There's nothing that suggests that they didn't pay attention to the feedback on Tribble. Just because they didn't change what they were doing doesn't mean they didn't see the feedback. It's a fatal flaw in any sort of debate/argument/discussion to assume that just because someone doesn't agree with you that they either don't get it, or aren't listening.
No, is as much of an answer as Yes is.
They knew full well what people on Tribble were saying. They knew full well what peoples reaction would be fore they even posted the patch notes. They knew that people wouldn't be happy with the change. Taking away a easy reward will always make people upset, but that doesn't mean that the reward doesn't need to be changed or removed.
That argument might hold water, had Stahl not had his little pre-S7 chat on the forums accknowledging player feedback, and promising to adhere to the nearly universal hatred of the STF neutering he eventually tried to sneak in when S7 launched.
When you tell people "hey we're listening and we're going to make changes based on your feedback", and then turn around and do exactly the opposite it gives the very clear impression that you're one (or more) of the following:
Devs infrequently drop in and out of the forums to comment on areas within their purview in an attempt to inform the players but because their areas of responsibility might be limited or perhaps there's only so much they're allowed to discuss, they frequently get misinterpreted or are met with genuine hostility from the player-base.
That might be true for Gozer, or even a rep like Stormshade.
But when Jack Emmert or Daniel Stahl post, there really aren't as many limitations. They should choose their words a bit more carefully because people will take their statements as fact.
And most of the time they're just pie in the sky conjecture.
The "you are only a (loud) minority, you don't matter" line of thought... is finally completely absurd because... have you ever heard how TV is made?
Ever heard of those "Nielson Boxes"
A chosen minority is observed, and that minority is REPRESENTATIVE for the majority of the TV audience.
For a sample to be scientifically valid, it needs to be random. This is one of the many things that needs to be done to minimize the influence of bias on the part of both the researchers and the participants. The reason forums don't necessarily work as a sample is because the forum posters are not a random sampling of the player base. We are a self selecting sample composed of dedicated players who actively seek out deeper information on the game. The average forum poster is going to be way off the curve relative to the player base at large as far as the time they invest, level of detailed knowledge, etc. That can be useful when we are providing feedback, but we should in no way be considered a scientific sample of the player base at large. As I said before, sometimes forum activity is a useful metric, and sometimes it isn't.
Nielsen ratings are more accurate because they are, in fact, random. There is no requirement to be a Nielsen participant aside from picking up the phone when they call you and agreeing to do it. You don't need to care enough about TV to seek them out, which is the entire point. Sampling error is a problem in any study, and it is possible that the random selection of people at the time of Enterprise's airing did not accurately represent the proportion of people who enjoyed the show. But, we can't measure everybody, so you get the best sample you can and take what you get. The biggest issue historically with Nielsen is that the sample size is way too small, but that's a separate issue and also applicable to the proportion of MMO players who post on forums. Way too small.
That might be true for Gozer, or even a rep like Stormshade.
But when Jack Emmert or Daniel Stahl post, there really aren't as many limitations. They should choose their words a bit more carefully because people will take their statements as fact.
And most of the time they're just pie in the sky conjecture.
Which creates more than a little friction.
Sadly Dan's posts seem little more than PR puff-pieces these days and I think that's a big part of the problem - he's lost so much credibility that everything he says is taken with a heavy pinch of salt.
The situation isn't irreparable, but it's Dan/Cryptic that needs to take some big steps to start winning back the trust of the forum community.
Asking people to spend their time testing your game and providing feedback and then completely disregarding all of it takes a special kind of chutzpah
From the developer's end, you're there for stress testing.
You'd have to go back something like a decade or more to find a time when tester feedback was actually paid attention to by developers. 9/10ths of the time that it appears they're listening to players, it's just a coincidence. 9/10ths of the remainder usually entails the developer spitefully implementing some player suggestion, often neglecting a vital component of the suggestion. The remaining 1% of the time, the developer actually gets it right.
In the post-WoW era, most testers are there for early access (read: find exploits so they can abuse them before they're fixed on the live servers), and most of the rest are there for any exclusive promo items.
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
Agree, and I have always maintained that forums do hold a greater importance then some would like to believe, or would like "you" to believe.
Some may say the latest issue will die down and things will revert back to normal, however checking that thread, you will see a large amount of new people posting, so maybe this issue is bigger than some would like you to believe.
Yes, they should definitely listen to posters over any hard data in game, or take other sources of feedback into account. Especially posters who state many times they never even play STO any longer -- they just like to come and post on the Forums to stir the pot as they find the exercise entertaining.
Posters feedback SHOULD be taken into account; but such feedback shouldn't be taken in a vacuum; or weighted disproportionately over other sources. All feedback is valuable and should be considered.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
One thing about this from my point of View, I'm a small fleet leader, I know all of my members. When my other half and I took a break, 2 others came along with us to another game. By the way I'm the only one who posts here. So this "minority" poster, apparently can effect more than they want to think, since I took 2 others with me to another game and a third went to yet another. Oh look, thats 4 people now not playing STO.
But only one, posts. What was that about us not having an effect?
In the post-WoW era, most testers are there for early access (read: find exploits so they can abuse them before they're fixed on the live servers), and most of the rest are there for any exclusive promo items.
You know, I think I'd even be OK with that if bugs that are flagged during testing are actually addressed but take the Borg Doffs in the Rep system - that was flagged on Tribble and still pushed live - it just gives the impression that they don't give a damn.
I think you make good points, and of course, you're right - once you've lost your temper you've lost the argument - but anger and frustration is something that builds over time when issues aren't getting addressed - there was no need for the outpouring of rage from the community over the Season 7 Dilithium nerfs since the Devs should have paid attention to the feedback they were getting from Tribble.
Asking people to spend their time testing your game and providing feedback and then completely disregarding all of it takes a special kind of chutzpah
But we're humans and we have some ability to get over annoying stuff. For yourself, not to fall into mental illness, not to get ignored (and be even more frustrated). Unfortunately, there's another passion behind frustration related to game, it's passion for money, because games aren't free and people expect others to do exactly what they want if they give them money.
There's no easy solutions because it would imply to be able to deal with frustration, and not to overestimate the importance of money in life. Most of the players are americans so this is already a lost cause.
That argument might hold water, had Stahl not had his little pre-S7 chat on the forums accknowledging player feedback, and promising to adhere to the nearly universal hatred of the STF neutering he eventually tried to sneak in when S7 launched.
When you tell people "hey we're listening and we're going to make changes based on your feedback", and then turn around and do exactly the opposite it gives the very clear impression that you're one (or more) of the following:
Lying
Oblivious
Incompetent
None of which are things that engender trust.
We absolutely do listen to feedback. But there is another issue, some people like to exploit.
I take full responsibility and freely admit that we have been heavy handed with closing exploits and that in the future we will strive to be more considerate about how we close loopholes. Providing clear alternatives for players NOT exploiting while we close down the holes.
If you go back in time to when Foundry missions HAD NO REWARDS, these issues were not around. It is only when we started adding "tangible" rewards to the Foundry that the issues surrounding the Foundry became more in depth.
We want to reward Foundry missions. We want players to be recognized for making great missions (where great is determined by the player base - not us).
However, as soon as we started attaching real rewards to the Foundry, exploits started.
Whether it was the click a contact missions or the recent AFK farming of Foundry missions, having rewards on Foundry missions is problematic.
We take responsibility for putting the rewards there in the first place, but it is out of our desire to credit those who make missions in the Foundry that achieve status in the community.
So recently, we pulled Fleet Marks from the Foundry because there were too many people AFK completing missions, or in other words logging into the mission, letting the client sit there for 30 minutes and then collecting rewards, and Fleet Marks to boot.
Should we have upped the Fleet Marks on other missions before we pulled the FMs from the Foundry? Well I think the answer is obviously yes.
But to think that we are pulling Fleet Marks without an intention to add them back is false. We really do monitor Fleet Marks daily and we know how last week's changes impacted overall Fleet Mark earning. We will be compensating in this week's update to Holodeck.
Will it make everyone happy? no. But it will add Fleet Marks back into the economy.
We do plan to continue updating the Fleet Mark economies as the game progresses and as stated in posts several days ago, we will be reclassifying what are Events and what are Fleet Actions with a goal of making Fleet Marks the reward for "Group" gameplay.
Fleet Projects are only a small percentage Fleet Mark based so if you do not like to "group" then you'll have to contribute in other ways. We DO expect Fleet Holdings to require "group" gameplay for the most part. This is why we will continue to tune Fleet Holdings up through the May update.
it just gives the impression that they don't give a damn.
I'm sure for the most part that it becomes just a job for them. Ultimately, they're subject to the dictates of upper management, which is always protected from the ****storm and has totally different priorities from players (even though making player priorities their own priorities would probably result in greater revenue over the long term).
Also, in the case of some specific bugs, there may not be a fix, an easy fix, or a practical fix, etc. You and I certainly have no idea what programming corners they cut along the way, or just how much of a mess the code is (I wouldn't even be qualified to guess, though you better be damn sure I'd be complaining about it if it seemed to be affecting performance).
And that's why forum posters practically need to be unruly; the only way to reach upper management is through developers (who we're already often dealing with through an intermediary), and the only way to do that is by scaring them ****less, to the point that management can read the fear in their eyes (or something, you get the idea). They're no doubt underfunded, understaffed, overworked, there's plenty of stuff to fix with the existing content and yet they're always pushed to work on new content (read: new revenue).
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
We absolutely do listen to feedback. But there is another issue, some people like to exploit.
I take full responsibility and freely admit that we have been heavy handed with closing exploits and that in the future we will strive to be more considerate about how we close loopholes. Providing clear alternatives for players NOT exploiting while we close down the holes.
If you go back in time to when Foundry missions HAD NO REWARDS, these issues were not around. It is only when we started adding "tangible" rewards to the Foundry that the issues surrounding the Foundry became more in depth.
We want to reward Foundry missions. We want players to be recognized for making great missions (where great is determined by the player base - not us).
However, as soon as we started attaching real rewards to the Foundry, exploits started.
Whether it was the click a contact missions or the recent AFK farming of Foundry missions, having rewards on Foundry missions is problematic.
We take responsibility for putting the rewards there in the first place, but it is out of our desire to credit those who make missions in the Foundry that achieve status in the community.
So recently, we pulled Fleet Marks from the Foundry because there were too many people AFK completing missions, or in other words logging into the mission, letting the client sit there for 30 minutes and then collecting rewards, and Fleet Marks to boot.
Should we have upped the Fleet Marks on other missions before we pulled the FMs from the Foundry? Well I think the answer is obviously yes.
But to think that we are pulling Fleet Marks without an intention to add them back is false. We really do monitor Fleet Marks daily and we know how last week's changes impacted overall Fleet Mark earning. We will be compensating in this week's update to Holodeck.
Will it make everyone happy? no. But it will add Fleet Marks back into the economy.
We do plan to continue updating the Fleet Mark economies as the game progresses and as stated in posts several days ago, we will be reclassifying what are Events and what are Fleet Actions with a goal of making Fleet Marks the reward for "Group" gameplay.
Fleet Projects are only a small percentage Fleet Mark based so if you do not like to "group" then you'll have to contribute in other ways. We DO expect Fleet Holdings to require "group" gameplay for the most part. This is why we will continue to tune Fleet Holdings up through the May update.
While a decent explanation of your course of action (one that I still don't agree with or accept mind you, but we're long past that now) in regards to IOR, you still haven't spoken to the second elephant in the room: your apparent utter disdain for smaller fleets being viable in the fleet holding system.
Dan, with all due respect, why are you posting this here when the Fleet Marks thread needs your attention?
Not that it isn't appreciated - it's great when you take the time to discuss things with the community but you don't do it nearly often enough or in-depth enough.
If it's a problem for you - if there's just too many issues that need your attention and too few hours in the day then get someone to do it for you.
I'm going to copy your post across to the Fleet Marks one because it's a good post.
dastahl, I sympathize with you on this issue,as the unintended consequences of trying to help get more players into the Foundry has caused all sorts of FM problems. We City of Hero fans saw this same thing happen with Mission Architect when that went live several years ago. For every exploit that was "fixed" (making many people unhappy), 2 new ones would suddenly pop up.
Basically, there's no way to stop Foundry exploits when there's an economic incentive for players to create those exploits.
Maybe give incentives for playing JUST those Foundry missions that are "official" spotlight ones.
I started a new alt this weekend just as a break from doing Fleet stuff, and I'd forgotten that there are some pretty good story missions in here. Maybe you could add 'some" Dil for replays of these missions by players. Between that and some Dil for spotlight Foundry missions (maybe an added 2-3 new Spotlights a month), people could get the Dil they need AND have a variety of ways to do it.
Should we have upped the Fleet Marks on other missions before we pulled the FMs from the Foundry? Well I think the answer is obviously yes.
Could we maybe get some extra elite level fleet queues? And maybe some New Romulan ones as well (just not Mine Trap; it's awesome, but hard enough already with most PUGs)?
EDIT: Might as well add the biggest wish list item, even though it's unrelated - what are the odds you can make reputation account wide? I'd really like to start working on an alt (at a cost of 100+ zen for the build, all of which I'll be paying cash for), but the rep grind alone is keeping me from getting behind the idea. It's the future of rep grinding in MMO gaming; might as well start the trend, or at least be an early adopter.
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
We want to reward Foundry missions. We want players to be recognized for making great missions (where great is determined by the player base - not us).
.
Maybe you could email that statement to Brandflakes. SO that he can re-evaluate how he personally picks spotlight missions and allow the community to have some input on great foundry missions that are spotlighted.
Beers,
Jengoz
"Star Trek Online is powered by the most abundant resource in the galaxy . . . Gullibility"
If you go back in time to when Foundry missions HAD NO REWARDS, these issues were not around. It is only when we started adding "tangible" rewards to the Foundry that the issues surrounding the Foundry became more in depth.
Keep in mind, you introduced the foundry to the game, you introduced rewards to it. You made its issues. a set group of players took advantage of it.
We want to reward Foundry missions. We want players to be recognized for making great missions (where great is determined by the player base - not us).
Then you need to immediately remove the foundry spotlight, as that is you determining them, not us. This shows favoritism by you, not us. This also creates an image problem for you since only certain types of missions seem to be spotlighted.
We take responsibility for putting the rewards there in the first place, but it is out of our desire to credit those who make missions in the Foundry that achieve status in the community.
You don't have to credit them, let us do that, if we like it, we play it. if not, we don't. Keeping the foundry at a distance from you helps keep you from looking like you're engaged in Favoritism, right now, its not the case.
So recently, we pulled Fleet Marks from the Foundry because there were too many people AFK completing missions, or in other words logging into the mission, letting the client sit there for 30 minutes and then collecting rewards, and Fleet Marks to boot.
This, would be less, of an issue if you hadn't made the IOR, a 30 minute repeatable mission. Again, you created the enabling device for this exploit. People aren't stupid, the IOR in that form was the single best way to gain everything you need in the game, in one place, with little to no effort. When you make it so, expect people to use it in the worse way possible
Should we have upped the Fleet Marks on other missions before we pulled the FMs from the Foundry? Well I think the answer is obviously yes.
If you do, then do explain why you didn't do it with the changes? Why not delay the change until you can? Yes it would have allowed an exploit to continue for a while, but you'd still come out better for it. Close the exploit and provide a better alternate route. Those who didn't exploit wouldn't have been effected.
But to think that we are pulling Fleet Marks without an intention to add them back is false. We really do monitor Fleet Marks daily and we know how last week's changes impacted overall Fleet Mark earning. We will be compensating in this week's update to Holodeck.
We do plan to continue updating the Fleet Mark economies as the game progresses and as stated in posts several days ago, we will be reclassifying what are Events and what are Fleet Actions with a goal of making Fleet Marks the reward for "Group" gameplay.
I would caution you to not make it "flleet" group only. Consider some fleets, aren't always on at the same time, some folks are in odd Time zones for the fleet, things like this.
Fleet Projects are only a small percentage Fleet Mark based so if you do not like to "group" then you'll have to contribute in other ways. We DO expect Fleet Holdings to require "group" gameplay for the most part. This is why we will continue to tune Fleet Holdings up through the May update.
This is fine, but I would also highly suggest you consider the small fleets in this. Go look at some of the suggestions that have been offered to you to IMPROVE your system, to make more folks happy, yet, keep them in game. the suggestion of a smaller fleet having less items to put in, but more time to have it complete was a perfect one in my opinion, as it rewards you for having both sides. large fleet takes less time, small fleet takes less material.
And last Sir, I want you to consider my signature, and its meaning. If we're not having fun, then why log in?
We absolutely do listen to feedback. But there is another issue, some people like to exploit.
I take full responsibility and freely admit that we have been heavy handed with closing exploits and that in the future we will strive to be more considerate about how we close loopholes. Providing clear alternatives for players NOT exploiting while we close down the holes.
If you go back in time to when Foundry missions HAD NO REWARDS, these issues were not around. It is only when we started adding "tangible" rewards to the Foundry that the issues surrounding the Foundry became more in depth.
We want to reward Foundry missions. We want players to be recognized for making great missions (where great is determined by the player base - not us).
However, as soon as we started attaching real rewards to the Foundry, exploits started.
Whether it was the click a contact missions or the recent AFK farming of Foundry missions, having rewards on Foundry missions is problematic.
We take responsibility for putting the rewards there in the first place, but it is out of our desire to credit those who make missions in the Foundry that achieve status in the community.
So recently, we pulled Fleet Marks from the Foundry because there were too many people AFK completing missions, or in other words logging into the mission, letting the client sit there for 30 minutes and then collecting rewards, and Fleet Marks to boot.
Should we have upped the Fleet Marks on other missions before we pulled the FMs from the Foundry? Well I think the answer is obviously yes.
But to think that we are pulling Fleet Marks without an intention to add them back is false. We really do monitor Fleet Marks daily and we know how last week's changes impacted overall Fleet Mark earning. We will be compensating in this week's update to Holodeck.
Will it make everyone happy? no. But it will add Fleet Marks back into the economy.
We do plan to continue updating the Fleet Mark economies as the game progresses and as stated in posts several days ago, we will be reclassifying what are Events and what are Fleet Actions with a goal of making Fleet Marks the reward for "Group" gameplay.
Fleet Projects are only a small percentage Fleet Mark based so if you do not like to "group" then you'll have to contribute in other ways. We DO expect Fleet Holdings to require "group" gameplay for the most part. This is why we will continue to tune Fleet Holdings up through the May update.
So you object to afk'ers in foundry missions. In solo content. Yet afk'ers in PvP and STFs who ruin the gameplay experience for a group are met with no reduced incentives after years of it.
Add fleet marks for PvP. Incentivise effort if you can see if somebody is "letting the client sit there." Otherwise, act on reported afk'ers in PvP and in a short time they will disappear.
_______________ CommanderDonatra@Capt.Sisko: ahhh is it supposed to do that? Norvo Tigan@dontdrunkimshoot: hell ya, maybe
Yes, they should definitely listen to posters over any hard data in game, or take other sources of feedback into account. Especially posters who state many times they never even play STO any longer -- they just like to come and post on the Forums to stir the pot as they find the exercise entertaining.
Posters feedback SHOULD be taken into account; but such feedback shouldn't be taken in a vacuum; or weighted disproportionately over other sources. All feedback is valuable and should be considered.
Lol, you make me laugh Arms.
Your right I don't play STO anymore, but your just as culpable in stirring the pot. Just because you do it from a "Fan" point of view, your views are just unhelpful as mine. You cannot wait to jump on any of my posts that dares to have a pop at this game.
Why not just ignore them as they seem to bother you so much. If I stir the pot, it seems you and the others need to rush to take a spoon of it.
Why? Because you want to debate whatever it is and get your point across just as much as the next one.
My advice to you, ignore my posts. I won't ignore yours though as I find them highly amusing...
Keep flying the flag...
Straight from the mouth of one of the leaders of the CDF - "I tell you what, Haven't spent any money either - I'm a lousy freeloader" - Jonsills 17/12/2014
the suggestion of a smaller fleet having less items to put in, but more time to have it complete was a perfect one in my opinion, as it rewards you for having both sides. large fleet takes less time, small fleet takes less material.
Seems reasonable to me.
What I'd really like to hear from dstahl is why such a system wouldn't be implemented. Not so I can point a finger and say it's all about the corporate greed (corporation is fantastic, but not all corporations are fantastic). I really just want to see some of the behind-the-scenes reasons for why changes are or aren't made (again, not so I can point the finger at you, but maybe so I can point it at some future developer, or at least not you at the present time).
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
So you object to afk'ers in foundry missions. In solo content. Yet afk'ers in PvP and STFs who ruin the gameplay experience for a group are met with no reduced incentives after years of it.
Add fleet marks for PvP. Incentivise effort if you can see if somebody is "letting the client sit there." Otherwise, act on reported afk'ers in PvP and in a short time they will disappear.
^^ This. I will refuse to take part of any PvP if there is fleet marks or PvP rep added to the system with no option to kick AFKers from the match.
Fleet marks or PvP rep added to the PvP system will open another door for leeching AFKers.
You know, I think I'd even be OK with that if bugs that are flagged during testing are actually addressed but take the Borg Doffs in the Rep system - that was flagged on Tribble and still pushed live - it just gives the impression that they don't give a damn.
It really becomes a balancing act for the developers. Does an entire update get delayed -- perhaps for a lengthy amount of time -- over said bug? Or do you let it go through for now to let players have the rest of the update, while working on a bug fix going forward?
If a bug is not gamebreaking overall, it will probably be allowed through for the short term, especially if it is difficult to track down. This is not unreasonable.
I have yet to play an MMO where this was not the case, or where people don't complain about bugs the game launched with and are still not fixed. It's not that the dev's are not working on it or that they don't care, but that identifying *and resolving* said bugs without adversely affecting other game components may be problematic.
So you object to afk'ers in foundry missions. In solo content. Yet afk'ers in PvP and STFs who ruin the gameplay experience for a group are met with no reduced incentives after years of it.
Add fleet marks for PvP. Incentivise effort if you can see if somebody is "letting the client sit there." Otherwise, act on reported afk'ers in PvP and in a short time they will disappear.
We are actively working on solutions to AFK'ing and we are working directly with customer service to establish how we are going to do it.
You will see some changes in PvP this week. We are still gathering information on STFs, but will be acting on that issue soon as well.
Again, we are looking to make sensible changes. We realize that we control the game code and so if an exploit exists, we responsible for it. But we are also responsible to resolve issues that are adversly impacting the game.
We absolutely do listen to feedback. But there is another issue, some people like to exploit.
I take full responsibility and freely admit that we have been heavy handed with closing exploits and that in the future we will strive to be more considerate about how we close loopholes. Providing clear alternatives for players NOT exploiting while we close down the holes.
If you go back in time to when Foundry missions HAD NO REWARDS, these issues were not around. It is only when we started adding "tangible" rewards to the Foundry that the issues surrounding the Foundry became more in depth.
We want to reward Foundry missions. We want players to be recognized for making great missions (where great is determined by the player base - not us).
However, as soon as we started attaching real rewards to the Foundry, exploits started.
Whether it was the click a contact missions or the recent AFK farming of Foundry missions, having rewards on Foundry missions is problematic.
We take responsibility for putting the rewards there in the first place, but it is out of our desire to credit those who make missions in the Foundry that achieve status in the community.
So recently, we pulled Fleet Marks from the Foundry because there were too many people AFK completing missions, or in other words logging into the mission, letting the client sit there for 30 minutes and then collecting rewards, and Fleet Marks to boot.
Should we have upped the Fleet Marks on other missions before we pulled the FMs from the Foundry? Well I think the answer is obviously yes.
But to think that we are pulling Fleet Marks without an intention to add them back is false. We really do monitor Fleet Marks daily and we know how last week's changes impacted overall Fleet Mark earning. We will be compensating in this week's update to Holodeck.
Will it make everyone happy? no. But it will add Fleet Marks back into the economy.
We do plan to continue updating the Fleet Mark economies as the game progresses and as stated in posts several days ago, we will be reclassifying what are Events and what are Fleet Actions with a goal of making Fleet Marks the reward for "Group" gameplay.
Fleet Projects are only a small percentage Fleet Mark based so if you do not like to "group" then you'll have to contribute in other ways. We DO expect Fleet Holdings to require "group" gameplay for the most part. This is why we will continue to tune Fleet Holdings up through the May update.
Please kindly HURRY UP and put Fleet Marks into the PVP queues, my fleet & many others enjoy teaming up and fighting others. We're not quite sure how this has been overlooked since Season 6, but i'm sure you merely forgot. Can we expect that oversight in a not too distant patch...?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] @Aquitaine985 Lag Industries STO PvP Fleet - Executive
A Sad Panda of Industrial calibre. 2010: This is Cryptic PvP. Please hold the line, your call is very important to us...
We are actively working on solutions to AFK'ing and we are working directly with customer service to establish how we are going to do it.
You will see some changes in PvP this week. We are still gathering information on STFs, but will be acting on that issue soon as well.
Again, we are looking to make sensible changes. We realize that we control the game code and so if an exploit exists, we responsible for it. But we are also responsible to resolve issues that are adversly impacting the game.
You see what's happening Dan? You pop up in this thread and it immediately gets derailed (not that I mind) because so many people are clamouring for answers that they're not getting from you or the Devs.
This is the root of the problem. Players have invested thousands of hours and thousands of dollars in this game and they want to know what your plans are to address outstanding issues. They want to know that their Fleets and their characters are in the hands of a leader that understands their concerns and is taking steps to address that.
Communication is key to that, and it's an area where Cryptic is failing badly.
Your right I don't play STO anymore, but your just as culpable in stirring the pot. Just because you do it from a "Fan" point of view, your views are just unhelpful as mine. You cannot wait to jump on any of my posts that dares to have a pop at this game.
Why not just ignore them as they seem to bother you so much. If I stir the pot, it seems you and the others need to rush to take a spoon of it.
Why? Because you want to debate whatever it is and get your point across just as much as the next one.
My advice to you, ignore my posts. I won't ignore yours though as I find them highly amusing...
Keep flying the flag...
Yeah, you follow your usual reply MO. If you look at my available posting history, you'll see I give them credit where I think its die; and criticism when I feel they've done something bad. And I occasionally go overboard on either side; but, at least I'm palying the game and experiencing the effect of these decisions (good or bad) and posting my thoughts based on that experience.
I don't hang around on the Forums of MMOs I no longer play; as I have no real basis for feedback of the actual current gameplay situation first hand. If I dislike a developer's actions enough. For Example: I personally think SOE and EA/BioWare are some of the worst MMO developers around atm -- based solely on their poor decisions regarding MMOs they administer and develop -- but I just stop playing their games, I don't hang around stirring up stuff; but that's me.)
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Its not only small Fleets, KDF Fleets due to their smaller playbase have much longer queues and their ability to generate Fleet Marks is significant lower that Federation Fleets.
The preposterous Fleet Marks requirements are the main issue, also they kill future growth so enjoy some Mega Fleets and then dead or stuck Fleets because THAT is the future, the Fleet System exists only for a few, everyone that gets into the game now can forget about using it.
Yes, we need 10 people to be able to accomplish everything that 100 people can in the exact same amount of time. Your mission, Dan, is to overcome mathematics.
Welcome to MMO's. The more play hours you put into them, the more goodies you get. That's the motivation to, you know, keep playing. If I play for 10 hours a day and you play for 2 hours a day, I will get everything sooner than you do, but, given a finite amount of stuff in the game, you will eventually catch up. Likewise, 100 people will be able to invest a whole lot more man hours per week in the game than 10 will, under normal circumstances, so they'll get everything faster. But given a finite amount of stuff, eventually the ten will catch up.
Would I like faster queues on KDF side? Of course. That's why I didn't mind removing Fleet Marks from the Foundry. More people in the queues. But even so, just based on math, Feds are going to progress faster, on the whole, than KDF, and big fleets faster than small ones. Its hard to engineer a system that overcomes arithmetic.
Communication is key to that, and it's an area where Cryptic is failing badly.
They seem pretty active to me, compared to the general lack of activity I see from developers in other MMOs, which is to say other developers usually avoid general forums except to troll or make vague statements, and 90% of developer comments are off-topic in various other sub-forums.
Don't forget that there's a huge liability in being too vocal; players are very likely to develop expectations, usually unreasonable if not outright fantastical expectations, and when they don't manifest players blame the developers. Just look at the recent Romulan tease regarding May; I highly doubt it's a fully furnished Romulan faction, or that Klingons will get a 1-20. That may not be the case at all (though I'd love my own D'Deridex, and I damn well expect one, perhaps unreasonably so).
Speaking of Klingons, I would have thought Klingon players were of the same breed as release-WoW Horde. They sure complain an awful lot for a group of supposed warriors, but perhaps that's why the Klingons have been losing territory pretty much constantly since the TOS series.
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
Comments
That argument might hold water, had Stahl not had his little pre-S7 chat on the forums accknowledging player feedback, and promising to adhere to the nearly universal hatred of the STF neutering he eventually tried to sneak in when S7 launched.
When you tell people "hey we're listening and we're going to make changes based on your feedback", and then turn around and do exactly the opposite it gives the very clear impression that you're one (or more) of the following:
Lying
Oblivious
Incompetent
None of which are things that engender trust.
That might be true for Gozer, or even a rep like Stormshade.
But when Jack Emmert or Daniel Stahl post, there really aren't as many limitations. They should choose their words a bit more carefully because people will take their statements as fact.
And most of the time they're just pie in the sky conjecture.
Which creates more than a little friction.
For a sample to be scientifically valid, it needs to be random. This is one of the many things that needs to be done to minimize the influence of bias on the part of both the researchers and the participants. The reason forums don't necessarily work as a sample is because the forum posters are not a random sampling of the player base. We are a self selecting sample composed of dedicated players who actively seek out deeper information on the game. The average forum poster is going to be way off the curve relative to the player base at large as far as the time they invest, level of detailed knowledge, etc. That can be useful when we are providing feedback, but we should in no way be considered a scientific sample of the player base at large. As I said before, sometimes forum activity is a useful metric, and sometimes it isn't.
Nielsen ratings are more accurate because they are, in fact, random. There is no requirement to be a Nielsen participant aside from picking up the phone when they call you and agreeing to do it. You don't need to care enough about TV to seek them out, which is the entire point. Sampling error is a problem in any study, and it is possible that the random selection of people at the time of Enterprise's airing did not accurately represent the proportion of people who enjoyed the show. But, we can't measure everybody, so you get the best sample you can and take what you get. The biggest issue historically with Nielsen is that the sample size is way too small, but that's a separate issue and also applicable to the proportion of MMO players who post on forums. Way too small.
Sadly Dan's posts seem little more than PR puff-pieces these days and I think that's a big part of the problem - he's lost so much credibility that everything he says is taken with a heavy pinch of salt.
The situation isn't irreparable, but it's Dan/Cryptic that needs to take some big steps to start winning back the trust of the forum community.
You'd have to go back something like a decade or more to find a time when tester feedback was actually paid attention to by developers. 9/10ths of the time that it appears they're listening to players, it's just a coincidence. 9/10ths of the remainder usually entails the developer spitefully implementing some player suggestion, often neglecting a vital component of the suggestion. The remaining 1% of the time, the developer actually gets it right.
In the post-WoW era, most testers are there for early access (read: find exploits so they can abuse them before they're fixed on the live servers), and most of the rest are there for any exclusive promo items.
Yes, they should definitely listen to posters over any hard data in game, or take other sources of feedback into account. Especially posters who state many times they never even play STO any longer -- they just like to come and post on the Forums to stir the pot as they find the exercise entertaining.
Posters feedback SHOULD be taken into account; but such feedback shouldn't be taken in a vacuum; or weighted disproportionately over other sources. All feedback is valuable and should be considered.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
But only one, posts. What was that about us not having an effect?
You know, I think I'd even be OK with that if bugs that are flagged during testing are actually addressed but take the Borg Doffs in the Rep system - that was flagged on Tribble and still pushed live - it just gives the impression that they don't give a damn.
But we're humans and we have some ability to get over annoying stuff. For yourself, not to fall into mental illness, not to get ignored (and be even more frustrated). Unfortunately, there's another passion behind frustration related to game, it's passion for money, because games aren't free and people expect others to do exactly what they want if they give them money.
There's no easy solutions because it would imply to be able to deal with frustration, and not to overestimate the importance of money in life. Most of the players are americans so this is already a lost cause.
God, lvl 60 CW. 17k.
We absolutely do listen to feedback. But there is another issue, some people like to exploit.
I take full responsibility and freely admit that we have been heavy handed with closing exploits and that in the future we will strive to be more considerate about how we close loopholes. Providing clear alternatives for players NOT exploiting while we close down the holes.
If you go back in time to when Foundry missions HAD NO REWARDS, these issues were not around. It is only when we started adding "tangible" rewards to the Foundry that the issues surrounding the Foundry became more in depth.
We want to reward Foundry missions. We want players to be recognized for making great missions (where great is determined by the player base - not us).
However, as soon as we started attaching real rewards to the Foundry, exploits started.
Whether it was the click a contact missions or the recent AFK farming of Foundry missions, having rewards on Foundry missions is problematic.
We take responsibility for putting the rewards there in the first place, but it is out of our desire to credit those who make missions in the Foundry that achieve status in the community.
So recently, we pulled Fleet Marks from the Foundry because there were too many people AFK completing missions, or in other words logging into the mission, letting the client sit there for 30 minutes and then collecting rewards, and Fleet Marks to boot.
Should we have upped the Fleet Marks on other missions before we pulled the FMs from the Foundry? Well I think the answer is obviously yes.
But to think that we are pulling Fleet Marks without an intention to add them back is false. We really do monitor Fleet Marks daily and we know how last week's changes impacted overall Fleet Mark earning. We will be compensating in this week's update to Holodeck.
Will it make everyone happy? no. But it will add Fleet Marks back into the economy.
We do plan to continue updating the Fleet Mark economies as the game progresses and as stated in posts several days ago, we will be reclassifying what are Events and what are Fleet Actions with a goal of making Fleet Marks the reward for "Group" gameplay.
Fleet Projects are only a small percentage Fleet Mark based so if you do not like to "group" then you'll have to contribute in other ways. We DO expect Fleet Holdings to require "group" gameplay for the most part. This is why we will continue to tune Fleet Holdings up through the May update.
Also, in the case of some specific bugs, there may not be a fix, an easy fix, or a practical fix, etc. You and I certainly have no idea what programming corners they cut along the way, or just how much of a mess the code is (I wouldn't even be qualified to guess, though you better be damn sure I'd be complaining about it if it seemed to be affecting performance).
And that's why forum posters practically need to be unruly; the only way to reach upper management is through developers (who we're already often dealing with through an intermediary), and the only way to do that is by scaring them ****less, to the point that management can read the fear in their eyes (or something, you get the idea). They're no doubt underfunded, understaffed, overworked, there's plenty of stuff to fix with the existing content and yet they're always pushed to work on new content (read: new revenue).
While a decent explanation of your course of action (one that I still don't agree with or accept mind you, but we're long past that now) in regards to IOR, you still haven't spoken to the second elephant in the room: your apparent utter disdain for smaller fleets being viable in the fleet holding system.
Dan, with all due respect, why are you posting this here when the Fleet Marks thread needs your attention?
Not that it isn't appreciated - it's great when you take the time to discuss things with the community but you don't do it nearly often enough or in-depth enough.
If it's a problem for you - if there's just too many issues that need your attention and too few hours in the day then get someone to do it for you.
I'm going to copy your post across to the Fleet Marks one because it's a good post.
Basically, there's no way to stop Foundry exploits when there's an economic incentive for players to create those exploits.
Maybe give incentives for playing JUST those Foundry missions that are "official" spotlight ones.
I started a new alt this weekend just as a break from doing Fleet stuff, and I'd forgotten that there are some pretty good story missions in here. Maybe you could add 'some" Dil for replays of these missions by players. Between that and some Dil for spotlight Foundry missions (maybe an added 2-3 new Spotlights a month), people could get the Dil they need AND have a variety of ways to do it.
EDIT: Might as well add the biggest wish list item, even though it's unrelated - what are the odds you can make reputation account wide? I'd really like to start working on an alt (at a cost of 100+ zen for the build, all of which I'll be paying cash for), but the rep grind alone is keeping me from getting behind the idea. It's the future of rep grinding in MMO gaming; might as well start the trend, or at least be an early adopter.
Maybe you could email that statement to Brandflakes. SO that he can re-evaluate how he personally picks spotlight missions and allow the community to have some input on great foundry missions that are spotlighted.
Beers,
Jengoz
And last Sir, I want you to consider my signature, and its meaning. If we're not having fun, then why log in?
Add fleet marks for PvP. Incentivise effort if you can see if somebody is "letting the client sit there." Otherwise, act on reported afk'ers in PvP and in a short time they will disappear.
CommanderDonatra@Capt.Sisko: ahhh is it supposed to do that?
Norvo Tigan@dontdrunkimshoot: hell ya, maybe
Lol, you make me laugh Arms.
Your right I don't play STO anymore, but your just as culpable in stirring the pot. Just because you do it from a "Fan" point of view, your views are just unhelpful as mine. You cannot wait to jump on any of my posts that dares to have a pop at this game.
Why not just ignore them as they seem to bother you so much. If I stir the pot, it seems you and the others need to rush to take a spoon of it.
Why? Because you want to debate whatever it is and get your point across just as much as the next one.
My advice to you, ignore my posts. I won't ignore yours though as I find them highly amusing...
Keep flying the flag...
What I'd really like to hear from dstahl is why such a system wouldn't be implemented. Not so I can point a finger and say it's all about the corporate greed (corporation is fantastic, but not all corporations are fantastic). I really just want to see some of the behind-the-scenes reasons for why changes are or aren't made (again, not so I can point the finger at you, but maybe so I can point it at some future developer, or at least not you at the present time).
^^ This. I will refuse to take part of any PvP if there is fleet marks or PvP rep added to the system with no option to kick AFKers from the match.
Fleet marks or PvP rep added to the PvP system will open another door for leeching AFKers.
It really becomes a balancing act for the developers. Does an entire update get delayed -- perhaps for a lengthy amount of time -- over said bug? Or do you let it go through for now to let players have the rest of the update, while working on a bug fix going forward?
If a bug is not gamebreaking overall, it will probably be allowed through for the short term, especially if it is difficult to track down. This is not unreasonable.
I have yet to play an MMO where this was not the case, or where people don't complain about bugs the game launched with and are still not fixed. It's not that the dev's are not working on it or that they don't care, but that identifying *and resolving* said bugs without adversely affecting other game components may be problematic.
We are actively working on solutions to AFK'ing and we are working directly with customer service to establish how we are going to do it.
You will see some changes in PvP this week. We are still gathering information on STFs, but will be acting on that issue soon as well.
Again, we are looking to make sensible changes. We realize that we control the game code and so if an exploit exists, we responsible for it. But we are also responsible to resolve issues that are adversly impacting the game.
Please kindly HURRY UP and put Fleet Marks into the PVP queues, my fleet & many others enjoy teaming up and fighting others. We're not quite sure how this has been overlooked since Season 6, but i'm sure you merely forgot. Can we expect that oversight in a not too distant patch...?
@Aquitaine985
Lag Industries STO PvP Fleet - Executive
A Sad Panda of Industrial calibre.
2010: This is Cryptic PvP. Please hold the line, your call is very important to us...
You see what's happening Dan? You pop up in this thread and it immediately gets derailed (not that I mind) because so many people are clamouring for answers that they're not getting from you or the Devs.
This is the root of the problem. Players have invested thousands of hours and thousands of dollars in this game and they want to know what your plans are to address outstanding issues. They want to know that their Fleets and their characters are in the hands of a leader that understands their concerns and is taking steps to address that.
Communication is key to that, and it's an area where Cryptic is failing badly.
Yeah, you follow your usual reply MO. If you look at my available posting history, you'll see I give them credit where I think its die; and criticism when I feel they've done something bad. And I occasionally go overboard on either side; but, at least I'm palying the game and experiencing the effect of these decisions (good or bad) and posting my thoughts based on that experience.
I don't hang around on the Forums of MMOs I no longer play; as I have no real basis for feedback of the actual current gameplay situation first hand. If I dislike a developer's actions enough. For Example: I personally think SOE and EA/BioWare are some of the worst MMO developers around atm -- based solely on their poor decisions regarding MMOs they administer and develop -- but I just stop playing their games, I don't hang around stirring up stuff; but that's me.)
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Yes, we need 10 people to be able to accomplish everything that 100 people can in the exact same amount of time. Your mission, Dan, is to overcome mathematics.
Welcome to MMO's. The more play hours you put into them, the more goodies you get. That's the motivation to, you know, keep playing. If I play for 10 hours a day and you play for 2 hours a day, I will get everything sooner than you do, but, given a finite amount of stuff in the game, you will eventually catch up. Likewise, 100 people will be able to invest a whole lot more man hours per week in the game than 10 will, under normal circumstances, so they'll get everything faster. But given a finite amount of stuff, eventually the ten will catch up.
Would I like faster queues on KDF side? Of course. That's why I didn't mind removing Fleet Marks from the Foundry. More people in the queues. But even so, just based on math, Feds are going to progress faster, on the whole, than KDF, and big fleets faster than small ones. Its hard to engineer a system that overcomes arithmetic.
Don't forget that there's a huge liability in being too vocal; players are very likely to develop expectations, usually unreasonable if not outright fantastical expectations, and when they don't manifest players blame the developers. Just look at the recent Romulan tease regarding May; I highly doubt it's a fully furnished Romulan faction, or that Klingons will get a 1-20. That may not be the case at all (though I'd love my own D'Deridex, and I damn well expect one, perhaps unreasonably so).
Speaking of Klingons, I would have thought Klingon players were of the same breed as release-WoW Horde. They sure complain an awful lot for a group of supposed warriors, but perhaps that's why the Klingons have been losing territory pretty much constantly since the TOS series.