test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

I actually LIKE the optional DP... (DEV's please read)

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
Hear me out. I think it strikes a nice compromise between those that wanted a death penalty and those that did not. I believe it's the best-case-scenario for all players involved. Cryptic is actually trying to demonstrate they listen to both sides of an argument and devise solutions which include...and not exclude...all of the paying subscribers.

With that being said, I'd like to see two rules implemented to make the optional death penalty truly work. First, make the optional death penalty tied to the difficulty slider. If you want to play on easy, normal, or hard you get no death penalty...just increased ship count, difficulty, etc. If you want to play on hardcore you get the aforementioned PLUS the death penalty. That way it's tied into a logical and linear progression of difficulty and doesn't just seem arbitrary or randomly applied and removed according to the player's whims. Secondly, tie in teams, fleets, or random player groups into one difficulty setting per instance/team/whatever. In other words, everyone on a team must have the same sliding difficulty as that set by the team leader or group leader. That way if I'm in an instance where I have the slider maxed out with death penalty I won't have to worry about "griefers" or other assorted clowns warping in and messing with things by dying over and over, engaging enemies, drawing in fleets, or crashing into Crystalline Entity shards with no fear of death or consequences while TRIBBLE over everyone else.

The death penalty as an option WILL work if it's tied to the max difficulty slider setting and groups cannot mix difficulty settings within instances/teams/groups. Ok, that's my two cents (or energy credits) so feel free to discuss, flame, disagree, yell, whine, etc.... ;)
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Why did you make a new thread, when you could have just said this in an existing one?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Because I'd rather not bury my original idea into page 6 of a negative post when my suggestion was one in support of the death penalty and offered suggestions to the DEV's rather than more whining, maybe?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    BountyXP wrote: »
    Because I'd rather not bury my original idea into page 6 of a negative post when my suggestion was one in support of the death penalty and offered suggestions to the DEV's rather than more whining, maybe?

    So do you think everyone should just post their "replies" to existing topics as new threads if they dont like the existing discussions, or just you?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    So do you think everyone should just post their "replies" to existing topics as new threads if they dont like the existing discussions, or just you?

    Pretty much everyone really...beauty of a free society and open forum. Since the thread was not a reply to any one thread or comment located anywhere else it doesn't require posting under similar yet not identical threads. But thanks for your constructive input, regardless... :rolleyes:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I hope the difficulty slider is tied to your character when you create it.

    Otherwise, the idea of missions that get more challenging as you progress pretty much gets negated...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    BountyXP wrote: »
    Pretty much everyone really...beauty of a free society and open forum.

    I'm afraid the mods would disagree with you, and that is why they close and or merge threads that are about existing topics.
    BountyXP wrote: »
    Since the thread was not a reply to any one thread or comment located anywhere else it doesn't require posting under similar yet not identical threads.

    Sorry, but if this were NOT in response to the other threads where people are saying they DIDNT like the optional DP idea, then you would have no reason to announce the fact that you feel the opposite.
    BountyXP wrote: »
    But thanks for your constructive input, regardless... :rolleyes:

    My pleasure :rolleyes:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I'm afraid the mods would disagree with you, and that is why they close and or merge threads that are about existing topics.

    And since they have not merged any of the other 15 "DP" threads I would tend to disagree with you...
    Sorry, but if this were NOT in response to the other threads where people are saying they DIDNT like the optional DP idea, then you would have no reason to announce the fact that you feel the opposite.

    A statement of fact (I like the optional DP) does not necessarily have to relate to anyone else's (they don't like it). Your assumption that I am in some way responding to a particular posting is erroneous and fallacious on its face. I am stating that I like the death penalty. I like the concept of optionality. I never stated a response, challenge, or reply to any post or thread created by anyone else. I never referenced or linked or quoted any other thread or posting.Sorry, nice try, thanks for playing and we have some nice parting gifts for you in the lobby...;)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    BountyXP wrote: »
    A statement of fact (I like the optional DP) does not necessarily have to relate to anyone else's (they don't like it). Your assumption that I am in some way responding to a particular posting is erroneous and fallacious on its face. I am stating that I like the death penalty. I like the concept of optionality. I never stated a response, challenge, or reply to any post or thread created by anyone else. I never referenced or linked or quoted any other thread or posting.Sorry, nice try, thanks for playing and we have some nice parting gifts for you in the lobby...;)

    "I actually LIKE the optional DP"

    The word "actually" is used as a response to a differeing idea. The fact that you capitalized the word "like" further emphasizes you are responding to a differing opinion. You didnt simply say you liked the DP, you wanted to show your difference of opinion versus the existing threads where people are saying they dont like it. And that is what you call a "response" ;)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Don't listen to them!

    I posted the Jack thing in another thread and it got buried. I posted a new thread saying the same thing and it got lots of replys!

    You pay to play, and you can post whatever you want as long as it not against the forum rules! :p
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    mrlee95 wrote: »
    You pay to play, and you can post whatever you want as long as it not against the forum rules! :p

    And in this case, it is:

    Creating Duplicate Threads
    Posts and/or private messages that, in any manner whether directly or indirectly, create new threads about existing topics or separate threads about an existing topic for further discussion in more than one forum (e.g., cross postings) may be subject to an infraction.

    http://forums.startrekonline.com/announcement.php?f=128&a=3
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Oh please, either your are dont understand grammar(which I dont believe) or you are lying through your teeth. Your title:

    "I actually LIKE the optional DP"

    The word "actually" is used as a response to a differeing idea. The fact that you capitalized the word "like" further emphasizes you are responding to a differing opinion. You didnt simply say you liked the DP, you wanted to show your difference of opinion versus the existing threads where people are saying they dont like it. And that is what you call a "response" ;)

    And what your doing is posting off topic and trolling the OP.
    At least your bumping the OP's post tho.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I pretty much support an optional death penalty. I really like the idea dstahl talked about, with the death penalty being tied to the difficulty slider. On one end of the slider is casual, which is pretty much the same as it is now. On the other end is realistic, where the difficulty is turned up, death penalty is on, and collisions are on.

    Note: dstahl mentioned this somewhere in the March 11 engineering report comments
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Mikotren wrote:
    And what your doing is posting off topic and trolling the OP.
    At least your bumping the OP's post tho.

    As a matter of fact, I am directly responding to a statement the OP made earlier in this thread regarding why he posted this seperately rather than in an existing thread. Since I am directly responding to his own statements, it is not off topic.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    And in this case, it is:

    Creating Duplicate Threads
    Posts and/or private messages that, in any manner whether directly or indirectly, create new threads about existing topics or separate threads about an existing topic for further discussion in more than one forum (e.g., cross postings) may be subject to an infraction.

    http://forums.startrekonline.com/announcement.php?f=128&a=3

    Shhhhh don't tell anyone!!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    BountyXP wrote: »
    The death penalty as an option WILL work if it's tied to the max difficulty slider setting and groups cannot mix difficulty settings within instances/teams/groups.

    I disagree twice over.

    If the DP is an encounter reset like the end of Infected (with a space revival mechanic activated, so suppressing respawn has the same effect in space as on the ground) then I would want to turn it on regardless of where I stuck the difficulty slider. On the other hand, I want to ramp content up in difficulty to the point where it can defeat me with some frequency and I'm not interested in roleplaying Sisyphus, so if there is a resource loss or debuff DP I'd never turn it on.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    "I actually LIKE the optional DP"

    The word "actually" is used as a response to a differeing idea. The fact that you capitalized the word "like" further emphasizes you are responding to a differing opinion. You didnt simply say you liked the DP, you wanted to show your difference of opinion versus the existing threads where people are saying they dont like it. And that is what you call a "response" ;)

    In point of fact, the definition of "actually" is that of "an actual fact" or is "used to imply that one would expect the fact to be the opposite of that stated" not in opposition to someone else's statements...but hey, what does that guy Webster and his stupid book know? :rolleyes:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I pretty much support an optional death penalty. I really like the idea dstahl talked about, with the death penalty being tied to the difficulty slider. On one end of the slider is casual, which is pretty much the same as it is now. On the other end is realistic, where the difficulty is turned up, death penalty is on, and collisions are on.

    Note: dstahl mentioned this somewhere in the March 11 engineering report comments

    I'll have to check that out....exactly what I was thinking and I'd wholeheartedly support something like that.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    BountyXP wrote: »
    In point of fact, the definition of "actually" is that of "an actual fact" or is "used to imply that one would expect the fact to be the opposite of that stated" not in opposition to someone else's statements...but hey, what does that guy Webster and his stupid book know? :rolleyes:

    I'm aware of its definition, and I'm also aware of the way its used in common language. I have a feeling you are too, even though you want us to believe otherwise.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I'm aware of its definition, and I'm also aware of the way its used in common language. I have a feeling you are too, even though you want us to believe otherwise.

    Nagus, will you please just let the mods do the modding? :rolleyes:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Nagus, will you please just let the mods do the modding? :rolleyes:

    If you will notice, I am not the person who first pointed out the OP's problem, I am simply responding to his own statements.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    If you will notice, I am not the person who first pointed out the OP's problem, I am simply responding to his own statements.

    Yes, we understand you have posted 7 times in a thread that you don't think should exist.
    Have a cookie?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Mikotren wrote:
    Yes, we understand you have posted 7 times in a thread that you don't think should exist.
    Have a cookie?

    And you are replying to posts that you obviously think shouldnt exist either. I'll take half, and leave you the other half :o
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Personally, I don't see this thread as a duplicate. Those other threads are mostly for those that DON'T like the optional DP idea. This thread is for those that DO. Having a thread for each side makes it easier for the devs to count and see how many people are for and against an idea.

    That being said, I applaud your efforts to help moderate the forums. I used to try to do it, but trying to moderate trolls and flamers was like trying to run on water. I gave up on it. It's easier to let phoxe and the gm's handle it. Oh, and Q, the best moderator of them all.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I also actually like the Optional DP.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    BountyXP wrote: »
    Hear me out. I think it strikes a nice compromise between those that wanted a death penalty and those that did not. I believe it's the best-case-scenario for all players involved. Cryptic is actually trying to demonstrate they listen to both sides of an argument and devise solutions which include...and not exclude...all of the paying subscribers.

    With that being said, I'd like to see two rules implemented to make the optional death penalty truly work. First, make the optional death penalty tied to the difficulty slider. If you want to play on easy, normal, or hard you get no death penalty...just increased ship count, difficulty, etc. If you want to play on hardcore you get the aforementioned PLUS the death penalty. That way it's tied into a logical and linear progression of difficulty and doesn't just seem arbitrary or randomly applied and removed according to the player's whims. Secondly, tie in teams, fleets, or random player groups into one difficulty setting per instance/team/whatever. In other words, everyone on a team must have the same sliding difficulty as that set by the team leader or group leader. That way if I'm in an instance where I have the slider maxed out with death penalty I won't have to worry about "griefers" or other assorted clowns warping in and messing with things by dying over and over, engaging enemies, drawing in fleets, or crashing into Crystalline Entity shards with no fear of death or consequences while TRIBBLE over everyone else.

    The death penalty as an option WILL work if it's tied to the max difficulty slider setting and groups cannot mix difficulty settings within instances/teams/groups. Ok, that's my two cents (or energy credits) so feel free to discuss, flame, disagree, yell, whine, etc.... ;)

    I to like the option as it allows people to play as they like to. Your ideas are also good as it allows those who want a challenge but not a time sink to have fun as well. Though I still wish they would have made a reward for not dieing I think an idea like this would work well.
Sign In or Register to comment.