@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.
Thanks for the clarification
"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
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?
No, but those were movies and this is an MMO. They are different animals.
Death/defeat in this game serves no real purpose as there is no significant consequence to being destroyed. That isn't to say perma-death is the answer, however what we have no is not exactly useful either.
Hold on, first you guys use the movies to make a point about real deadly consequences and that it should be used for the game to emulate a "better" Star Trek experience, then I use them to bring the opposite point about having no real consequence since the protagonists actually never get in troubles over losing a ship and many crews since they just get new fully crewed toys in the next episode/movie and it's never mentioned again, and now it doesn't count?
Oi, you two ( @valoreah and @silverlobes ), that's enough of that. Keep to the topic.
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
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.
[/quote]
Now with the part you highlighted, go back an read the entire paragraph again. This time noting where I stated,"This can be done without need of a C-Store item." And no where in that paragraph did I state that the players lost anything, other than some time for ship repairs and medical needs. Not, just the parts you're wanting to use for the emphasis of a certain point, that isn't even a part of that paragraph. But, then you wouldn't be able to argue against it.
But I also know, as a consumer, making suggestions to company about how they could improve their product is a good thing. Only a blind consumer that cares not for a product, would advise against it. The difference being an educated consumer and a blind consumer. I don't tend to buy a product if it is not a one I consider a good quality product. The power creep in STO is not a good quality product. The game itself is to easy, thus it lowers the overall quality of the product. Consumer feedback and suggestions are how a company grows after all.
If one of my suggestions inspires the dev's in a way that improves the product they produce. I'm good with that. If it doesn't, then I'll continue as I have. Login, do my alt and doff routine, farm a few fleet marks, refine some dil, and log out to go a play a game that is better.
As I have stated multiple times, the only saving grace for STO, is the name Star Trek. That name is the only thing keeping the game alive right now. Which, as we have seen with the content releases and overwhelming amounts of power creep, even though it is Star Trek, it's not enough to keep more than the lights on at Cryptic for STO.
Which a game has several factors that go into retaining a large player base. One of the main things is difficulty. If the game is to hard, players will leave. If the game is to easy, players will leave. And believe it or not, Balance is another. Sure, being overpowered draws in some players, but this is just the bare minimum. Which I've watched games come and go over the years, because of these. Some games I watched die because of lack of content, or lack of bug fixing. Which is why I try to find the middle ground for the extremes.
This is just what I have experienced with online gaming since I picked up a copy of Guild Wars back in 2005. Before this, I was playing online in the various ways. Mainly MUDs and IP direct connect with games like Star Wars: Rebellion and Dungeon Siege.
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.
Now with the part you highlighted, go back an read the entire paragraph again. This time noting where I stated,"This can be done without need of a C-Store item."And no where in that paragraph did I state that the players lost anything, other than some time for ship repairs and medical needs. Not, just the parts you're wanting to use for the emphasis of a certain point, that isn't even a part of that paragraph. But, then you wouldn't be able to argue against it.[/quote] You have not, no, but it's definitely part of nabreeki's plan to 'drain the swamp': Push casuals to the point where they no longer want to play.
But I also know, as a consumer, making suggestions to company about how they could improve their product is a good thing. Only a blind consumer that cares not for a product, would advise against it. The difference being an educated consumer and a blind consumer. I don't tend to buy a product if it is not a one I consider a good quality product. The power creep in STO is not a good quality product. The game itself is to easy, thus it lowers the overall quality of the product. Consumer feedback and suggestions are how a company grows after all.
If one of my suggestions inspires the dev's in a way that improves the product they produce. I'm good with that. If it doesn't, then I'll continue as I have. Login, do my alt and doff routine, farm a few fleet marks, refine some dil, and log out to go a play a game that is better.
And as the history of game changes like DR, Rebalancing, Queue UI etc shows, what the devs intend and the end result, is not always in alignment due to the legacy code, which they, by Taco's own open admission, they don't fully understand 100% of its complexities. I don't blame them for that as I once did, but it does make me wary of 'suggestions' which could bring about even more unintended glitches. Four days in a row of emergency patches last month. That was fun. I get that you're only trying to make suggestions to make things better, and I appreciate that. I like the idea of more challenging content. But my prime concern, is the ability to implement, and unintended consequences. I don't want to see the game killed, because someone thought adding permadeath for all was a good idea, or accidentally adding permadeath for all, when they only intend to apply it to the elite queues. Because then there's no game for anyone.
As I have stated multiple times, the only saving grace for STO, is the name Star Trek. That name is the only thing keeping the game alive right now. Which, as we have seen with the content releases and overwhelming amounts of power creep, even though it is Star Trek, it's not enough to keep more than the lights on at Cryptic for STO.
Which a game has several factors that go into retaining a large player base. One of the main things is difficulty. If the game is to hard, players will leave. If the game is to easy, players will leave. And believe it or not, Balance is another. Sure, being overpowered draws in some players, but this is just the bare minimum. Which I've watched games come and go over the years, because of these. Some games I watched die because of lack of content, or lack of bug fixing. Which is why I try to find the middle ground for the extremes.
This is just what I have experienced with online gaming since I picked up a copy of Guild Wars back in 2005. Before this, I was playing online in the various ways. Mainly MUDs and IP direct connect with games like Star Wars: Rebellion and Dungeon Siege.
Agreed 100%
"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.
The toggle does more. I also wrote with the respawn off setting put on, also more marks/rewards can be earned in my proposal. Also when people queue up you always end up in a group where all have the same respawn off/on setting. So everyone who dies cannot respawn. So teamplay becomes more important, keeping each other alive during a PVE to finish it as a team. Also I said people who die don't get loot and marks, only the survivors get rewards. If you die you dont have a replay CD (because you dont get loot, you should be able to queue up again). And people who don't like it just keep the respawn toggle set to on, and play as is.
You sadly only comment on bits and parts of my proposal, did not read all I proposed in this topic. Also without this option just try it yourself to just not respwan, others will become very rude towards you if you dont respawn when you just can.
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.
The toggle does more. I also wrote with the respawn off setting put on, also more marks/rewards can be earned in my proposal. Also when people queue up you always end up in a group where all have the same respawn off/on setting. So everyone who dies cannot respawn. So teamplay becomes more important, keeping each other alive during a PVE to finish it as a team. Also I said people who die don't get loot and marks, only the survivors get rewards. If you die you dont have a replay CD (because you dont get loot, you should be able to queue up again).
Then how is that any different to simply having a new difficulty level where you don't respawn...other than being pointlessly complicated?
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.
The toggle does more. I also wrote with the respawn off setting put on, also more marks/rewards can be earned in my proposal. Also when people queue up you always end up in a group where all have the same respawn off/on setting. So everyone who dies cannot respawn. So teamplay becomes more important, keeping each other alive during a PVE to finish it as a team. Also I said people who die don't get loot and marks, only the survivors get rewards. If you die you dont have a replay CD (because you dont get loot, you should be able to queue up again).
Then how is that any different to simply having a new difficulty level where you don't respawn...other than being pointlessly complicated?
Because a toggle is additional to what is. You can choose your PVE difficulty (normal/adv/elite) AND respawn setting (on/off)
If Respawn off is a new 4th difficulty setting where does it aply to then? It would be next too the existing difficulty setting. My proposal gives 6 (3x2) options. Your proposal gives 4 options.
In my option you could for example give people double the rewards/marks you would get normaly (for that normal/adv or elite PVE run), when respwan is set to off. But you would have to survive to get it. People who die get nothing. So double or nothing. Or play with respawn on and just play is is.
I still do'n see how some one can be against ADDING an option without taking away anything from the as is situation.
As I have stated multiple times, the only saving grace for STO, is the name Star Trek. That name is the only thing keeping the game alive right now. Which, as we have seen with the content releases and overwhelming amounts of power creep, even though it is Star Trek, it's not enough to keep more than the lights on at Cryptic for STO.
What are you basing this on? Do you have access to actual financial data from PWE or Cryptic as to how much the game is generating?
I'm basing it off experience with dealing with the gaming industry. The quality of the content, is a direct indicator of the budget they have to work with.
Take for instance, Beyond the Nexus, this was a new episode that might as well have been Geordie inviting you to the new galaxy bridge and saying, "For the right price, this bridge can be your's!"
Then the new episodes for new frontier. These might as well be browser side scroller fights.
The new queues, are a total farce. They're about as entertaining and challenging as watching paint dry.
The story has devolved to, "Ehh.. just go kill that and take their stuff."
Reading over the forums and listening to people in game. The one thing I take away from it is, that most players enjoy the new Invasion. Everything else about the colony, they don't care for. Which makes the colony itself a total waste of production time and money.
Applying some thought to the degeneration of the story and queues, into little more than, "Can you mash the spacebar?" Points at the fact they are working with a small budget. One that keeps getting smaller, hence why a lot of what they've been using is something they can copy and paste in. The mini-games for the colony are a primary example of this. So is the F.T.A. admiralty, it's just a copy/paste of the Klingon admiralty.
Now back on topic.
The main reason I see people arguing against the perma-death idea, is the loss of items. "I don't want to lose what I worked, or payed to get!"
NEWS FLASH: IF THE SERVERS SHUT DOWN, YOU LOSE THOSE ITEMS!
You bought those items, with the understanding that they are temporary already.
But then, that's only:
Lock box
Lobi
Reputation
Which, most likely already have multiple copies of, across their characters. Mainly for the ship traits and admiralty cards. But, all of this can be gotten again.
What do you actually lose?
Dry-docks.
Boff Expansions
Doff Expansions
Inventory Expansions
Bank Expansions
Mainly anything that is a once per character purchase from the C-store. Again, things most probably already have across multiple characters.
C-Store ships are an account unlock.
C-Store outfits are an account unlock.
And since Cryptic and/or CBS can pull the plug on STO at any given time. You do not own those items. You're merely leasing them until they do shut the servers down.
So by the very nature of this being an online game, that you agreed to the ToS and EULA to play. You agreed that all the items you bought were temporary and could be changed in any manner the Cryptic says. Thus, by the ToS and EULA, you've already agreed you're good with losing said items, if Cryptic happens to implement such a system. Which makes all you're arguments against it, null and void the moment you typed, or spoke them.
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.
The toggle does more. I also wrote with the respawn off setting put on, also more marks/rewards can be earned in my proposal. Also when people queue up you always end up in a group where all have the same respawn off/on setting. So everyone who dies cannot respawn. So teamplay becomes more important, keeping each other alive during a PVE to finish it as a team. Also I said people who die don't get loot and marks, only the survivors get rewards. If you die you dont have a replay CD (because you dont get loot, you should be able to queue up again).
Then how is that any different to simply having a new difficulty level where you don't respawn...other than being pointlessly complicated?
Because a toggle is additional to what is. You can choose your PVE difficulty (normal/adv/elite) AND respawn setting (on/off)
If Respawn off is a new 4th difficulty setting where does it aply to then? It would be next too the existing difficulty setting. My proposal gives 6 (3x2) options. Your proposal gives 4 options.
In my option you could for example give people double the rewards/marks you would get normaly (for that normal/adv or elite PVE run), when respwan is set to off. But you would have to survive to get it. People who die get nothing. So double or nothing. Or play with respawn on and just play is is.
I still do'n see how some one can be against ADDING an option without taking away anything from the as is situation.
More options is not always better. Most of the queues are already empty with 3 levels.
There are several ideas the permeate this thread. Some I agree with, others not so much. There seem to be a few driving forces behind those ideas that I would like to address:
1) Difficulty of Content
2) Enjoyment of Content
3) Longevity of STO
The first two lead into the third significantly so I will not address it individually and the top two interact to quite a wide degree.
Should content be more difficult? On the whole, probably. But this scale up in difficulty needs to be enjoyable as well, for all players. Rewards work best in this instance. The more difficult something is, the greater the reward should be for accomplishing it. It's the whole "Carrot and Stick" or "Catch more with honey than vinegar" argument.
The question then becomes "What should be more difficult?" Adding a higher difficulty level for PvE queues would be a good start. Adding in additional consequences for losing in that queue would be even better. But this leaves a new queue open for players that have under-leveled equipment. A possible solution to this would be to make the queue locked to those that have less than Mk XIII Ultra Rare across the board (allowances to be made for equipment that has no Mk level). Now this is a hearty investment for some, but the queue would be designed for those players that have the time and dil to invest in them. Along with this queue level would be increased rewards in dil and marks and maybe equipment.
Another path to increasing the difficulty of content is to add consequences. This is the "Stick" side of the argument and seems to be the most discussed portion in this thread. I propose restricting these consequences to the ship that the player is using at the time of defeat. The rationale being that the crew abandoned ship before catastrophe finally struck. I should clarify that this is for general PvE content. The ship would be placed in a similar situation as if it were Drydocked and thus cannot be used until repaired or in higher difficulty content (Advanced, Elite, or the aforementioned more difficult version of Elite) replaced.
For this repair/replace time, the Player would have to use another ship or wait out the repair time. And that repair time could be the same as on the ship's Admiralty Card. This mechanic would not be implemented until Character Level 10 or 15 so that new players can get used to standard gameplay and won't get caught off guard should things go wrong and will automatically have a ship to fall back on. In this time, the equipment aboard said ship will be unavailable for use.
Now for those who wish to put more at stake there is the replace mechanic. Same thing as Repair except that you would need to replace your ship after a given amount of time (possibly just for symmetry's sake) and would have to either find and salvage your equipment over the next few days or it is lost forever and you have to start fresh. This option does stray a little far into the "Stick" territory for me personally, but some like the higher risk.
Or rather than a timer for when you can use the ship again, the Player receives a special mission to recover their lost ship and it's equipment. Protecting it from Pirates or scavengers or a random enemy. With an added reward of some kind for doing it, say dil and/or Fleet Marks or something else.
Whether this is a good idea to be implemented or not isn't really up to me, but what we all have to remember is that whatever is made more difficult has to be challenging and rewarding rather than frustrating and penalizing. The former will bring players into STO, the latter will drive them away.
There is something else I'd like to touch on that has been brought up in this thread and that is how people play. I would certainly like to see more people cooperate in teams, I think it would add some more life into things. But it should not be forced on anyone that they have to play like that or any specific way. I use STO to wind down from my day, to relax. Most of the time then I play at my own pace and alone. I'd be put off if I had to play at another person's pace, either trying to keep up or needing to slow down. It is one thing if this in voluntary, such as in the queues where more often than not I am lagging a little behind other players, but were it forced on me I cannot say I would stay.
Very well put, I also use this game as a just chill out thing. If I want to be competitive I have other games, yes I run an elite every now and then, but its not my focus, here anyway. Again, very well put
With all respect to everyone here, there is already enough opinions here on the subject that some are for and against and it isn't going to change after 13 pages or even after that. is there much more to learn on this?
It's clearly a subject that won't be sorted this time around like the previous one years earlier as i mentioned in my first reply.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
There are several ideas the permeate this thread. Some I agree with, others not so much. There seem to be a few driving forces behind those ideas that I would like to address:
1) Difficulty of Content
2) Enjoyment of Content
3) Longevity of STO
The first two lead into the third significantly so I will not address it individually and the top two interact to quite a wide degree.
Should content be more difficult? On the whole, probably. But this scale up in difficulty needs to be enjoyable as well, for all players. Rewards work best in this instance. The more difficult something is, the greater the reward should be for accomplishing it. It's the whole "Carrot and Stick" or "Catch more with honey than vinegar" argument.
The question then becomes "What should be more difficult?" Adding a higher difficulty level for PvE queues would be a good start. Adding in additional consequences for losing in that queue would be even better. But this leaves a new queue open for players that have under-leveled equipment. A possible solution to this would be to make the queue locked to those that have less than Mk XIII Ultra Rare across the board (allowances to be made for equipment that has no Mk level). Now this is a hearty investment for some, but the queue would be designed for those players that have the time and dil to invest in them. Along with this queue level would be increased rewards in dil and marks and maybe equipment.
Another path to increasing the difficulty of content is to add consequences. This is the "Stick" side of the argument and seems to be the most discussed portion in this thread. I propose restricting these consequences to the ship that the player is using at the time of defeat. The rationale being that the crew abandoned ship before catastrophe finally struck. I should clarify that this is for general PvE content. The ship would be placed in a similar situation as if it were Drydocked and thus cannot be used until repaired or in higher difficulty content (Advanced, Elite, or the aforementioned more difficult version of Elite) replaced.
For this repair/replace time, the Player would have to use another ship or wait out the repair time. And that repair time could be the same as on the ship's Admiralty Card. This mechanic would not be implemented until Character Level 10 or 15 so that new players can get used to standard gameplay and won't get caught off guard should things go wrong and will automatically have a ship to fall back on. In this time, the equipment aboard said ship will be unavailable for use.
Now for those who wish to put more at stake there is the replace mechanic. Same thing as Repair except that you would need to replace your ship after a given amount of time (possibly just for symmetry's sake) and would have to either find and salvage your equipment over the next few days or it is lost forever and you have to start fresh. This option does stray a little far into the "Stick" territory for me personally, but some like the higher risk.
Or rather than a timer for when you can use the ship again, the Player receives a special mission to recover their lost ship and it's equipment. Protecting it from Pirates or scavengers or a random enemy. With an added reward of some kind for doing it, say dil and/or Fleet Marks or something else.
Whether this is a good idea to be implemented or not isn't really up to me, but what we all have to remember is that whatever is made more difficult has to be challenging and rewarding rather than frustrating and penalizing. The former will bring players into STO, the latter will drive them away.
There is something else I'd like to touch on that has been brought up in this thread and that is how people play. I would certainly like to see more people cooperate in teams, I think it would add some more life into things. But it should not be forced on anyone that they have to play like that or any specific way. I use STO to wind down from my day, to relax. Most of the time then I play at my own pace and alone. I'd be put off if I had to play at another person's pace, either trying to keep up or needing to slow down. It is one thing if this in voluntary, such as in the queues where more often than not I am lagging a little behind other players, but were it forced on me I cannot say I would stay.
I'm thinking the item degradation through use is a good place to start. Having to repair items is a part of almost all MMOs. So it's not a mechanic anyone shouldn't already be use to.
As for how it would come about. Well, as you said, the Admiralty cards already have said timer built in. I used them just to reference what I meant. The timer doesn't really have to be that long. But I'm not opposed to the idea of it matching. The same goes for the Sick Bay part of it. The main thing, would be to figure out how many deaths per difficulty would have to happen to start these.
Since you know, for queues we have Normal, Advanced and Elite.
For episodes we have Normal, Hard and Elite.(for those that didn't know this, there's a drop down menu for it in your options)
So we technically have a Normal, Advanced and Elite version of almost the entire game. Patrols, DSE's, BZ's, RA's and Fleet actions(i.e. Starbase Alert, Big Dig) are not affected by this.
Now if you're having a hard time in normal, this is pretty good indicator, you might want to look in to what you can do to survive more. This generally just means equipment and maybe some trait tweaking. But it would still need a the repair/sick bay measure as well. Albeit, the number of deaths need to be higher for this than the other settings.
As far as how to make things more challenging. One of the things they can do is hard cap stats. Which, I believe they do have. But with traits, abilities and items, one can go over that limit pretty easily. So, for this, if there is a hard cap number for them, then there should be no way to go over that number, EVER! If there isn't a hard cap on these, then perhaps implementing one would be a good start.
As far as the NPC's go. They generally work on a baseline set of stats, which can be increased or decreased as the Dev's see fit. This is normal. But, the NPC's still work on the career specific abilities. Perhaps, open this up to were the NPC's can use half as many traits as the player, and 1 specialization. Which can be drawn from all the traits and specializations that are available to the players. This would apply to space and ground NPCs.
As for ground, as I said, they draw from the career specific abilities. So for this, give them random kits and kit modules. Three drawn from the career specific and two universals. Or 4 career and 1 universal.
For space, they could even go with letting the NPC's use 1-3 random universal consoles.
This could be determined by difficulty as well. Normal doesn't get any of this. Advanced/Hard gets half of this. Elite, gets all of this.
One could even go with, Normal gets a quarter of this.
This randomizes every encounter to be something new. This way you're no longer blasting away at a Hull/HP/Shield/Resistance sack. But having to fight and deal with new things each time.
With this, it still leaves it up to the player to figure out how they wish to handle it. But if this is coupled with a repair/sick bay mechanic, it gives the player an incentive to figure that out. What can I do here, to prevent that from happening. This still leaves it at the players discretion. Which, I've met a few that have a hard time completing the Episodes on Normal. This is completely on them however, as myself and others have tried to help them in becoming better. They just refuse to listen.
This also provides an incentive for a bit more team play. Though, still leaving it as an option for the players to do so or not.
@trennan item repair is already covered in the Injury System to a degree.
Now you indeed can die without any consequences all the time. You still get all the loot and rewards others did all the work for. AND then after the PVE has ended you just get your free repairs and heals e.g. at Earth Space Dock (or other spots when applicable)
Hence my proposal to ADD a "no respawn on/off" setting in the options menu. You then will be queued with people who also have no respawn on. If you succesfully run the PVE and dont die you get double marks and rewards, if you die you get nothing (if you get nothing you can queue up again without CD). Keeping team mates alive will be more valuable then currently because if to many die, PVE will fail in many cases.
PS: notice I wrote add, if you like respawning you just can play as is, keep the no respawn toggle set to off.
@trennan item repair is already covered in the Injury System to a degree.
I know. But I meant as in combat use. By item degradation I mean having to pay to repair it. In other games this is often referred to as durability. Sorry, took a minute there. The word I was looking for didn't want to come to mind. This way, the more beat up an item become, the less of the stats you get from it.
They could tie a R&D/Doff assignment to this, "Repair and Maintain Ground Equipment." Make it a EC cost to do as well. Not a high cost either. Something like 100K and 15 minutes of time for Epic Mk XIV Epic. Or instantaneous by visiting a repair NPC, like other games. The 100K is for all ground gear, including boffs.
@trennan item repair is already covered in the Injury System to a degree.
Now you indeed can die without any consequences all the time. You still get all the loot and rewards others did all the work for. AND then after the PVE has ended you just get your free repairs and heals e.g. at Earth Space Dock (or other spots when applicable)
Hence my proposal to ADD a "no respawn on/off" setting in the options menu. You then will be queued with people who also have no respawn on. If you succesfully run the PVE and dont die you get double marks and rewards, if you die you get nothing (if you get nothing you can queue up again without CD). Keeping team mates alive will be more valuable then currently because if to many die, PVE will fail in many cases.
PS: notice I wrote add, if you like respawning you just can play as is, keep the no respawn toggle set to off.
Yes, but that's for ship and captain. I meant for the gear you use on them.
I know. But I meant as in combat use. By item degradation I mean having to pay to repair it. In other games this is often referred to as durability. Sorry, took a minute there. The word I was looking for didn't want to come to mind. This way, the more beat up an item become, the less of the stats you get from it.
They could tie a R&D/Doff assignment to this, "Repair and Maintain Ground Equipment." Make it a EC cost to do as well. Not a high cost either. Something like 100K and 15 minutes of time for Epic Mk XIV Epic. Or instantaneous by visiting a repair NPC, like other games. The 100K is for all ground gear, including boffs.
They could do this with ship equipment as well.
So this would replace repair regenerators and components? Are there any wikis around that have the complete list of injuries and their debuff stats?
Now you indeed can die without any consequences all the time. You still get all the loot and rewards others did all the work for. AND then after the PVE has ended you just get your free repairs and heals e.g. at Earth Space Dock (or other spots when applicable)
Hence my proposal to ADD a "no respawn on/off" setting in the options menu. You then will be queued with people who also have no respawn on. If you succesfully run the PVE and dont die you get double marks and rewards, if you die you get nothing (if you get nothing you can queue up again without CD). Keeping team mates alive will be more valuable then currently because if to many die, PVE will fail in many cases.
PS: notice I wrote add, if you like respawning you just can play as is, keep the no respawn toggle set to off.
Why not just re-enable fail conditions on advanced and elite queues? No need for coding a brand new system.
Because with just fail conditions trolls win. Fail condations are PVE wide. Than no one gets rewards. In my proposal when respawn is set to off, all who dont die and succeed will get double rewards, the ones that die get nothing. Less gain for the troll, who tries to sabotage a run, in that case.
Now you indeed can die without any consequences all the time. You still get all the loot and rewards others did all the work for. AND then after the PVE has ended you just get your free repairs and heals e.g. at Earth Space Dock (or other spots when applicable)
Hence my proposal to ADD a "no respawn on/off" setting in the options menu. You then will be queued with people who also have no respawn on. If you succesfully run the PVE and dont die you get double marks and rewards, if you die you get nothing (if you get nothing you can queue up again without CD). Keeping team mates alive will be more valuable then currently because if to many die, PVE will fail in many cases.
PS: notice I wrote add, if you like respawning you just can play as is, keep the no respawn toggle set to off.
Why not just re-enable fail conditions on advanced and elite queues? No need for coding a brand new system.
Because with just fail conditions trolls win. Fail condations are PVE wide. Than no one gets rewards. In my proposal when respawn is set to off, all who dont die and succeed will get double rewards, the ones that die get nothing. Less gain for the troll, who tries to sabotage a run, in that case.
While I do like the idea. Very few would use it. So by itself, it's not the best idea.
The problem with the reward, is that everyone gets rewarded the same. Whether they're one of the primary contributors, or spent most of their time as space debris.
A performance based reward might be the better route here. Which, several STFs and such already use a score board for such things. Gorn Mine Field and CCA come to mind here. Though they just hand out random bits of gear to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.
Now you indeed can die without any consequences all the time. You still get all the loot and rewards others did all the work for. AND then after the PVE has ended you just get your free repairs and heals e.g. at Earth Space Dock (or other spots when applicable)
Hence my proposal to ADD a "no respawn on/off" setting in the options menu. You then will be queued with people who also have no respawn on. If you succesfully run the PVE and dont die you get double marks and rewards, if you die you get nothing (if you get nothing you can queue up again without CD). Keeping team mates alive will be more valuable then currently because if to many die, PVE will fail in many cases.
PS: notice I wrote add, if you like respawning you just can play as is, keep the no respawn toggle set to off.
Why not just re-enable fail conditions on advanced and elite queues? No need for coding a brand new system.
Because with just fail conditions trolls win. Fail condations are PVE wide. Than no one gets rewards. In my proposal when respawn is set to off, all who dont die and succeed will get double rewards, the ones that die get nothing. Less gain for the troll, who tries to sabotage a run, in that case.
the funny thing for all the bashing of WoW it does have fail conditions even for the easiest group content (sure those are fail conditions are pretty easy to avoid but still they exist) and yet trolls intentionally trying to prevent others from getting rewards are near non-existant (now trolls ruining the run for others if they didn't get the loot/reward they wanted, yes those exist but wouldn't be an issue in STO as everyone gets essentially the same rewards anyway).
Problem with the current system is twofold really first injuries aren't meaningful enough, second most PvE queues don't have fail conditions. You don't really need personal fail conditions to combat trolls, you just need to make the fail conditions harsh enough that throwing the fight for lolz is more harmful in the long run then trying to do your best.
Some guys really wanna see the server empty, then closed. And it is always those old-hardcore players who at the dispense of trolling others online or offline, push any idea, regardless of how disastrous it really is. As Silverlobes stated in a comment, this is the same type of brain-vomit like the "sell your hard earned provisions to the best paying fleet". All divisionary and destructive behavior that breaks the gameplay flow and community slowly. Fend off the trolls and sit on the high horse. S15 is coming sometime next year.
Some guys really wanna see the server empty, then closed. And it is always those old-hardcore players who at the dispense of trolling others online or offline, push any idea, regardless of how disastrous it really is. As Silverlobes stated in a comment, this is the same type of brain-vomit like the "sell your hard earned provisions to the best paying fleet". All divisionary and destructive behavior that breaks the gameplay flow and community slowly. Fend off the trolls and sit on the high horse. S15 is coming sometime next year.
I think it's less about seeing the server closed and more about wanting to the game made specifically for them and only them, regardless of the expense to company to cater to such small demographic (at most a few hundred people), it's a form of elitism the idea that they're somehow better people because *insert reason here*.
It's not limited to STO or even games, there's people who think a popular movie must be bad because it's popular and the movies they like must be better because they as aren't popular for the reason they aren't as popular.
Comments
"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
Hold on, first you guys use the movies to make a point about real deadly consequences and that it should be used for the game to emulate a "better" Star Trek experience, then I use them to bring the opposite point about having no real consequence since the protagonists actually never get in troubles over losing a ship and many crews since they just get new fully crewed toys in the next episode/movie and it's never mentioned again, and now it doesn't count?
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
And give the devs inspiration for new ways to mess with the game, as they so love to do? Be-have.
[/quote]
Now with the part you highlighted, go back an read the entire paragraph again. This time noting where I stated,"This can be done without need of a C-Store item." And no where in that paragraph did I state that the players lost anything, other than some time for ship repairs and medical needs. Not, just the parts you're wanting to use for the emphasis of a certain point, that isn't even a part of that paragraph. But, then you wouldn't be able to argue against it.
But I also know, as a consumer, making suggestions to company about how they could improve their product is a good thing. Only a blind consumer that cares not for a product, would advise against it. The difference being an educated consumer and a blind consumer. I don't tend to buy a product if it is not a one I consider a good quality product. The power creep in STO is not a good quality product. The game itself is to easy, thus it lowers the overall quality of the product. Consumer feedback and suggestions are how a company grows after all.
If one of my suggestions inspires the dev's in a way that improves the product they produce. I'm good with that. If it doesn't, then I'll continue as I have. Login, do my alt and doff routine, farm a few fleet marks, refine some dil, and log out to go a play a game that is better.
As I have stated multiple times, the only saving grace for STO, is the name Star Trek. That name is the only thing keeping the game alive right now. Which, as we have seen with the content releases and overwhelming amounts of power creep, even though it is Star Trek, it's not enough to keep more than the lights on at Cryptic for STO.
Which a game has several factors that go into retaining a large player base. One of the main things is difficulty. If the game is to hard, players will leave. If the game is to easy, players will leave. And believe it or not, Balance is another. Sure, being overpowered draws in some players, but this is just the bare minimum. Which I've watched games come and go over the years, because of these. Some games I watched die because of lack of content, or lack of bug fixing. Which is why I try to find the middle ground for the extremes.
This is just what I have experienced with online gaming since I picked up a copy of Guild Wars back in 2005. Before this, I was playing online in the various ways. Mainly MUDs and IP direct connect with games like Star Wars: Rebellion and Dungeon Siege.
Now with the part you highlighted, go back an read the entire paragraph again. This time noting where I stated,"This can be done without need of a C-Store item." And no where in that paragraph did I state that the players lost anything, other than some time for ship repairs and medical needs. Not, just the parts you're wanting to use for the emphasis of a certain point, that isn't even a part of that paragraph. But, then you wouldn't be able to argue against it.[/quote]
You have not, no, but it's definitely part of nabreeki's plan to 'drain the swamp': Push casuals to the point where they no longer want to play.
And as the history of game changes like DR, Rebalancing, Queue UI etc shows, what the devs intend and the end result, is not always in alignment due to the legacy code, which they, by Taco's own open admission, they don't fully understand 100% of its complexities. I don't blame them for that as I once did, but it does make me wary of 'suggestions' which could bring about even more unintended glitches. Four days in a row of emergency patches last month. That was fun. I get that you're only trying to make suggestions to make things better, and I appreciate that. I like the idea of more challenging content. But my prime concern, is the ability to implement, and unintended consequences. I don't want to see the game killed, because someone thought adding permadeath for all was a good idea, or accidentally adding permadeath for all, when they only intend to apply it to the elite queues. Because then there's no game for anyone.
Agreed 100%
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
The toggle does more. I also wrote with the respawn off setting put on, also more marks/rewards can be earned in my proposal. Also when people queue up you always end up in a group where all have the same respawn off/on setting. So everyone who dies cannot respawn. So teamplay becomes more important, keeping each other alive during a PVE to finish it as a team. Also I said people who die don't get loot and marks, only the survivors get rewards. If you die you dont have a replay CD (because you dont get loot, you should be able to queue up again). And people who don't like it just keep the respawn toggle set to on, and play as is.
You sadly only comment on bits and parts of my proposal, did not read all I proposed in this topic. Also without this option just try it yourself to just not respwan, others will become very rude towards you if you dont respawn when you just can.
Because a toggle is additional to what is. You can choose your PVE difficulty (normal/adv/elite) AND respawn setting (on/off)
If Respawn off is a new 4th difficulty setting where does it aply to then? It would be next too the existing difficulty setting. My proposal gives 6 (3x2) options. Your proposal gives 4 options.
In my option you could for example give people double the rewards/marks you would get normaly (for that normal/adv or elite PVE run), when respwan is set to off. But you would have to survive to get it. People who die get nothing. So double or nothing. Or play with respawn on and just play is is.
I still do'n see how some one can be against ADDING an option without taking away anything from the as is situation.
I'm basing it off experience with dealing with the gaming industry. The quality of the content, is a direct indicator of the budget they have to work with.
Take for instance, Beyond the Nexus, this was a new episode that might as well have been Geordie inviting you to the new galaxy bridge and saying, "For the right price, this bridge can be your's!"
Then the new episodes for new frontier. These might as well be browser side scroller fights.
The new queues, are a total farce. They're about as entertaining and challenging as watching paint dry.
The story has devolved to, "Ehh.. just go kill that and take their stuff."
Reading over the forums and listening to people in game. The one thing I take away from it is, that most players enjoy the new Invasion. Everything else about the colony, they don't care for. Which makes the colony itself a total waste of production time and money.
Applying some thought to the degeneration of the story and queues, into little more than, "Can you mash the spacebar?" Points at the fact they are working with a small budget. One that keeps getting smaller, hence why a lot of what they've been using is something they can copy and paste in. The mini-games for the colony are a primary example of this. So is the F.T.A. admiralty, it's just a copy/paste of the Klingon admiralty.
Now back on topic.
The main reason I see people arguing against the perma-death idea, is the loss of items. "I don't want to lose what I worked, or payed to get!"
NEWS FLASH: IF THE SERVERS SHUT DOWN, YOU LOSE THOSE ITEMS!
You bought those items, with the understanding that they are temporary already.
But then, that's only:
Lock box
Lobi
Reputation
Which, most likely already have multiple copies of, across their characters. Mainly for the ship traits and admiralty cards. But, all of this can be gotten again.
What do you actually lose?
Dry-docks.
Boff Expansions
Doff Expansions
Inventory Expansions
Bank Expansions
Mainly anything that is a once per character purchase from the C-store. Again, things most probably already have across multiple characters.
C-Store ships are an account unlock.
C-Store outfits are an account unlock.
And since Cryptic and/or CBS can pull the plug on STO at any given time. You do not own those items. You're merely leasing them until they do shut the servers down.
So by the very nature of this being an online game, that you agreed to the ToS and EULA to play. You agreed that all the items you bought were temporary and could be changed in any manner the Cryptic says. Thus, by the ToS and EULA, you've already agreed you're good with losing said items, if Cryptic happens to implement such a system. Which makes all you're arguments against it, null and void the moment you typed, or spoke them.
1) Difficulty of Content
2) Enjoyment of Content
3) Longevity of STO
The first two lead into the third significantly so I will not address it individually and the top two interact to quite a wide degree.
Should content be more difficult? On the whole, probably. But this scale up in difficulty needs to be enjoyable as well, for all players. Rewards work best in this instance. The more difficult something is, the greater the reward should be for accomplishing it. It's the whole "Carrot and Stick" or "Catch more with honey than vinegar" argument.
The question then becomes "What should be more difficult?" Adding a higher difficulty level for PvE queues would be a good start. Adding in additional consequences for losing in that queue would be even better. But this leaves a new queue open for players that have under-leveled equipment. A possible solution to this would be to make the queue locked to those that have less than Mk XIII Ultra Rare across the board (allowances to be made for equipment that has no Mk level). Now this is a hearty investment for some, but the queue would be designed for those players that have the time and dil to invest in them. Along with this queue level would be increased rewards in dil and marks and maybe equipment.
Another path to increasing the difficulty of content is to add consequences. This is the "Stick" side of the argument and seems to be the most discussed portion in this thread. I propose restricting these consequences to the ship that the player is using at the time of defeat. The rationale being that the crew abandoned ship before catastrophe finally struck. I should clarify that this is for general PvE content. The ship would be placed in a similar situation as if it were Drydocked and thus cannot be used until repaired or in higher difficulty content (Advanced, Elite, or the aforementioned more difficult version of Elite) replaced.
For this repair/replace time, the Player would have to use another ship or wait out the repair time. And that repair time could be the same as on the ship's Admiralty Card. This mechanic would not be implemented until Character Level 10 or 15 so that new players can get used to standard gameplay and won't get caught off guard should things go wrong and will automatically have a ship to fall back on. In this time, the equipment aboard said ship will be unavailable for use.
Now for those who wish to put more at stake there is the replace mechanic. Same thing as Repair except that you would need to replace your ship after a given amount of time (possibly just for symmetry's sake) and would have to either find and salvage your equipment over the next few days or it is lost forever and you have to start fresh. This option does stray a little far into the "Stick" territory for me personally, but some like the higher risk.
Or rather than a timer for when you can use the ship again, the Player receives a special mission to recover their lost ship and it's equipment. Protecting it from Pirates or scavengers or a random enemy. With an added reward of some kind for doing it, say dil and/or Fleet Marks or something else.
Whether this is a good idea to be implemented or not isn't really up to me, but what we all have to remember is that whatever is made more difficult has to be challenging and rewarding rather than frustrating and penalizing. The former will bring players into STO, the latter will drive them away.
There is something else I'd like to touch on that has been brought up in this thread and that is how people play. I would certainly like to see more people cooperate in teams, I think it would add some more life into things. But it should not be forced on anyone that they have to play like that or any specific way. I use STO to wind down from my day, to relax. Most of the time then I play at my own pace and alone. I'd be put off if I had to play at another person's pace, either trying to keep up or needing to slow down. It is one thing if this in voluntary, such as in the queues where more often than not I am lagging a little behind other players, but were it forced on me I cannot say I would stay.
It's clearly a subject that won't be sorted this time around like the previous one years earlier as i mentioned in my first reply.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
I'm thinking the item degradation through use is a good place to start. Having to repair items is a part of almost all MMOs. So it's not a mechanic anyone shouldn't already be use to.
As for how it would come about. Well, as you said, the Admiralty cards already have said timer built in. I used them just to reference what I meant. The timer doesn't really have to be that long. But I'm not opposed to the idea of it matching. The same goes for the Sick Bay part of it. The main thing, would be to figure out how many deaths per difficulty would have to happen to start these.
Since you know, for queues we have Normal, Advanced and Elite.
For episodes we have Normal, Hard and Elite.(for those that didn't know this, there's a drop down menu for it in your options)
So we technically have a Normal, Advanced and Elite version of almost the entire game. Patrols, DSE's, BZ's, RA's and Fleet actions(i.e. Starbase Alert, Big Dig) are not affected by this.
Now if you're having a hard time in normal, this is pretty good indicator, you might want to look in to what you can do to survive more. This generally just means equipment and maybe some trait tweaking. But it would still need a the repair/sick bay measure as well. Albeit, the number of deaths need to be higher for this than the other settings.
As far as how to make things more challenging. One of the things they can do is hard cap stats. Which, I believe they do have. But with traits, abilities and items, one can go over that limit pretty easily. So, for this, if there is a hard cap number for them, then there should be no way to go over that number, EVER! If there isn't a hard cap on these, then perhaps implementing one would be a good start.
As far as the NPC's go. They generally work on a baseline set of stats, which can be increased or decreased as the Dev's see fit. This is normal. But, the NPC's still work on the career specific abilities. Perhaps, open this up to were the NPC's can use half as many traits as the player, and 1 specialization. Which can be drawn from all the traits and specializations that are available to the players. This would apply to space and ground NPCs.
As for ground, as I said, they draw from the career specific abilities. So for this, give them random kits and kit modules. Three drawn from the career specific and two universals. Or 4 career and 1 universal.
For space, they could even go with letting the NPC's use 1-3 random universal consoles.
This could be determined by difficulty as well. Normal doesn't get any of this. Advanced/Hard gets half of this. Elite, gets all of this.
One could even go with, Normal gets a quarter of this.
This randomizes every encounter to be something new. This way you're no longer blasting away at a Hull/HP/Shield/Resistance sack. But having to fight and deal with new things each time.
With this, it still leaves it up to the player to figure out how they wish to handle it. But if this is coupled with a repair/sick bay mechanic, it gives the player an incentive to figure that out. What can I do here, to prevent that from happening. This still leaves it at the players discretion. Which, I've met a few that have a hard time completing the Episodes on Normal. This is completely on them however, as myself and others have tried to help them in becoming better. They just refuse to listen.
This also provides an incentive for a bit more team play. Though, still leaving it as an option for the players to do so or not.
Now you indeed can die without any consequences all the time. You still get all the loot and rewards others did all the work for. AND then after the PVE has ended you just get your free repairs and heals e.g. at Earth Space Dock (or other spots when applicable)
Hence my proposal to ADD a "no respawn on/off" setting in the options menu. You then will be queued with people who also have no respawn on. If you succesfully run the PVE and dont die you get double marks and rewards, if you die you get nothing (if you get nothing you can queue up again without CD). Keeping team mates alive will be more valuable then currently because if to many die, PVE will fail in many cases.
PS: notice I wrote add, if you like respawning you just can play as is, keep the no respawn toggle set to off.
I know. But I meant as in combat use. By item degradation I mean having to pay to repair it. In other games this is often referred to as durability. Sorry, took a minute there. The word I was looking for didn't want to come to mind. This way, the more beat up an item become, the less of the stats you get from it.
They could tie a R&D/Doff assignment to this, "Repair and Maintain Ground Equipment." Make it a EC cost to do as well. Not a high cost either. Something like 100K and 15 minutes of time for Epic Mk XIV Epic. Or instantaneous by visiting a repair NPC, like other games. The 100K is for all ground gear, including boffs.
They could do this with ship equipment as well.
Yes, but that's for ship and captain. I meant for the gear you use on them.
https://sto.gamepedia.com/List_of_personal_injuries
https://sto.gamepedia.com/List_of_ship_injuries
Because with just fail conditions trolls win. Fail condations are PVE wide. Than no one gets rewards. In my proposal when respawn is set to off, all who dont die and succeed will get double rewards, the ones that die get nothing. Less gain for the troll, who tries to sabotage a run, in that case.
While I do like the idea. Very few would use it. So by itself, it's not the best idea.
The problem with the reward, is that everyone gets rewarded the same. Whether they're one of the primary contributors, or spent most of their time as space debris.
A performance based reward might be the better route here. Which, several STFs and such already use a score board for such things. Gorn Mine Field and CCA come to mind here. Though they just hand out random bits of gear to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.
the funny thing for all the bashing of WoW it does have fail conditions even for the easiest group content (sure those are fail conditions are pretty easy to avoid but still they exist) and yet trolls intentionally trying to prevent others from getting rewards are near non-existant (now trolls ruining the run for others if they didn't get the loot/reward they wanted, yes those exist but wouldn't be an issue in STO as everyone gets essentially the same rewards anyway).
Problem with the current system is twofold really first injuries aren't meaningful enough, second most PvE queues don't have fail conditions. You don't really need personal fail conditions to combat trolls, you just need to make the fail conditions harsh enough that throwing the fight for lolz is more harmful in the long run then trying to do your best.
I think it's less about seeing the server closed and more about wanting to the game made specifically for them and only them, regardless of the expense to company to cater to such small demographic (at most a few hundred people), it's a form of elitism the idea that they're somehow better people because *insert reason here*.
It's not limited to STO or even games, there's people who think a popular movie must be bad because it's popular and the movies they like must be better because they as aren't popular for the reason they aren't as popular.