so June is gone.. 10 days into July.. any replys from the June 2022 "Ask the Devs" Q&A Thread?

nixie50

Will there be any follow up?

a july/august one?

Inquiring minds, you know

rattler2

Possible that after selecting the questions Kael is gathering answers from the appropriate Devs. I'll try asking during the week how the Q&A is coming.

vetteguy904

Kael posted a reply to the original thread https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/star-trek-online/#/discussion/1267209/june-2022-ask-the-devs-q-a-thread

Unknown

This content has been removed.

angrytarg

> @westmetals said:
> And... he only answered SOME of the questions and gave only a very vague reason why others might not be answerable.
>
> We need a straight answer on every question next time. Even if it's "We're not going to answer that."

Why though? Kael even wrote you can submit unanswered questions again, sometimes it wasn’t possible to get a reply in time. Questions that won’t be answered will probably be replied to as such.

qultuq

Where can we answer this?

Quote:” Executive Producer, Andre Emerson: We love these past missions and we want to take the time to bring them back into the fold, with a modern gaming sensibility. However, the amount of time that would need to be spent on these missions is the same as the amount of time we'd need to spend on new missions. I guess that begs the question - would fans accept a season that was just remastering of old content? What do you all think?“

Answer: Yes. We want the Guardian of Forever episode back, regardless of the risks and opportunity costs.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

baddmoonrizin

westmetals wrote: »

And... he only answered SOME of the questions and gave only a very vague reason why others might not be answerable.

We need a straight answer on every question next time. Even if it's "We're not going to answer that."

No, you WANT a straight answer on every question. If you actually believe that you NEED such answers, then I'll respectfully suggest that you have your needs and your wants confused. And he's already answered why you may not receive such an answer, so I would suggest maybe try asking again, and if you again don't receive an answer... Well, there's your answer.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

orangenee

"Coolness" is a subjective thing, no good being cool if we get a kaleidoscope.

For my part, I'm a "can I see it do stuff?" minimalist type player. I do not like ' 90s rave VFX.

I still don't know what half the symbols etc mean anyway, why? You don't tell us. Granted we can't see most of the powers directly on console, but we kind of have to intuit what's going off when.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

baddmoonrizin

Folks asking follow up questions: this is not the thread for that. Please refer to the new Q&A thread to ask your new/follow up questions. Thanks.

protoneous

Are there any plans to address the huge amount of VFX that happens in a space battle in game? After twelve years of adding awesome looking powers, we’ve reached the point where it’s very difficult to see what’s going on amongst all of the flashing lights, space tornadoes, etc. The ability to limit the amount of VFX we’re seeing would be greatly appreciated.

Associate Art Director, Thomas Marrone: This is a really complicated issue. At one point we discussed really streamlining the VFX from powers and using a unified language (shield buffs always look like this, damage buffs always look like this, etc) but the cost of retrofitting that on existing powers meant it was a wildly expansive project. (in this case, "cost" means sunk time - all of this would have to be done on each individual power out of the hundreds we have in in game.) - Kael Also, one of the neat parts of getting a new ship is getting a console that looks really cool when you activate it. There's been a lot of discussions on this one, and they'll probably keep ongoing until we find a solution that doesn't also remove the coolness of your own powers, and also lets you know what powers your teammates are using.

valoreah wrote: »

I am not sure I understand this answer. If I am reading this correctly, this would be a very time consuming issue to clean up the VFX on every individual power. Would it not be easier to approach this going forward to adding new consoles and abilities that have minimal VFX? Couple that with attacking a few of the more egregious and obnoxious VFX that wash out the entire screen and then whittle away at a few each update. Eventually, this can be toned down considerably.

The response sounds like it will be a lot of work, so just keep doing the same? The abilities that keep getting added are washing out the entire screen to the point we simply cannot even see the beautiful ships and environments during game play. That does not sound like a good plan in my opinion and is only making this additive problem much, much worse, not better. Surely there is a better answer here.

"We are talking about it (the visuals) and will continue to do so because it's complicated and also because it allows us to imply that it's still under discussion. At the same time marketing says visuals are cool and cool is job #1 but we're not going to directly mention that the visuals are currently designed and working as intended and nothing is going to change. Also adding a system to allow players to tone down visuals would be very costly. Please realize that not being able to see your character or ship at times is a necessary evil and try to see the bigger picture... looking cool $ells stuff"

I think there might be a other ways to word the answer (as I have done in italics) but in a business sense we might be getting the best answer they can give which isn't necessarily the answer we want to hear. I appreciate that they're attempting to give us what answers they can.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

rattler2

reyan01 wrote: »

I'm not convinced that the pointless light-show that combat has become could become any worse since the event of that damn 'Beacon of Kahless'. I'm not sure who thought that a power that basically amounts to screen whiteout was a good idea, but said person clearly doesn't play the game.

The problem with the Beacon is that it is based on the same artifact found by the USS Shenzhou in episode 1 of Star Trek Discovery. That thing did exactly the same thing the in game version did. Totally blinded the Shenzhou. Cryptic just replicated a canon effect.

I barely use the Beacon myself, and generally when I do in a group setting I'll try and give a warning in chat like "flash out" or something to let them know the Beacon was coming. However with things like the Hur'q summon... we got alternatives without the bright flash that are more widely available.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

solidshark214

So... Cryptic thinks players find the "cool power" of new consoles one of the "neat parts" of getting new ships. Despite the fact that those same players are begging them to cut it out. Tone deaf, or another appeal to the supposed silent majority?

qultuq

> @solidshark214 said:
> So... Cryptic thinks players find the "cool power" of new consoles one of the "neat parts" of getting new ships. Despite the fact that those same players are begging them to cut it out. Tone deaf, or another appeal to the supposed silent majority?

I think they are right in that assessment too though. Damage-wise many event rewards are subpar. Part of the ability to sell KIDD modules (which were broken since inception) or Elach walkers (slow) or Red Angel suits—are the gimmick. They are flashy, they flood the TFOs because many new toons that don’t have anything good use them instead. And new players see the flashy effect and think’ “oh I need that!” If they ask anyone who has one they will say you aren’t missing anything. But those big visuals are what is driving the FOMO, right?

So hardcore players (like those on the forum the unsilent minority) are saying tone it down. But the consumers buying it in Mudd’s mugging (the silent majority) are still throwing money at it—and then start threads about how the KIDD sound effects should be toned down because they inadvertently bought a lemon.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

avoozuul

At this point it kind of feels like they are trolling honestly.

baddmoonrizin

reyan01 wrote: »

Sadly, it seems as if the only answer that can be given to those experiencing this is 'don't play the game'.

Even the Terms of Service say as much:

25. Disclaimer of Warranties

25.1 YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT:

d. A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF USERS MAY EXPERIENCE EPILEPTIC SEIZURES WHEN EXPOSED TO CERTAIN LIGHT PATTERNS OR BACKGROUNDS ON A COMPUTER SCREEN OR WHILE USING THE WEBSITE OR THE SERVICE. CERTAIN CONDITIONS MAY INDUCE PREVIOUSLY UNDETECTED EPILEPTIC SYMPTOMS EVEN IN USERS WHO HAVE NO HISTORY OF PRIOR SEIZURES OR EPILEPSY. IF YOU, OR ANYONE IN YOUR FAMILY, HAVE AN EPILEPTIC CONDITION, CONSULT YOUR PHYSICIAN PRIOR TO USING THE SERVICE. IMMEDIATELY DISCONTINUE USE OF THE SERVICE AND CONSULT YOUR PHYSICIAN IF YOU EXPERIENCE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING SYMPTOMS WHILE USING THE SERVICE: DIZZINESS, ALTERED VISION, EYE OR MUSCLE TWITCHES, LOSS OF AWARENESS, DISORIENTATION, ANY INVOLUNTARY MOVEMENT, OR CONVULSIONS.

qultuq

Don’t play is one answer. Another possibility if it is really only one effect that seems particularly seizure inducing—someone could consider changing the one effect. Even if you are legally covered by the terms of service. “Don’t play,” and we can’t even consider changing it are really cold-hearted responses.

solidshark214

qultuq wrote: »

Don’t play is one answer. Another possibility if it is really only one effect that seems particularly seizure inducing—someone could consider changing the one effect. Even if you are legally covered by the terms of service. “Don’t play,” and we can’t even consider changing it are really cold-hearted responses.

This. Cryptic's behavior here may be technically legal, but it sure as heck isn't nice.

leemwatson

solidshark214 wrote: »

qultuq wrote: »

Don’t play is one answer. Another possibility if it is really only one effect that seems particularly seizure inducing—someone could consider changing the one effect. Even if you are legally covered by the terms of service. “Don’t play,” and we can’t even consider changing it are really cold-hearted responses.

This. Cryptic's behavior here may be technically legal, but it sure as heck isn't nice.

Quite literally, EVERY game released in the past 20 years has this warning though. It's not 'technically' legal, it IS legal, and it is their duty to inform you, which they have. I've seen games far worse with flashing effects far brighter and more varied. I can get migraines from too much screen time on Word, and it's worse with LEDs, especially car headlights, which a quick flash will have me blinded with a migraine. STO doesn't really trigger any migraines, even with the Beacon....well, not one that has been apparent.

legendarylycan

It must be a TRIBBLE at an active railroad crossing then, because modern ones use nothing but LEDs.​​

solidshark214

leemwatson wrote: »

solidshark214 wrote: »

qultuq wrote: »

Don’t play is one answer. Another possibility if it is really only one effect that seems particularly seizure inducing—someone could consider changing the one effect. Even if you are legally covered by the terms of service. “Don’t play,” and we can’t even consider changing it are really cold-hearted responses.

This. Cryptic's behavior here may be technically legal, but it sure as heck isn't nice.

Quite literally, EVERY game released in the past 20 years has this warning though. It's not 'technically' legal, it IS legal, and it is their duty to inform you, which they have. I've seen games far worse with flashing effects far brighter and more varied. I can get migraines from too much screen time on Word, and it's worse with LEDs, especially car headlights, which a quick flash will have me blinded with a migraine. STO doesn't really trigger any migraines, even with the Beacon....well, not one that has been apparent.

Yes, legal, but my point is that "legal" and "nice" are not always the same thing. And the visual barrage that is increasingly taking over STO is very much not nice. Even leaving aside health concerns, what's the point of all these ships that make the game its operating money if we can't even see 'em a lot of the time? And the devs' justification for it is... I don't think I could in good conscience call it even threadbare.

n0vastarone

Amazing, they answered four things. awesome -_-

mirrorchaos

qultuq wrote: »

Where can we answer this?

Quote:” Executive Producer, Andre Emerson: We love these past missions and we want to take the time to bring them back into the fold, with a modern gaming sensibility. However, the amount of time that would need to be spent on these missions is the same as the amount of time we'd need to spend on new missions. I guess that begs the question - would fans accept a season that was just remastering of old content? What do you all think?“

Answer: Yes. We want the Guardian of Forever episode back, regardless of the risks and opportunity costs.

That's an answer? if you think so.

What i see: They believe they are concerned about the time it would take to remaster missions because it costs the same amount of time as it would with a new set of missions and miss out on new content. From there the developer answered a question with two more questions. So where is the answer? so what if it could take as long as a bunch of new missions and missing a season to do, everything has a price/cost and anything worth doing will always cost time and resources, so that's no answer.

If this is an answer to a question then my left foot is a washing machine and my right foot is a jar of pickles. No i don't have my needs and wants confused, such a badly made assumption which is typical in internet forums. The problem is that developers of games don't give out concrete details until they are certain they are coming. What if they said "yes" to answer a question if there is a full faction swap one day (half a year away down the pipeline), to go from a FED to a KDF officer permanently and six months later and they couldn't deliver on it, they'd get burned so horribly by the community over it. There is only so much they can answer yes to and no to.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.