" of going into out into unknown space/territory, against unknown odds, unknown technology. Never knowing when the next threat is coming. Being in a situation like that sure does makes a crew work more efficiently and to the best of their abilities. It forces them too, or they will perish.
If I wasn't so used to how the game works currently.. I'd be all for playing STO in such a dynamic, thrilling manner.
Because in the end, why would most casual players try to understand a game more then the basics when one can simply "La-La-La-La Space Barbie, RP" their way to victory 99% of the time ?
There's no incentive to improve unless you play PvP or reach for DPS records.
99% of the playerbase avoids these activities, and continues to be rewarded heavily for simply existing.
Eh, in any event, there's been lots of good feedback, ideas and suggestions here from many posters who are discussing this in a calm, serious manner.
(Rather then those who are flying off the handle because they may feel threatened by even the slightest notion of the idea.)
As an aside, sometimes I fantasize about how great it might be to be part of Starfleet or the Klingon Empire IRL (because STO, and the show to some extent foster this idea that nothing bad can happen to you)... then I think, wait, no.. If this were real, it would be nothing like STO, there'd be too much danger, stress, time away from home, risk of death. And it would be one of the hardest most demanding (but awesome) jobs you could ever get.
STO doesn't translate that "fear of the unknown" sentiment well to our consoles or PC.
It's like there's no consequences to our actions, and the game is not "better off" for it.
I think there's much potential in the idea.
And will continue reading this thread with interest.
Why do you find it utterly hilarious?
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth