I'm hoping that the UGC will alows us to use any sector in the design process.
They've said it will, which suggests to me that one natural consequence of sector space redesign will be opening all space to all factions without forcing players into totally open PvP if they don't want it.
I think one of the concerns regarding the Klingon faction, is the lack of sectors to explore, and where to place any UGC created content in.
Will the toolset be able to create or import new ship designs/skins for existing ships?
Will voice overs be an enabled feature in UGC content, for dialogue etc..?
Are you considering adding features to UGC, to make Special Task Forces, Fleet Actions?
We do need more PvP maps, will the UGC allow players to create new PvP content?
Is the proposed UGC toolset the same one that will be included with the upcoming Neverwinter title? I have used the toolset in the previous Neverwinter series and found it did add a lot more to the existing content.
There's not much that I personally know about UGC right now. I'm going to set aside some time this week to start learning the tool set however, and I'll make sure to keep you guys informed with what I learn.
There's not much that I personally know about UGC right now. I'm going to set aside some time this week to start learning the tool set however, and I'll make sure to keep you guys informed with what I learn.
Thanks,
Stormshade
It's dangerous to go alone. Take this!
..▲
▲▲
and don't get caught by dstahl! Report back when you have the intel.
UGC allows players to create the content they are interested in playing. If that is more KDF content - then players will be able to make far more missions than we ever could.
City of Heroes went down that road. And it lead to Farmable Missions. Missions where people would go from Level 1-50 in 3 days. Now I know that's not possible here in Star Trek Online. How ever, that shows the type of content that the users created in that game. Not wonderful adaptations of the game that made you feel like you'd been through an epic and awesome encounter with a super powerful foe, but silly content that was really nothing more then a waste of server space..
Can you, as one of the developers, really believe that in Star Trek Online, it will be different? I know the reward system will not lead to any kind of unique item reward. That would make things tempted towards abuse. But what's to stop people from just making Easy missions that will just lead a character by the hand towards Level 51?
Do I disagree that UGC will bring about new content? No. Not at all. I just think that UGC is, and has always been, a bad Idea with good intentions. It will also not be something benificial to the Klingon community either.
UGC will being about a dark day to STO, in my opinion. So, if you are adamant about bringing it to this game, try to avoid the mistakes made in City of Heroes. Learn from the past.. And don't repeat it.
City of Heroes went down that road. And it lead to Farmable Missions. Missions where people would go from Level 1-50 in 3 days. Now I know that's not possible here in Star Trek Online. How ever, that shows the type of content that the users created in that game. Not wonderful adaptations of the game that made you feel like you'd been through an epic and awesome encounter with a super powerful foe, but silly content that was really nothing more then a waste of server space..
No offense, but its pretty obvious you have no idea what your talking about. Of course there are alot of junk missions, but there ARE plenty of well made missions too. People who take alot of time writing and creating missions often advertise them on the mission architect board over at COH; you might want to have a look.
No offense, but its pretty obvious you have no idea what your talking about. Of course there are alot of junk missions, but there ARE plenty of well made missions too. People who take alot of time writing and creating missions often advertise them on the mission architect board over at COH; you might want to have a look.
I don't know what I'm talking about? I beta tested the Mission Architect, and created a couple missions my self. From what I experienced of the MA, it was a big disappointment. And no I did not quit the game right after it was released.
One of the biggest problems in the MA that I recall, and disliked the most, was:
Rating Griefing. Give people bad raitings just because you don't want to see them succeed. (They have it set where if some one gets a good enough rating, a mission might be placed in the game in a real location for players to get actual rewards from)
And now I'm seeing Developers talking about a rating system for Star Trek's UGC system. Yeah that worked out SO well in City of Heroes.. :rolleyes: If there were a way to make it truelly honest, and not have griefing, it might be worth it.
Also, what is supposed to make Star Trek Online's UGC better then City of Heroes' Mission Architect? The player community? The fact that it's Star Trek and not Comic Books? Your word? I am sorry if I feel like the only one that thinks the UGC is a bad Idea. And I am sorry if you are under the impression that I don't know what I'm talking about having experienced this route before. I'm all for the Developers having a way to reduce their work load. I really am. But I really don't think the UGC is really the way to go about it.
But hey, if I'm wrong, and the Star Trek Online UGC turns out better then City of Heroes ever was, I'll be happy. Because right now this game needs something to break it out of the rut that it's in.
On a side note, I love the Weekly Eposide route. I think it could be the perfect way to bring about the content that the KDF is lacking. Especially if they do use it as a story board to tell the stories that have not yet been told in the game. And even though I'm not always jumping for joy over the story reward endings, I also like they take the time to release new objects and items into the game through the Weekly Eposides. Keep'm coming.
Also, what is supposed to make Star Trek Online's UGC better then City of Heroes' Mission Architect? The player community? The fact that it's Star Trek and not Comic Books? Your word? I am sorry if I feel like the only one that thinks the UGC is a bad Idea. And I am sorry if you are under the impression that I don't know what I'm talking about having experienced this route before. I'm all for the Developers having a way to reduce their work load. I really am. But I really don't think the UGC is really the way to go about it.
The fact Cryptic is developing it and not Paragon might help - that and realizing what the pitfalls were when the MA was released.
(and, yes, the rights to CoX were transferred to Paragon before the MA edition was released).
City of Heroes went down that road. And it lead to Farmable Missions. Missions where people would go from Level 1-50 in 3 days.
It is not a problem here.
Farming missions ? we have plenty of them.
Making levelling easier ? it is a casual game. levelling is already easy.
Missions with tons of mobs can't succeed because, as opposed to CoX, the greatest part of the XP comes from the completion of the quest, not from the mobs.
Yep, thats right. And it sounds like you need to read my post again(or as many times as it takes to actually understand what I said). I dont deny there are problems with UGC. However, in your post before this one you made the blanket statement that there are no quality missions that are made, and that is simply wrong; period. While there is plenty of TRIBBLE, there are also very good missions that people put alot of work into. So reply again and deny that if you like, but you will still be wrong.
Making levelling easier ? it is a casual game. levelling is already easy.
So was CoH.
Missions with tons of mobs can't succeed because, as opposed to CoX, the greatest part of the XP comes from the completion of the quest, not from the mobs.
So UGC can't fail
Until someone designs a "click 5 clickies" mission, where all 5 clickies are at the beam-in point. Beam in, hit F 5 times, beam out, get a mission's worth of XP, for the time cost of a little more than two loading screens. Even if the clickies are scattered about, it's still EC for nuthin' and XP for free.
I'm looking forward to UGC, but, yeah, there is potential for it to go horribly, horribly wrong.
Until someone designs a "click 5 clickies" mission, where all 5 clickies are at the beam-in point. Beam in, hit F 5 times, beam out, get a mission's worth of XP, for the time cost of a little more than two loading screens. Even if the clickies are scattered about, it's still EC for nuthin' and XP for free.
I'm looking forward to UGC, but, yeah, there is potential for it to go horribly, horribly wrong.
How is that any different than scan 5 anomalies in space?
How is that any different than scan 5 anomalies in space?
The difference is you don't currently have much control over what sort of missions you get. With UGC, assuming it allows you to create "scan 5" missions, you could just do those over and over until you hit max level. No fighting, no risk, minimal time for mission completion XP.
Boring as hell, maybe but so were the "bubble" missions in CoH MA.
correct me if I'm mistaken ( I may not be in the loop for all the info on UGC, despite my best efforts), but when was there talk of giving rewards at the end of missions. I was under the assumption that it would be just the mission itself.
Anyways, the problem of rating is what really needs to be looked into. UGC has huge potential, considering the fact that Cryptic can only make so much content for us, we can add our own, showcase our ideas and abilities, and hopefully inspire positive changes to existing mission structures that have been lacking. But in order to do this, we do need a good rating system, and where you just give a rating of 0-5 is not sufficient.
What they need is a gauge of what being played the most, feed back sections, maybe a small critique that can only be filled out once, and Cryptic taking on a small team of people dedicated to truly rating missions, so a separate rating by officials. These could be the dev team on there off time, exploring player content, or a group of players who have proven themselves trustworthy enough to do so. After all, there are many other games out there that have UGC. StarCraft II comes to mind, as they must allow for player made maps and mods, and they must have some system that prevents abuse and griefing. ( I would presume a number of times played thing were the best maps are rated on the number of time played.)
Also, we could have several people set up websites outside of STO who give critiques and reviews of mission made by players and also have a rating board of the most popular ones. After all, we see people have reviews for the shows, that are really well thought out, and those who want to find some of the best Content creators have to offer, should be willing to look to more informed sites for list and reviews.
aww... only one person caught the Zelda reference (and it was actually a sword given to Link in the cave).
Anyways, let's hope more detail comes out regarding UGC - or that Brodie is able to sneak the intel out from dstahl's desk.
The fact Cryptic is developing it and not Paragon might help - that and realizing what the pitfalls were when the MA was released.
(and, yes, the rights to CoX were transferred to Paragon before the MA edition was released).
There's also the map/terrain editor. And the fact that you can't level efficiently by grinding mobs in this game. It comes through mission rewards here, primarily, which are often time sensitive. As opposed to CoH where grinding enemies was an efficient path of advancement.
The difference is you don't currently have much control over what sort of missions you get. With UGC, assuming it allows you to create "scan 5" missions, you could just do those over and over until you hit max level. No fighting, no risk, minimal time for mission completion XP.
Boring as hell, maybe but so were the "bubble" missions in CoH MA.
This is why it almost has to be time limited (ie. you can only do one UGC mission per X minutes) or with a reward that scales based on a formula that allots for time spent and objectives completed, with a hard cap on what you can get.
This is why it almost has to be time limited (ie. you can only do one UGC mission per X minutes) or with a reward that scales based on a formula that allots for time spent and objectives completed, with a hard cap on what you can get.
Better yet, how about you can only do the SAME mission once a day. That way no one can ever use one mission to farm, and if a certain person only creates farm missions he'll get reported by the people who dont want there to be farming once they see more than one mission like that by him.
Let's not turn this into a UGC hate thread before we even know anything about it folks.
Let's get back on to the issues of the empire.
Thanks,
Stormshade
Spill the beans and we won't have to!
If it's going to be a major source of PvE content for Klingons like DStahl implied we shouldn't have a limit on the # of UGC missions that can be done per hour/day. At the same time you're going to need protections in place to eliminate farms. I'm curious to know more details as soon as you can tell us.
Better yet, how about you can only do the SAME mission once a day. That way no one can ever use one mission to farm, and if a certain person only creates farm missions he'll get reported by the people who dont want there to be farming once they see more than one mission like that by him.
Or, you only get rewards from a UGC mission once per day, but can play it many times in a day. I see this as necessary in case someone really likes a mission, and wants their fleet-mates to play it; or with a person running through one of their own missions a few times to work out the bugs. Or, you know, just because. But yes, there has to be a limit of some sort to prevent farming. Nothing drowned out the scads of good storyline missions in COX's Architect more than the countless farm missions.
Let's not turn this into a UGC hate thread before we even know anything about it folks.
Sorry if I came across as hating on UGC - like I said, I'm actually really looking forward to it. It's just that I had negative experience with UGC in another game, and I'm hoping that those issues aren't repeated here.
As for issues of the Empire, well, UGC is currently our best hope for more PvE
Better yet, how about you can only do the SAME mission once a day. That way no one can ever use one mission to farm, and if a certain person only creates farm missions he'll get reported by the people who dont want there to be farming once they see more than one mission like that by him.
This is a possible solution as well since people will probably have limits on how many missions they can publish at a time.
The way I'd expect this to work is to give someone something like 3 missions they can publish per character and then giving them an extra slot after enough positive reviews. It's not a catch all but it would pretty much require powerleveling to be organized and coupled with reward limits like time-based rewards and limits on how many enemies they can place, should solve it.
Whatever the case, I do think you should be able to run or create UGC with fewer limits in a "not for credit" capacity. (One example of how this might work is for UGC missions to inherently NOT grant credit but have other missions you do while on a UGC map for credit.)
In any case, I'm sure UGC will be good for Klingons and any dedicated group of players with very specific ideas on the content they want. I'm actually hoping to join a fleet based entirely around making UGC when it happens.
Or, you only get rewards from a UGC mission once per day, but can play it many times in a day.
You mean you only get the reward for each mission once per day, or only one mission total? Because considering the lack of episodes on the Klingon side, it would be a little lame to limit them to only 1 per day. People who start the game a year from now should have UGC as a viable source of leveling, assuming its not farming we're talking about.
I've mentioned this solution in many older UGC threads, and I think it still applies:
Rewards for missions in UGC are only by time-spent; with a cap on how much time can be built up toward a reward.
Example: You start gaining skill points 10 minutes into a mission, you stop gaining them 40 minutes into a mission. A mission designed to be done very very rapidly will get you nothing; and AFKing for 40 minutes is just wasting your playtime* and won't actually be any more efficient than normal leveling. (In fact it would probably be a lot worse.)
Basically, leveling by UGC is only profitable if you play it properly. If you try to cheat the system, you'll end up going slower than people playing normally.
There is one large disadvantage to this; but I think it's worth putting up with - if you have very-quick diplomacy based missions; people might not be getting xp for them at all. Of course, an under-10 minute mission isn't much of a Star Trek episode, so I'm not sure if that's really all that much of a problem. The other small disadvantage is that very long missions might not be worth the xp they'd be worth under a normal reward system. However, Commander-> Captain -> Admiral -> VA goes very quickly as is, so only Lt. and Lt. Commander characters are going to have any real issue there; and really, just the promise of something new to do would be enough for me to invest the time. >.>
I don't think limiting the completion of a given map will help - people will just make more farms and rotate through them if you try to go that way. (Likewise, what's to stop someone from removing a map, renaming it, and putting it back up with a different filename? Same mission, different name, the system likely won't be able to tell that though. Only way there would be to limit uploads/downloads with a time frame, which would be annoying for people who're actually working on missions.)
*This is of course before the consideration of the AFK logout timer; however there are plenty of means to circumvent it if someone really wanted to.
Let's not turn this into a UGC hate thread before we even know anything about it folks.
Let's get back on to the issues of the empire.
Thanks,
Stormshade
Soooo...what new KDF content is planned to come down the pipe that the KDF community can chime in on? For instance, what about this new Dev design for the KDF ship...why keep it a surprise? Lets bring the idea out of the shadows and open it up to the KDF community for contributing toward its design path and vetting it as a KDF design...because lets be real, we'll have to fly it...lets make sure its going to be something we'll want to fly.
Lets look at the possible visual models, lets us contribute to its tweaking as it goes through its approval process...lets get some input.
Honestly, there is no need for all the secercy and "surprises" for KDf content anymore. Let's pull the KDF content out of the "Skunk Works" and make it more of a community project.
As a community, we need an avenue to direct our energies...we need the distraction.
Yeah, well... The downside, as you point out, is that minmaxers will simply make UGC that's a decent length. Not too long, not short. Beyond that, they'll probably try to concentrate their missions in a single planet or sector block to cut down on travel time.
So be it if they want to trade story progression for time spent traveling, I say. They've been doing that anyway.
Yeah, well... The downside, as you point out, is that minmaxers will simply make UGC that's a decent length. Not too long, not short. Beyond that, they'll probably try to concentrate their missions in a single planet or sector block to cut down on travel time.
So be it if they want to trade story progression for time spent traveling, I say. They've been doing that anyway.
Yeah, I guess let them. They'll just cap sooner, which means nothing right now(we can all level cap easy)...just make sure no emblems, or high end gear, etc can be given out for UGC.
Comments
I'm hoping that the UGC will alows us to use any sector in the design process.
They've said it will, which suggests to me that one natural consequence of sector space redesign will be opening all space to all factions without forcing players into totally open PvP if they don't want it.
There's not much that I personally know about UGC right now. I'm going to set aside some time this week to start learning the tool set however, and I'll make sure to keep you guys informed with what I learn.
Thanks,
Stormshade
..▲
▲▲
and don't get caught by dstahl! Report back when you have the intel.
*points and laugh*
City of Heroes went down that road. And it lead to Farmable Missions. Missions where people would go from Level 1-50 in 3 days. Now I know that's not possible here in Star Trek Online. How ever, that shows the type of content that the users created in that game. Not wonderful adaptations of the game that made you feel like you'd been through an epic and awesome encounter with a super powerful foe, but silly content that was really nothing more then a waste of server space..
Can you, as one of the developers, really believe that in Star Trek Online, it will be different? I know the reward system will not lead to any kind of unique item reward. That would make things tempted towards abuse. But what's to stop people from just making Easy missions that will just lead a character by the hand towards Level 51?
Do I disagree that UGC will bring about new content? No. Not at all. I just think that UGC is, and has always been, a bad Idea with good intentions. It will also not be something benificial to the Klingon community either.
UGC will being about a dark day to STO, in my opinion. So, if you are adamant about bringing it to this game, try to avoid the mistakes made in City of Heroes. Learn from the past.. And don't repeat it.
No offense, but its pretty obvious you have no idea what your talking about. Of course there are alot of junk missions, but there ARE plenty of well made missions too. People who take alot of time writing and creating missions often advertise them on the mission architect board over at COH; you might want to have a look.
I am all for this situation to occure, either way. I like THAT Idea happening provided they don't turn out as bad as the Kar'fi of course.
I don't know what I'm talking about? I beta tested the Mission Architect, and created a couple missions my self. From what I experienced of the MA, it was a big disappointment. And no I did not quit the game right after it was released.
One of the biggest problems in the MA that I recall, and disliked the most, was:
Rating Griefing. Give people bad raitings just because you don't want to see them succeed. (They have it set where if some one gets a good enough rating, a mission might be placed in the game in a real location for players to get actual rewards from)
And now I'm seeing Developers talking about a rating system for Star Trek's UGC system. Yeah that worked out SO well in City of Heroes.. :rolleyes: If there were a way to make it truelly honest, and not have griefing, it might be worth it.
Also, what is supposed to make Star Trek Online's UGC better then City of Heroes' Mission Architect? The player community? The fact that it's Star Trek and not Comic Books? Your word? I am sorry if I feel like the only one that thinks the UGC is a bad Idea. And I am sorry if you are under the impression that I don't know what I'm talking about having experienced this route before. I'm all for the Developers having a way to reduce their work load. I really am. But I really don't think the UGC is really the way to go about it.
But hey, if I'm wrong, and the Star Trek Online UGC turns out better then City of Heroes ever was, I'll be happy. Because right now this game needs something to break it out of the rut that it's in.
On a side note, I love the Weekly Eposide route. I think it could be the perfect way to bring about the content that the KDF is lacking. Especially if they do use it as a story board to tell the stories that have not yet been told in the game. And even though I'm not always jumping for joy over the story reward endings, I also like they take the time to release new objects and items into the game through the Weekly Eposides. Keep'm coming.
aww... only one person caught the Zelda reference (and it was actually a sword given to Link in the cave).
Anyways, let's hope more detail comes out regarding UGC - or that Brodie is able to sneak the intel out from dstahl's desk.
The fact Cryptic is developing it and not Paragon might help - that and realizing what the pitfalls were when the MA was released.
(and, yes, the rights to CoX were transferred to Paragon before the MA edition was released).
It is not a problem here.
Farming missions ? we have plenty of them.
Making levelling easier ? it is a casual game. levelling is already easy.
Missions with tons of mobs can't succeed because, as opposed to CoX, the greatest part of the XP comes from the completion of the quest, not from the mobs.
So UGC can't fail
Yep, thats right. And it sounds like you need to read my post again(or as many times as it takes to actually understand what I said). I dont deny there are problems with UGC. However, in your post before this one you made the blanket statement that there are no quality missions that are made, and that is simply wrong; period. While there is plenty of TRIBBLE, there are also very good missions that people put alot of work into. So reply again and deny that if you like, but you will still be wrong.
So was CoH.
Until someone designs a "click 5 clickies" mission, where all 5 clickies are at the beam-in point. Beam in, hit F 5 times, beam out, get a mission's worth of XP, for the time cost of a little more than two loading screens. Even if the clickies are scattered about, it's still EC for nuthin' and XP for free.
I'm looking forward to UGC, but, yeah, there is potential for it to go horribly, horribly wrong.
How is that any different than scan 5 anomalies in space?
Boring as hell, maybe but so were the "bubble" missions in CoH MA.
In all fairness, it's pretty easy to get from 1 to 51 in this game already.
Anyways, the problem of rating is what really needs to be looked into. UGC has huge potential, considering the fact that Cryptic can only make so much content for us, we can add our own, showcase our ideas and abilities, and hopefully inspire positive changes to existing mission structures that have been lacking. But in order to do this, we do need a good rating system, and where you just give a rating of 0-5 is not sufficient.
What they need is a gauge of what being played the most, feed back sections, maybe a small critique that can only be filled out once, and Cryptic taking on a small team of people dedicated to truly rating missions, so a separate rating by officials. These could be the dev team on there off time, exploring player content, or a group of players who have proven themselves trustworthy enough to do so. After all, there are many other games out there that have UGC. StarCraft II comes to mind, as they must allow for player made maps and mods, and they must have some system that prevents abuse and griefing. ( I would presume a number of times played thing were the best maps are rated on the number of time played.)
Also, we could have several people set up websites outside of STO who give critiques and reviews of mission made by players and also have a rating board of the most popular ones. After all, we see people have reviews for the shows, that are really well thought out, and those who want to find some of the best Content creators have to offer, should be willing to look to more informed sites for list and reviews.
There's also the map/terrain editor. And the fact that you can't level efficiently by grinding mobs in this game. It comes through mission rewards here, primarily, which are often time sensitive. As opposed to CoH where grinding enemies was an efficient path of advancement.
This is why it almost has to be time limited (ie. you can only do one UGC mission per X minutes) or with a reward that scales based on a formula that allots for time spent and objectives completed, with a hard cap on what you can get.
Let's get back on to the issues of the empire.
Thanks,
Stormshade
Better yet, how about you can only do the SAME mission once a day. That way no one can ever use one mission to farm, and if a certain person only creates farm missions he'll get reported by the people who dont want there to be farming once they see more than one mission like that by him.
Spill the beans and we won't have to!
If it's going to be a major source of PvE content for Klingons like DStahl implied we shouldn't have a limit on the # of UGC missions that can be done per hour/day. At the same time you're going to need protections in place to eliminate farms. I'm curious to know more details as soon as you can tell us.
Or, you only get rewards from a UGC mission once per day, but can play it many times in a day. I see this as necessary in case someone really likes a mission, and wants their fleet-mates to play it; or with a person running through one of their own missions a few times to work out the bugs. Or, you know, just because.
As for issues of the Empire, well, UGC is currently our best hope for more PvE
This is a possible solution as well since people will probably have limits on how many missions they can publish at a time.
The way I'd expect this to work is to give someone something like 3 missions they can publish per character and then giving them an extra slot after enough positive reviews. It's not a catch all but it would pretty much require powerleveling to be organized and coupled with reward limits like time-based rewards and limits on how many enemies they can place, should solve it.
Whatever the case, I do think you should be able to run or create UGC with fewer limits in a "not for credit" capacity. (One example of how this might work is for UGC missions to inherently NOT grant credit but have other missions you do while on a UGC map for credit.)
In any case, I'm sure UGC will be good for Klingons and any dedicated group of players with very specific ideas on the content they want. I'm actually hoping to join a fleet based entirely around making UGC when it happens.
You mean you only get the reward for each mission once per day, or only one mission total? Because considering the lack of episodes on the Klingon side, it would be a little lame to limit them to only 1 per day. People who start the game a year from now should have UGC as a viable source of leveling, assuming its not farming we're talking about.
Rewards for missions in UGC are only by time-spent; with a cap on how much time can be built up toward a reward.
Example: You start gaining skill points 10 minutes into a mission, you stop gaining them 40 minutes into a mission. A mission designed to be done very very rapidly will get you nothing; and AFKing for 40 minutes is just wasting your playtime* and won't actually be any more efficient than normal leveling. (In fact it would probably be a lot worse.)
Basically, leveling by UGC is only profitable if you play it properly. If you try to cheat the system, you'll end up going slower than people playing normally.
There is one large disadvantage to this; but I think it's worth putting up with - if you have very-quick diplomacy based missions; people might not be getting xp for them at all. Of course, an under-10 minute mission isn't much of a Star Trek episode, so I'm not sure if that's really all that much of a problem. The other small disadvantage is that very long missions might not be worth the xp they'd be worth under a normal reward system. However, Commander-> Captain -> Admiral -> VA goes very quickly as is, so only Lt. and Lt. Commander characters are going to have any real issue there; and really, just the promise of something new to do would be enough for me to invest the time. >.>
I don't think limiting the completion of a given map will help - people will just make more farms and rotate through them if you try to go that way. (Likewise, what's to stop someone from removing a map, renaming it, and putting it back up with a different filename? Same mission, different name, the system likely won't be able to tell that though. Only way there would be to limit uploads/downloads with a time frame, which would be annoying for people who're actually working on missions.)
*This is of course before the consideration of the AFK logout timer; however there are plenty of means to circumvent it if someone really wanted to.
Soooo...what new KDF content is planned to come down the pipe that the KDF community can chime in on? For instance, what about this new Dev design for the KDF ship...why keep it a surprise? Lets bring the idea out of the shadows and open it up to the KDF community for contributing toward its design path and vetting it as a KDF design...because lets be real, we'll have to fly it...lets make sure its going to be something we'll want to fly.
Lets look at the possible visual models, lets us contribute to its tweaking as it goes through its approval process...lets get some input.
Honestly, there is no need for all the secercy and "surprises" for KDf content anymore. Let's pull the KDF content out of the "Skunk Works" and make it more of a community project.
As a community, we need an avenue to direct our energies...we need the distraction.
So be it if they want to trade story progression for time spent traveling, I say. They've been doing that anyway.
Yeah, I guess let them. They'll just cap sooner, which means nothing right now(we can all level cap easy)...just make sure no emblems, or high end gear, etc can be given out for UGC.