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.
You seriously think I 'feel threatened' by the idea??
I think the idea has it's place for those who want that kind of experience and content. But what breeks is 'suggesting' (because it's not a serious proposal, it's just Dental pot-stirring) is a way of 'draining the swamp', and the impact of such an action on Cryptic's income, would kill the game. You say 'incentive to improve', as if there needs to be one. It's a casual MMO with Trek Icing. If someone WANTS that 'life and death thrill' you describe, here's two suggestions:
1) Go play EVE
2) Build your own DEATHFROMABOVE Star Trek game, get CBS to license it, and then you really can play Trek Your Way.
This game is what it is. Could it be more challenging? Absolutely. Should that change be forced onto All Players? Not with the issues the game currently has, the issues the devs have with implementation due to Legacy Code, or the audience the game is aimed at.
"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
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.
You seriously think I 'feel threatened' by the idea??
I think the idea has it's place for those who want that kind of experience and content. But what breeks is 'suggesting' (because it's not a serious proposal, it's just Dental pot-stirring) is a way of 'draining the swamp', and the impact of such an action on Cryptic's income, would kill the game. You say 'incentive to improve', as if there needs to be one. It's a casual MMO with Trek Icing. If someone WANTS that 'life and death thrill' you describe, here's two suggestions:
1) Go play EVE
2) Build your own DEATHFROMABOVE Star Trek game, get CBS to license it, and then you really can play Trek Your Way.
This game is what it is. Could it be more challenging? Absolutely. Should that change be forced onto All Players? Not with the issues the game currently has, the issues the devs have with implementation due to Legacy Code, or the audience the game is aimed at.
Whats wrong with an ADDITIONAL setrting in the options menu where you can toggle "Respawn Off/On during PVE" ? (And if switched off, some more marks/rewards can be gained)
People who don't like it just keep the toggle on off.
I don't see any harm in adding an option. Would attract even more people to the game (the ones who don't play now but will play when this EXTRA option is avialble).
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.
You seriously think I 'feel threatened' by the idea??
I think the idea has it's place for those who want that kind of experience and content. But what breeks is 'suggesting' (because it's not a serious proposal, it's just Dental pot-stirring) is a way of 'draining the swamp', and the impact of such an action on Cryptic's income, would kill the game. You say 'incentive to improve', as if there needs to be one. It's a casual MMO with Trek Icing. If someone WANTS that 'life and death thrill' you describe, here's two suggestions:
1) Go play EVE
2) Build your own DEATHFROMABOVE Star Trek game, get CBS to license it, and then you really can play Trek Your Way.
This game is what it is. Could it be more challenging? Absolutely. Should that change be forced onto All Players? Not with the issues the game currently has, the issues the devs have with implementation due to Legacy Code, or the audience the game is aimed at.
Whats wrong with an ADDITIONAL setrting in the options menu where you can toggle "Respawn Off/On during PVE" ? (And if switched off, some more marks/rewards can be gained)
People who don't like it just keep the toggle on off.
I don't see any harm in adding an option. Would attract even more people to the game (the ones who don't play now but will play when this EXTRA option is avialble).
Absolutely nothing. I'm all for players being able to play the content they want, as they want to play it.
I just don't want to see permadeath introduced to all content, because I tnk it would drive away too many paying players who wouldn't want to engage that kind of game. Optional; Yes. Mandatory; No
"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
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.
You seriously think I 'feel threatened' by the idea??
I think the idea has it's place for those who want that kind of experience and content. But what breeks is 'suggesting' (because it's not a serious proposal, it's just Dental pot-stirring) is a way of 'draining the swamp', and the impact of such an action on Cryptic's income, would kill the game. You say 'incentive to improve', as if there needs to be one. It's a casual MMO with Trek Icing. If someone WANTS that 'life and death thrill' you describe, here's two suggestions:
1) Go play EVE
2) Build your own DEATHFROMABOVE Star Trek game, get CBS to license it, and then you really can play Trek Your Way.
This game is what it is. Could it be more challenging? Absolutely. Should that change be forced onto All Players? Not with the issues the game currently has, the issues the devs have with implementation due to Legacy Code, or the audience the game is aimed at.
Whats wrong with an ADDITIONAL setrting in the options menu where you can toggle "Respawn Off/On during PVE" ? (And if switched off, some more marks/rewards can be gained)
People who don't like it just keep the toggle on off.
I don't see any harm in adding an option. Would attract even more people to the game (the ones who don't play now but will play when this EXTRA option is avialble).
Having a setting somewhere to block respawns on players' personal choice is unnecessary. You can accomplish that effect simply by not clicking the respawn button. But what really breaks that plan is multiplayer content. The rest of the team is unlikely to be very happy if some player(s) refuse to respawn by choice. At least, in those missions that actually require players to do something to win and not just waiting out timers.
What would actually be useful is an extra difficulty level, call it Super Elite or something, in which nobody can respawn so if the team gets wiped you have to restart the mission.
Assuming, of course, that it rewarded something that would get people to queue for it.
> @crazyned1066 said: > totenmet wrote: » > > To improve teamplay and improve roleplaying the respawning option should be removed from PVE (it's dabatble if it should be remove totaly or only from Advance or Elite PVE's). > > This way the need for Sci and Eng healers in a team becomes more important to be able to achieve the PVE goal. Team play becames more important. And ther will be more gratitude towards each other like saying "thanks for the heal, I almost died" phrase will be seen more often etc. > > It's a bid odd to die in a PVE but just be able to respawn after some seconds, like nothing has happend. When death is permanent in a PVE, people will have to take more care about each other, hence improving teamplay. > > > > > While you may have interesting points about how an ideal PVE queue would work, this idea would kill PUGs. > > Your arguments presuppose that everyone is playing in well thought out teams and shares you're philosophical views about an ideal way to enjoy a video game. > > Sure, it would be great to have a nice balance of Tacs, Engineers, and Sci, but why force this down peoples throats? Some people aren't students of the game and could not care less about how different careers are supposed to configure their ships and play the game. > > I don't have stats to back it up, but I imagine there are many times more PUGs than pre-built teams. Why punish people for being casual in their gameplay?
^^^ This exactly.
STO: Where men are men and the women probably are too.
I support the Star Trek Battles channel.
Warp, the problem with that is as soon as a supetelite is implemented with better rewards under very difficult restrictions, players are going to scream about it. Remember hard fails on elite?
Players did not have to play elite, but thar didn't stop them from screaming about it until hard fails we're removed. Better to not give players any options at all.
Someone always complains about everything. That's not a reason not to do something.
Cryptic really should've told people complaining of the fail conditions to go play Normal.
> @nabreeki said: > I think the OP doesn't go far enough tbh. I've been arguing to for permanent character death for years now. It makes sense from both a storyline perspective and a balancing perspective. If your toon dies, you'd have to start over again. > > It would also promote learning how the game works instead of joining a match without any real idea what's going on.
Can never tell if you're serious or just trolling. If you're serious, then no, this isn't Eve: Online.
STO: Where men are men and the women probably are too.
I support the Star Trek Battles channel.
Here's the thing. People play STO, because they want to be Kirk or Picard, without all the consequences.
Enterprise NCC 1701 - Destroyed in Star Trek III
Spock actually did die. But was subsequently revived in this movie. C-Store Item: Genesis Effect
NCC 1701-A Decommissioned at the end of Undiscovered Country
NCC 1701-B Unsure, presumably Decommisioned.(still looking for info)
NCC 1701-C Destroyed at Narendra III
NCC 1701-D Destroyed in ST: Generations.
Kirk and Picard faced death on a daily basis. There are innumerable amounts of time they almost died. In the JJ verse Kirk did die, but was subsequently brought back with a C-Store item, Khan's Blood.
Now for those wanting to be Archer, Kirk, Picard, Sisko, or Janeway. Are you willing to risk life, limb, ship and crew as they did, in order to fulfill your mission? Just look at that list, 3 out of 5 Enterprises destroyed. Kirk did die, in TNG, after he was rescued from the Nexus.
Death is a real consequence of Star Trek. The game just does not portray this well.
Is perma-death a solution to this. Yes, though the most extreme. Yet the movies show two C-Store items that can be used to recover. The game itself show use the Kobali Second Life and Metaphysic Radiation.
Though, with it being Star Trek, I'd move more toward the ship repair/medical leave idea. This is also a part of Star Trek. This can be done without need of a C-Store item. It can be based off the number of times you ships blows up, or you Captain dies. Then put a timer on it, like the Admiralty cards and Sick Bay doff assignment. This is already a part of the game, it just doesn't affect the player. They could even make this a toggle on and off, or just a consequence of death in an Adv and Elite queue.
Instead of railing against an idea. Try seeing what you can make out of it first.
Here's the thing. People play STO, because they want to be Kirk or Picard, without all the consequences.
Enterprise NCC 1701 - Destroyed in Star Trek III
Spock actually did die. But was subsequently revived in this movie. C-Store Item: Genesis Effect
NCC 1701-A Decommissioned at the end of Undiscovered Country
NCC 1701-B Unsure, presumably Decommisioned.(still looking for info)
NCC 1701-C Destroyed at Narendra III
NCC 1701-D Destroyed in ST: Generations.
Kirk and Picard faced death on a daily basis. There are innumerable amounts of time they almost died. In the JJ verse Kirk did die, but was subsequently brought back with a C-Store item, Khan's Blood.
Now for those wanting to be Archer, Kirk, Picard, Sisko, or Janeway. Are you willing to risk life, limb, ship and crew as they did, in order to fulfill your mission? Just look at that list, 3 out of 5 Enterprises destroyed. Kirk did die, in TNG, after he was rescued from the Nexus.
Death is a real consequence of Star Trek. The game just does not portray this well.
Is perma-death a solution to this. Yes, though the most extreme. Yet the movies show two C-Store items that can be used to recover. The game itself show use the Kobali Second Life and Metaphysic Radiation.
Though, with it being Star Trek, I'd move more toward the ship repair/medical leave idea. This is also a part of Star Trek. This can be done without need of a C-Store item. It can be based off the number of times you ships blows up, or you Captain dies. Then put a timer on it, like the Admiralty cards and Sick Bay doff assignment. This is already a part of the game, it just doesn't affect the player. They could even make this a toggle on and off, or just a consequence of death in an Adv and Elite queue.
Instead of railing against an idea. Try seeing what you can make out of it first.
People want to be kirk so bad, it's time to give them what they want.
Let's not waste each other's time, you wouldn't accept data on the sky being blue even if I presented it.
So long as your data was accurate and verifiable, then of course it would get accepted.
Funniest thing I've read all day You will Never accept anything I post, and will always continue to challenge my views, because you're clearly that desperate for my attention
It's fine to share a thought, so long as you don't present it as fact unless you are ready to back it up with reliable data. But it's clear you have nothing to back it up.
Because there is a clear pattern here - devs instate a change to the game dynamic, and players leave. How many more paying players can the game afford to lose for an unnecessary shift in dynamic?
Why do you find it utterly hilarious?
Because there is a clear pattern here - any suggestion to improve player knowledge and skill gets summarily rejected by those who don't want to improve and would prefer everyone get nerfed to their low level.
You're conflating two issues, and assuming that those who don't want to improve, also want others nerfed to their level. I think that there needs to be better segregation of content to those who are capable and properly equipped to deal with it, but I don't think that that means that things should be nerfed to the bottom.
Personally, I don't believe a perma-death scenario will ever work or get implemented. However, I also don't mind suggestions to improve the player knowledge and skill level. Not everyone in life is a winner and dumbing down the game to the lowest common denominator is not good for the long term health of the game in my opinion.
The problem, is that 'improving the player knowledge and skill level', is a specious proposal. Put too much of a focus on the learning curve, and it will push players away (There was a comment on-forum a while back about how someone's gf quit the tutorial, because it was going on too long and too much hassle) Introducing more segregated content, on the other hand, would allow those who want to progress the opportunity to do so, and allow those who don't to carry on as they are. Look at the reaction to the new Queue UI, for example.
"Your fun isn't wrong." - LaughingTrendy
"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
Here's the thing. People play STO, because they want to be Kirk or Picard, without all the consequences.
Enterprise NCC 1701 - Destroyed in Star Trek III
Spock actually did die. But was subsequently revived in this movie. C-Store Item: Genesis Effect
NCC 1701-A Decommissioned at the end of Undiscovered Country
NCC 1701-B Unsure, presumably Decommisioned.(still looking for info)
NCC 1701-C Destroyed at Narendra III
NCC 1701-D Destroyed in ST: Generations.
Kirk and Picard faced death on a daily basis. There are innumerable amounts of time they almost died. In the JJ verse Kirk did die, but was subsequently brought back with a C-Store item, Khan's Blood.
Now for those wanting to be Archer, Kirk, Picard, Sisko, or Janeway. Are you willing to risk life, limb, ship and crew as they did, in order to fulfill your mission? Just look at that list, 3 out of 5 Enterprises destroyed. Kirk did die, in TNG, after he was rescued from the Nexus.
Death is a real consequence of Star Trek. The game just does not portray this well.
Is perma-death a solution to this. Yes, though the most extreme. Yet the movies show two C-Store items that can be used to recover. The game itself show use the Kobali Second Life and Metaphysic Radiation.
But death is not a real consequence in Star Trek, because, as you said: Genesis Effect. Khan's Blood. Duplication Fields (Harry Kim and Naomi Wildman) The way the game represents it, is fine. What you mean, is that Cryptic hadn't found a way to monetize it, but now, thanks to all the discussions here... Well done *slow clap*
Though, with it being Star Trek, I'd move more toward the ship repair/medical leave idea. This is also a part of Star Trek. This can be done without need of a C-Store item. It can be based off the number of times you ships blows up, or you Captain dies. Then put a timer on it, like the Admiralty cards and Sick Bay doff assignment. This is already a part of the game, it just doesn't affect the player. They could even make this a toggle on and off, or just a consequence of death in an Adv and Elite queue.
Permadeath in STO should Only be implemented under those caveats. Not 'could', but only. How many STS's signed up and spent over the past 7 years to get it all wiped out by a failed pug run. How many spending casual players will continue playing and paying if everything can get all wiped out by a failed pug run. Like it or not, this is an F2P game. It can't push too hard, or players will walk. And when enough players walk, that it has to go Pay-to-log-in, Pay-for-promotion-ships just to make ends meet...
Instead of railing against an idea. Try seeing what you can make out of it first.
And give the devs inspiration for new ways to mess with the game, as they so love to do? Be-have.
"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
I agree -- the devs should never capitulate to the lowest common denominator in STO, but they frequently do for short term appeasement. That's why STO is backed into a corner. They can continue appeasing the lowest tier or risk alienating them by actually improving the game.
But what you're proposing isn't improving the game, or even about improving the game for all players, but a way of removing those you consider unworthy. Improving the game, IMO, would be fixing bugs and glitches in a timely manner. Instating a proper PPS Rating and segregation system so players either have to improve to move onto more advanced content, or just keep playing ss they are as casual players. Introducing more challenging content for those who want it, not forcing said changes on everyone regardless till it pushes players away; the consequences of which, have already been noted, and don't need repeating.
Tell me; Would you be prepared to risk your characters, with all their bells and whistles and billions of ec and resources, being wiped back to Absolute Zero, on the whims of a pug run?
"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
Someone's living rent free in someone else's head in this thread.
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
The problem, is that 'improving the player knowledge and skill level', is a specious proposal. Put too much of a focus on the learning curve, and it will push players away
Opinions change and evolve. I still believe that the tutorial could be expanded to cover things like the minigames (I never said anything about including the grapple gun in that, so don't try ascribing your reductio ad absurdum to me) or that the missions immediately after the tutorial, could begin to cover them. That Does Not, however, mean making the learning curve so steep that people simply walk away. There's a subtelty between those two conditions. I think you lack the capacity to discern it.
*andsomefortheeditmonstor
Post edited by baddmoonrizin on
"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
@silverlobes#2676
Wasn't necessarily talking about you Lobes. You're discussing this pretty rationally.
I just meant people who don't even want to think about it, and post something like; "You're crazy" then leave the thread.
I can appreciate the counter arguments and I do think changing things at this late stage would probably cause some people to leave the game- Though I have no facts or proof to claim this, I just believe it to be so, much like you do.
And it's not much of a discussion if everyone agrees on something. And better ideas come from questioning the topic on hand.
Here's the thing. People play STO, because they want to be Kirk or Picard, without all the consequences.
Enterprise NCC 1701 - Destroyed in Star Trek III
Spock actually did die. But was subsequently revived in this movie. C-Store Item: Genesis Effect
NCC 1701-A Decommissioned at the end of Undiscovered Country
NCC 1701-B Unsure, presumably Decommisioned.(still looking for info)
NCC 1701-C Destroyed at Narendra III
NCC 1701-D Destroyed in ST: Generations.
Kirk and Picard faced death on a daily basis. There are innumerable amounts of time they almost died. In the JJ verse Kirk did die, but was subsequently brought back with a C-Store item, Khan's Blood.
Now for those wanting to be Archer, Kirk, Picard, Sisko, or Janeway. Are you willing to risk life, limb, ship and crew as they did, in order to fulfill your mission? Just look at that list, 3 out of 5 Enterprises destroyed. Kirk did die, in TNG, after he was rescued from the Nexus.
Death is a real consequence of Star Trek. The game just does not portray this well.
Is perma-death a solution to this. Yes, though the most extreme. Yet the movies show two C-Store items that can be used to recover. The game itself show use the Kobali Second Life and Metaphysic Radiation.
Though, with it being Star Trek, I'd move more toward the ship repair/medical leave idea. This is also a part of Star Trek. This can be done without need of a C-Store item. It can be based off the number of times you ships blows up, or you Captain dies. Then put a timer on it, like the Admiralty cards and Sick Bay doff assignment. This is already a part of the game, it just doesn't affect the player. They could even make this a toggle on and off, or just a consequence of death in an Adv and Elite queue.
I like the thinking here, kind of sums up my feelings on the issue. It's not all sunshine and science mission for a Star Trek Captain.
If being a Starfleet captain was real life thing, the consequences of duty are very much a matter of Life and Death.
Here's the thing. People play STO, because they want to be Kirk or Picard, without all the consequences.
Enterprise NCC 1701 - Destroyed in Star Trek III
Spock actually did die. But was subsequently revived in this movie. C-Store Item: Genesis Effect
NCC 1701-A Decommissioned at the end of Undiscovered Country
NCC 1701-B Unsure, presumably Decommisioned.(still looking for info)
NCC 1701-C Destroyed at Narendra III
NCC 1701-D Destroyed in ST: Generations.
Did Kirk and Picard have to give money to get the new ships? Did the death of all those redshirts have any relevance to the subsequent movies? Did losing the ships even actually matter, apart from the next few scenes of the movie featuring their demise, before the heroes got a new, fully functional and crewed shiny toy?
Also, seeing the D in these examples is kinda ironic, considering it was pathetically destroyed and trashed by a ship many levels below its own.
But that'd be a very "welcome" and realistic addition, according to a few people here: sometimes, a random situation occurs where a tiny old ship can destroy your new shiny toy against all odds, even if you're fully prepared for any encounter. No real mistake on your part, the enemy just got very lucky or was helped by the plot, tough luck for you, but that's the way it goes.
Someone's living rent free in someone else's head in this thread.
Not at all, but when I see someone with a known ability to manipulate the game and community, making proposals which could impact my primary entertainment (this game) then I'm going to speak out against it.
"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
Comments
I think the idea has it's place for those who want that kind of experience and content. But what breeks is 'suggesting' (because it's not a serious proposal, it's just Dental pot-stirring) is a way of 'draining the swamp', and the impact of such an action on Cryptic's income, would kill the game. You say 'incentive to improve', as if there needs to be one. It's a casual MMO with Trek Icing. If someone WANTS that 'life and death thrill' you describe, here's two suggestions:
1) Go play EVE
2) Build your own DEATHFROMABOVE Star Trek game, get CBS to license it, and then you really can play Trek Your Way.
This game is what it is. Could it be more challenging? Absolutely. Should that change be forced onto All Players? Not with the issues the game currently has, the issues the devs have with implementation due to Legacy Code, or the audience the game is aimed at.
"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 here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Whats wrong with an ADDITIONAL setrting in the options menu where you can toggle "Respawn Off/On during PVE" ? (And if switched off, some more marks/rewards can be gained)
People who don't like it just keep the toggle on off.
I don't see any harm in adding an option. Would attract even more people to the game (the ones who don't play now but will play when this EXTRA option is avialble).
I just don't want to see permadeath introduced to all content, because I tnk it would drive away too many paying players who wouldn't want to engage that kind of game. Optional; Yes. Mandatory; No
"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 here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
What would actually be useful is an extra difficulty level, call it Super Elite or something, in which nobody can respawn so if the team gets wiped you have to restart the mission.
Assuming, of course, that it rewarded something that would get people to queue for it.
> totenmet wrote: »
>
> To improve teamplay and improve roleplaying the respawning option should be removed from PVE (it's dabatble if it should be remove totaly or only from Advance or Elite PVE's).
>
> This way the need for Sci and Eng healers in a team becomes more important to be able to achieve the PVE goal. Team play becames more important. And ther will be more gratitude towards each other like saying "thanks for the heal, I almost died" phrase will be seen more often etc.
>
> It's a bid odd to die in a PVE but just be able to respawn after some seconds, like nothing has happend. When death is permanent in a PVE, people will have to take more care about each other, hence improving teamplay.
>
>
>
>
> While you may have interesting points about how an ideal PVE queue would work, this idea would kill PUGs.
>
> Your arguments presuppose that everyone is playing in well thought out teams and shares you're philosophical views about an ideal way to enjoy a video game.
>
> Sure, it would be great to have a nice balance of Tacs, Engineers, and Sci, but why force this down peoples throats? Some people aren't students of the game and could not care less about how different careers are supposed to configure their ships and play the game.
>
> I don't have stats to back it up, but I imagine there are many times more PUGs than pre-built teams. Why punish people for being casual in their gameplay?
^^^ This exactly.
I support the Star Trek Battles channel.
Cryptic really should've told people complaining of the fail conditions to go play Normal.
> I think the OP doesn't go far enough tbh. I've been arguing to for permanent character death for years now. It makes sense from both a storyline perspective and a balancing perspective. If your toon dies, you'd have to start over again.
>
> It would also promote learning how the game works instead of joining a match without any real idea what's going on.
Can never tell if you're serious or just trolling. If you're serious, then no, this isn't Eve: Online.
I support the Star Trek Battles channel.
Enterprise NCC 1701 - Destroyed in Star Trek III
Spock actually did die. But was subsequently revived in this movie. C-Store Item: Genesis Effect
NCC 1701-A Decommissioned at the end of Undiscovered Country
NCC 1701-B Unsure, presumably Decommisioned.(still looking for info)
NCC 1701-C Destroyed at Narendra III
NCC 1701-D Destroyed in ST: Generations.
Kirk and Picard faced death on a daily basis. There are innumerable amounts of time they almost died. In the JJ verse Kirk did die, but was subsequently brought back with a C-Store item, Khan's Blood.
Now for those wanting to be Archer, Kirk, Picard, Sisko, or Janeway. Are you willing to risk life, limb, ship and crew as they did, in order to fulfill your mission? Just look at that list, 3 out of 5 Enterprises destroyed. Kirk did die, in TNG, after he was rescued from the Nexus.
Death is a real consequence of Star Trek. The game just does not portray this well.
Is perma-death a solution to this. Yes, though the most extreme. Yet the movies show two C-Store items that can be used to recover. The game itself show use the Kobali Second Life and Metaphysic Radiation.
Though, with it being Star Trek, I'd move more toward the ship repair/medical leave idea. This is also a part of Star Trek. This can be done without need of a C-Store item. It can be based off the number of times you ships blows up, or you Captain dies. Then put a timer on it, like the Admiralty cards and Sick Bay doff assignment. This is already a part of the game, it just doesn't affect the player. They could even make this a toggle on and off, or just a consequence of death in an Adv and Elite queue.
Instead of railing against an idea. Try seeing what you can make out of it first.
People want to be kirk so bad, it's time to give them what they want.
Because there is a clear pattern here - devs instate a change to the game dynamic, and players leave. How many more paying players can the game afford to lose for an unnecessary shift in dynamic?
You're conflating two issues, and assuming that those who don't want to improve, also want others nerfed to their level. I think that there needs to be better segregation of content to those who are capable and properly equipped to deal with it, but I don't think that that means that things should be nerfed to the bottom.
The problem, is that 'improving the player knowledge and skill level', is a specious proposal. Put too much of a focus on the learning curve, and it will push players away (There was a comment on-forum a while back about how someone's gf quit the tutorial, because it was going on too long and too much hassle) Introducing more segregated content, on the other hand, would allow those who want to progress the opportunity to do so, and allow those who don't to carry on as they are. Look at the reaction to the new Queue UI, for example.
"Your fun isn't wrong." - LaughingTrendy
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
But death is not a real consequence in Star Trek, because, as you said: Genesis Effect. Khan's Blood. Duplication Fields (Harry Kim and Naomi Wildman) The way the game represents it, is fine. What you mean, is that Cryptic hadn't found a way to monetize it, but now, thanks to all the discussions here... Well done *slow clap*
Permadeath in STO should Only be implemented under those caveats. Not 'could', but only. How many STS's signed up and spent over the past 7 years to get it all wiped out by a failed pug run. How many spending casual players will continue playing and paying if everything can get all wiped out by a failed pug run. Like it or not, this is an F2P game. It can't push too hard, or players will walk. And when enough players walk, that it has to go Pay-to-log-in, Pay-for-promotion-ships just to make ends meet...
And give the devs inspiration for new ways to mess with the game, as they so love to do? Be-have.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Tell me; Would you be prepared to risk your characters, with all their bells and whistles and billions of ec and resources, being wiped back to Absolute Zero, on the whims of a pug run?
"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 here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
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
Opinions change and evolve. I still believe that the tutorial could be expanded to cover things like the minigames (I never said anything about including the grapple gun in that, so don't try ascribing your reductio ad absurdum to me) or that the missions immediately after the tutorial, could begin to cover them. That Does Not, however, mean making the learning curve so steep that people simply walk away. There's a subtelty between those two conditions. I think you lack the capacity to discern it.
*andsomefortheeditmonstor
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Wasn't necessarily talking about you Lobes. You're discussing this pretty rationally.
I just meant people who don't even want to think about it, and post something like; "You're crazy" then leave the thread.
I can appreciate the counter arguments and I do think changing things at this late stage would probably cause some people to leave the game- Though I have no facts or proof to claim this, I just believe it to be so, much like you do.
And it's not much of a discussion if everyone agrees on something. And better ideas come from questioning the topic on hand.
I like the thinking here, kind of sums up my feelings on the issue. It's not all sunshine and science mission for a Star Trek Captain.
If being a Starfleet captain was real life thing, the consequences of duty are very much a matter of Life and Death.
Also, seeing the D in these examples is kinda ironic, considering it was pathetically destroyed and trashed by a ship many levels below its own.
But that'd be a very "welcome" and realistic addition, according to a few people here: sometimes, a random situation occurs where a tiny old ship can destroy your new shiny toy against all odds, even if you're fully prepared for any encounter. No real mistake on your part, the enemy just got very lucky or was helped by the plot, tough luck for you, but that's the way it goes.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth