test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Cryptic - Don't give up; don't make the same mistakes you did with CO after release

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
Before I start, I'd like to admit something:

The below is going to sound a bit arrogant; perhaps even borderline jerky. It is not *meant* this way - I will freely say that I enjoy, and have enjoyed Cryptic's games for years; STO very much included. However - I am worried because lets face it; the reviews are ugly, people aren't happy, and even people who enjoy the game are concerned about it's future health based on the above.

The below is my perspective as a gamer and fan as to things Cryptic needs to keep firmly in mind going forward. Things that, while perhaps they won't turn STO into a mega-blockbuster WOW killer; could keep it from the ignoble fate of Warhammer Online* and Cryptic's own Champions Online.

So here we go -

I don't believe anyone here thinks STO is perfect. Some of us do enjoy the game (me) - others aren't happy with it at all; neither group is entirely wrong (we're all entitled to our own opinions after all) - however there is one thing that is an absolute guarantee. If the game continues to get support from Cryptic, it CAN improve - and I don't think any of us; happy or not; would find improvement to be a bad thing.

This sounds obvious of course; but it brings me to my concern; namely this - that as with so many MMOs who have fumbling early steps, STO may not get the support necessary to really improve to the game it could be. My concern is that if the game does not perform to high standards (ie: 300k+ people); effort to develop it will drop substantially and it'll just sort of live on in maintenance mode.

The game won't get looked at again by players or press, because there's not going to be a whole lot to see

You're probably asking yourself right now "Err... isn't this perhaps a little early to say that?" - I don't believe so. Not after playing CO for some time and seeing the bottom kind of drop out on support for the game; and only recently seems to have resurged; possibly too late.

Obviously, we have at least 2 months of content coming - this is good... but it needs to keep coming after that. Improvement must be absolutely relentless. Cryptic needs to basically commit to showing gamers and Trekkies alike that this game is important to them. (No, just saying it isn't enough - even if we believe you; it's not going to matter if things don't actually manifest).

So that's number 1 - Keep supporting the game, even if it looks like it's sinking like a stone. It's tough to beat a bad first impression; but it's a lie to say it can't be done. Don't give up - support the game, make improvements, and keep going forward.

One thing I'd also mention: Support *both* the End-game *and* low-mid-high game. Don't just add content to one section or another - make sure people have a reason to pursue alts OR play their main character. Cutting either route out alienates a set of players... which is generally not a good idea.

----

Now Part 2 - or "Mistakes I feel were made after CO's launch that absolutely cannot be repeated here" -

There were... some really poor decisions made post CO launch; even when bugs were being cleaned up rapidly and it seemed like it'd just be a rough launch to an otherwise good game.**

The first, and imo largest, was the idea of inviting players who quit back merely 6 weeks after release. Why? Because 6 weeks is not nearly enough time - not for enough improvement to the game to occur (No one who quit in the first month due to 'lack of content' is going to magically have enough content in that timeframe) - and also for simple cooling of heads.

Someone who just had a really bad impression of the game isn't going to want to look at it again with an objective PoV - not so soon. Save the marketing blitz for a bit later after things have been smoothed and ramped up. Make sure that when you invite people back you feel confident you've addressed a large number of concerns. Sure you won't get them all - but you'll get more, longer, if you give it time.

The second - Microtransactions early in the game's history. Some - things like character slots, costumes, renames - these are pretty reasonable and I don't think many will fault you for them. Do *NOT* start adding more races and the like however.

Why? Well here - from a player's perspective -

1) It smells of desperation. Even if you really are doing quite well; adding costume parts and the like to the store too early (without releasing plenty of free stuff first) makes people think "Greedy" or "Trying to grab that last bit of cash before they go under". I didn't say this was *true* - I said that was the perception it creates. The PR war is all about perception after all.

2) If someone is unhappy with the game, you will not charm them with an option to buy something nice. You WILL charm them if you *give* them something nice.

This isn't to say the C-Store is a bad idea altogether - but give the game time to get things sorted out. Let the players who are willing to stick around but are feeling grumpy have some nice goodies while you work on the rest of the game. Basically - take care of your playerbase. Yes, even the jerky ones.

Third -

Holiday events are not 'content' - do not advertise them as such. While I doubt STO will have many seasonal events; if it does, do not advertise them as 'content' - anything seasonal is invariably not content by a player's definition. It may be fun for a few hours; but it isn't permanent missions, new items, and new areas to explore - calling it 'content' simply aggravates people who expected something more out of it.

Call it what it is - a seasonal event. People know what that is, and it's in no way misleading.

Fourth -

I suspect Cryptic already is planning to avoid this with STO; but this is important and needs to be said anyway:

Do *NOT* attempt to launch an Expansion, Mission Pack or other Pay-For content until the game has settled and Joe and Jane player are, if not happy, at least relatively content. There will always be brushfires on the forums of course; but give the game a year or so of good, free improvement - earn the player's confidence *then* you can release an expansion pack.

As CO should show - a game widely believed to be 'unfinished' (even if untrue, and I'm not sure it is untrue - still, remember *perception*) is not going to generally greet news of an expansion with cheers of joy; unless that expansion is free.

Fifth -

This is going to be difficult; but -

Do not balance PVP on the back of PVE OR vice-versa. The needs of the two different playstyles are very, very, very different. Until NPCs are as smart as players, you simply cannot balance the same abilities for these two drastically different kinds of play.

Don't try.

Instead - go back to your old COH playbook, and refine it: hard. Powers that are problematic in one environment but not in another should be tuned *only* when in the problematic environment. Do this carefully; but still do it.

Trying to balance one part of the game on another part simply won't work; but it *will* cause hard feelings from people who don't participate in that other part of the game very often. Generally something to be avoided.


All of the above are, in my view as a player, critical things that must be considered. Lessons from the past; and also opportunities for the future.

What is the goal of the above? Simple - so that when we get to February 2nd 2011, and STO is maybe releasing its first Expansion Pack (make sure it's sizable - a real expansion pack not just 2 levels and half a zone), people can look and say "Woah, that game has *really* gotten better."

Sure, you'll never win back some people; but you'll win back some; and maybe take in others. It also means you've got a shot at keeping those of us already here and happy. Not just your lifers - but also your 1-year people, your 3 month people, your monthly people. What you want is for these people to re-up when the time comes due - not to let their subs fall away because the game feels like ti's dying.

Yes - people will leave a game they like because it appears to be dying. This is important: MMORPGs are an 'investment' by the player. These aren't products, or even services necessarily - they're something we invest time and energy and money into; and we hope to get at least that much back in fun. However a lot of people will jump ship when a game is 'sinking' just so they haven't invested themselves in something that will be gone or not get any support.


Apologies for the length and as I said... the fact that it sounds a bi t arrogant; me "random player" - telling Cryptic "Here's what ya gotta do...". Nevertheless, I like the game too much to sit by and say nothing and risk letting what happened to CO happen again <x.x>

There's too much *potential* awesome here to let it go to waste.

-

*A game that should have been utterly enormous (and started that way) - but then dropped through the floor. In my opinion this is more due to post-release goof-ups than core design issues. Yes there were some; but the method of addressing those problems was... not good.

**Champions is in my opinion a game that is a fantastic foundation for a superhero game. The problem is that it's flawed, largely in the content department - and said flaw hasn't been well addressed for the most part. Even if untrue, it has felt as as though it's been abandoned until very recently. The mis-steps made in it's post-release have really hurt the game as much or more than the immediate on-launch problems (which were glaring).
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I don't often comment on posts about someone's analysis because I know it's mostly for the devs and not for the general public to give further comments but in this case I'll make an exception.

    I think the points you've laid out are very well articulated and agree with them wholeheartedly.

    Many of the things you've said here I wold repeat word for word. Very good post here devs. Please print this and give it some serious discussion at your next meeting.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    A nice commentary to be sure.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Great post.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    /agreed

    Don't like the way things are shaping up either
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Nice post, OP. The only point of contention I have is your claim that a full expansion shouldn't come out for a year or more. I'm assuming that this was brought on due to the Vibora Bay incident over at Champions. I personally think that, had Vibora Bay been a full expansion, and not just a few levels worth of content, it would have gone over much better, even with the lack of content that CO has. As such, I personally would say that a full expansion - if made so quickly - could come out at the six month mark and be received favorably, if it's good.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    agreed lets hope they read it and take it in
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Thank you folks - I think the more people who put some 'oomph' behind this the more likely it is to get taken seriously.

    @Atwell - While a full expansion definitely would have gone over better, I still think it would have ultimately been more negative than positive. In my opinion at least; when a game is widely perceived to be 'unfinished' - players tend to want to see a 'full' game delivered before they shell out more money.

    I'm not saying that is or is not reasonable - I'm just saying that it's how the perception tends to go; an be cause of that it's wise not to try it. The reason I suggest a year -

    1) It's a long enough time that most people who are REALLY ANGRY today have had a chance to cool off - especially those who say "I wanted to like this game but..." and thought it was largely good but too flawed for them to enjoy.

    A year gives those people time to 'get over' their disappointment; and a new, highly regarded expansion acts as a fantastic hook to bring someone back.

    2) It means the expansion is far more likely to center on adding something brand new (Say, a Cardassian or Romulan faction) than simply patching holes in current content.

    Basically the key is you need to generate positive perception - especially since when an expansion gets reviewed, it tends to replace, review-score wise, the previous review scores for people buying later, combined packages. (So what may be a 68 today, could be an 89 in a year if they do things well.)

    That's just me of course; how I'm seeing it from my position as a player.
Sign In or Register to comment.