test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

So, to be clear, we will NOT be using our "inactive ships" in the Admiralty system(?)

1235

Comments

  • johnnymo1johnnymo1 Member Posts: 697 Arc User
    Tacofangs, it sounds like you have tried out the system or at least know it better. I imagine you can't give away anything about it, but how close to doffing is this system, and are the rewards similar to doff rewards, or something new?
  • zobovorzobovor Member Posts: 198 Arc User
    edited August 2015
    when I play a video game I want to be the one in control of the action, not just sitting and waiting for timers to expire.

    Offhandedly I wonder .... , do timers cause lag ?
    I have about 40-60 of them going right now, on a single account ... , and the game was not timer based when it was introduced .... , not to the insane rate it is now .

    Anyhow , back to the convo ... -- I still wonder if this new ship-doff system is something Bort adapted the STO doff system to do, or was it an import from NW onto STO's rickety code ?
  • lizweilizwei Member Posts: 936 Arc User
    tacofangs wrote: »
    beraht wrote: »
    Back when the DOFF system was being developed, I suggested it be ships instead of crew. My first officer should be dealing with all the mundane crew assignments anyways. So even if it is just card-ships we send on missions, at least I would feel more like an admiral than I do sending a bartender on some random assignment.

    No disagreement there. Sending other ships on missions is certainly an "Admiral" type thing to do. However, that is not my point. My point is that nothing unique about our actual ships matters in the Admiralty system. So in fact, we will not be using OUR inactive ships. We will be using a generic playing card that represents that type of ship, but not our actual ship with our actual gear.

    Is that a really bad thing though?

    Not necessarily. But I do think it is "problematic" to advertise the system incorrectly, which creates false expectations for people who do not scour social media and find the quotes I provided.

    While that may be how it came across, we've been describing it all weekend at STLV as "Doffing for your inactive ships." Which seems pretty accurate to me.

    The original line, "Take command of your inactive starships to complete dangerous assignments and gather exciting rewards, while advancing your influence in the Admiralty campaigns." Is not inherently deceptive. It is hyping the system, as every dev blog, and all PR/Marketing does for every game. You've been around long enough to know better than to jump to conclusions based on a single line of a blog. Wait until things are explained further, then draw conclusions.

    No, that is inherently deceptive. Because I was decieved, and so were many others.
    This goes way beyond hype, so please at least admit when your marketing people have messed up.
  • robbie222222robbie222222 Member Posts: 120 Arc User
    The generic version of a new expensive tier 6 ship will undoubtably be more rewarding then using a tier 5u. And if you need to activate the real version to doff the generic version even MORE MONEY IN SOMEONES POCKET. The real problem with the game is the rewards for multiyear players are the same as newly minted veteran buy ins.
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,114 Arc User
    edited August 2015
    lizwei wrote: »
    tacofangs wrote: »
    beraht wrote: »
    Back when the DOFF system was being developed, I suggested it be ships instead of crew. My first officer should be dealing with all the mundane crew assignments anyways. So even if it is just card-ships we send on missions, at least I would feel more like an admiral than I do sending a bartender on some random assignment.

    No disagreement there. Sending other ships on missions is certainly an "Admiral" type thing to do. However, that is not my point. My point is that nothing unique about our actual ships matters in the Admiralty system. So in fact, we will not be using OUR inactive ships. We will be using a generic playing card that represents that type of ship, but not our actual ship with our actual gear.

    Is that a really bad thing though?

    Not necessarily. But I do think it is "problematic" to advertise the system incorrectly, which creates false expectations for people who do not scour social media and find the quotes I provided.

    While that may be how it came across, we've been describing it all weekend at STLV as "Doffing for your inactive ships." Which seems pretty accurate to me.

    The original line, "Take command of your inactive starships to complete dangerous assignments and gather exciting rewards, while advancing your influence in the Admiralty campaigns." Is not inherently deceptive. It is hyping the system, as every dev blog, and all PR/Marketing does for every game. You've been around long enough to know better than to jump to conclusions based on a single line of a blog. Wait until things are explained further, then draw conclusions.

    No, that is inherently deceptive. Because I was decieved, and so were many others.
    This goes way beyond hype, so please at least admit when your marketing people have messed up.

    To be clear, I do NOT think anyone at Cryptic intentionally tried to make anyone believe something that wasn't true. I simply think calling the admiralty ships "our inactive ships" is incorrect, because in reality they are completely different things. A doff is not a boff, and an admiralty ship is not an inactive ship.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • lizweilizwei Member Posts: 936 Arc User
    lizwei wrote: »
    tacofangs wrote: »
    beraht wrote: »
    Back when the DOFF system was being developed, I suggested it be ships instead of crew. My first officer should be dealing with all the mundane crew assignments anyways. So even if it is just card-ships we send on missions, at least I would feel more like an admiral than I do sending a bartender on some random assignment.

    No disagreement there. Sending other ships on missions is certainly an "Admiral" type thing to do. However, that is not my point. My point is that nothing unique about our actual ships matters in the Admiralty system. So in fact, we will not be using OUR inactive ships. We will be using a generic playing card that represents that type of ship, but not our actual ship with our actual gear.

    Is that a really bad thing though?

    Not necessarily. But I do think it is "problematic" to advertise the system incorrectly, which creates false expectations for people who do not scour social media and find the quotes I provided.

    While that may be how it came across, we've been describing it all weekend at STLV as "Doffing for your inactive ships." Which seems pretty accurate to me.

    The original line, "Take command of your inactive starships to complete dangerous assignments and gather exciting rewards, while advancing your influence in the Admiralty campaigns." Is not inherently deceptive. It is hyping the system, as every dev blog, and all PR/Marketing does for every game. You've been around long enough to know better than to jump to conclusions based on a single line of a blog. Wait until things are explained further, then draw conclusions.

    No, that is inherently deceptive. Because I was decieved, and so were many others.
    This goes way beyond hype, so please at least admit when your marketing people have messed up.

    To be clear, I do NOT think anyone at Cryptic intentionally tried to make anyone believe something that wasn't true. I simply think calling the admiralty ships "our inactive ships" is incorrect, because in reality they are completely different things. A doff is not a boff, and an admiralty ship is not an inactive ship.


    I'm not saying it was or wasn't intentional, just that the statement is in fact deceptive, and Cryptic should take responsibilty for it.
    I'd settle for altering the news post. An apology would be better. Not making the system into a dull doff 2.0 would be ideal, but that won't happen for sure.
  • orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,218 Arc User
    edited August 2015
    gpgtx wrote: »
    "it's" is correct in this case as it is being used as a possessive. not as the contraction "it is"

    replace "it" with enterprise and you would have "enterprise's name, enterprise's gear, and enterprise's appearance"
    Wrong. Its possessive form is "its". The only things that "it's" stand for are "it is" or "it has". Centaurianalpha's post was effectively saying:
    "IMO, there are 3 things that make a ship uniquely "mine": it is name, it is gear, and it is appearance."
  • kavasekavase Member Posts: 771 Arc User
    orangeitis wrote: »
    gpgtx wrote: »
    "it's" is correct in this case as it is being used as a possessive. not as the contraction "it is"

    replace "it" with enterprise and you would have "enterprise's name, enterprise's gear, and enterprise's appearance"
    Wrong. Its possessive form is "its". The only things that "it's" stand for are "it is" or "it has". Centaurianalpha's post was effectively saying
    Fortunately you quoted the wrong person, which gave me a chance to edit my post :D

    Not to mention this was already covered twice yesterday by khamseenair and orion0029. A third time is hardly necessary.
    Retired. I'm now in search for that perfect space anomaly.
  • lordgyorlordgyor Member Posts: 2,818 Arc User
    While it may use some of the same code as the doff system, the actual game its self seems signigicantly different, as are the rules. I just hope you can play it via gateway on your cellphone, at the moment gateway isn'
    t all that useful.
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,114 Arc User
    lordgyor wrote: »
    While it may use some of the same code as the doff system, the actual game its self seems signigicantly different, as are the rules. I just hope you can play it via gateway on your cellphone, at the moment gateway isn'
    t all that useful.

    Is this you over on twitter?



    If so, thanks for getting that clarification from him.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    lizwei wrote: »
    ravin wrote: »
    I have already provided links on the third page to the Dev Blog and Wiki entry for NW's Sword Coast Adventurers. If you read those entries you will see that the Admiralty system is a reskin of that.
    Ok, you are now officially wrong:


    Now you can finally stop saying the same thing over and over.
    Because he's just SO reliable right?
    Geko is more reliable than random forum posters. :p
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • zobovorzobovor Member Posts: 198 Arc User
    Geko is more reliable than random forum posters. :p

    I wouldn't take that bet .

  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    Someone with inside info vs someone with nothing but speculation? :p seems like a safe bet to me.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • ravinravin Member Posts: 509 Arc User
    ravin wrote: »
    I have already provided links on the third page to the Dev Blog and Wiki entry for NW's Sword Coast Adventurers. If you read those entries you will see that the Admiralty system is a reskin of that.

    Ok, you are now officially wrong:





    Now you can finally stop saying this.

    And Vince McMahon said wrestling was real, he had to be reliable he ran the WWF.

    It's so blatantly obvious, how he's been explaining how the system works and the way the NW dev blog reads is almost word for word. If it's not a direct port, it does use elements from it.

    But alas, I can't help a blind person to see, I'll be back when the system releases.
    =\/= ================================ =\/=
    Centurion maximus92
    12th Legion, Romulan Republic
    12th Fleet

    =\/= ================================ =\/=
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,114 Arc User
    ravin wrote: »
    ravin wrote: »
    I have already provided links on the third page to the Dev Blog and Wiki entry for NW's Sword Coast Adventurers. If you read those entries you will see that the Admiralty system is a reskin of that.

    Ok, you are now officially wrong:





    Now you can finally stop saying this.

    And Vince McMahon said wrestling was real, he had to be reliable he ran the WWF.

    It's so blatantly obvious, how he's been explaining how the system works and the way the NW dev blog reads is almost word for word. If it's not a direct port, it does use elements from it.

    But alas, I can't help a blind person to see, I'll be back when the system releases.

    Comparisons can be made between any two things, but that doesnt actually mean they are similar. You can take the two most idealogically opposed politicians and still compare them both as humans and politicians. Likewise, just about every MMO can be compared on the most basic fundamental level, but that doesnt mean every MMO is the same or truly similar. My point is that when this system is finally released I have no doubt that you can find points of comparison and will use thdm to try to prove you were right. But at the end of the day, you will still be officially wrong.


    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • ravinravin Member Posts: 509 Arc User
    The ironic thing is that you started this thread because of something Al said that was inaccurate, and yet you're turning around and telling me to take Al's word for it just because he said, "No."
    =\/= ================================ =\/=
    Centurion maximus92
    12th Legion, Romulan Republic
    12th Fleet

    =\/= ================================ =\/=
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,114 Arc User
    edited August 2015
    ravin wrote: »
    The ironic thing is that you started this thread because of something Al said that was inaccurate, and yet you're turning around and telling me to take Al's word for it just because he said, "No."

    Wrong. This thread is in reference to the blogs description of the admiralty system. Al didnt write that.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • ravinravin Member Posts: 509 Arc User
    ravin wrote: »
    The ironic thing is that you started this thread because of something Al said that was inaccurate, and yet you're turning around and telling me to take Al's word for it just because he said, "No."

    Wrong. This thread is in reference to the blogs description of the admiralty system. Al didnt write that.

    Still, the people who wrote the blogs are close to the development of the game, aren't they reliable? Why the need to start this thread?
    =\/= ================================ =\/=
    Centurion maximus92
    12th Legion, Romulan Republic
    12th Fleet

    =\/= ================================ =\/=
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,114 Arc User
    ravin wrote: »
    ravin wrote: »
    The ironic thing is that you started this thread because of something Al said that was inaccurate, and yet you're turning around and telling me to take Al's word for it just because he said, "No."

    Wrong. This thread is in reference to the blogs description of the admiralty system. Al didnt write that.

    Still, the people who wrote the blogs are close to the development of the game, aren't they reliable? Why the need to start this thread?

    I do not honestly know how close the PR team is to the dev team, but I do know they are in different offices, about 30 mins away.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • lordgyorlordgyor Member Posts: 2,818 Arc User
    I guess we'll find out when it comes out.
  • warmaker001bwarmaker001b Member Posts: 9,204 Arc User
    The only thing that has been deceptively advertised about the new system is the assumptions people had about it.
    XzRTofz.gif
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,114 Arc User
    edited August 2015
    The only thing that has been deceptively advertised about the new system is the assumptions people had about it.

    Unfortunately, the way your worded that sentence does not make sense. By saying "the only thing that has been deceptively advertised about the new system is..." you are saying that what follows the word "is" is something that was "advertised". So you are saying that "the assumptions people had" were "advertised", which makes no sense.

    Moving on, while I do not prefer the word "deceptively", the S11 announcement does contain wording that is false. It says that we will be sending "our inactive ships" on missions, which is not true. Admiralty ships are *not* our inactive ships, they are merely doffs that represent them. Our actual inactive ships aren't being used in this system, just their doff representations.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • warmaker001bwarmaker001b Member Posts: 9,204 Arc User
    The only thing that has been deceptively advertised about the new system is the assumptions people had about it.

    First of all, that statement doesn't even make sense, because you just said that people's assumptions had been advertised. But anyway, my point of issue with this system is that admiralty ships are being referred to as "our inactive ships", which is 100% false. Admiralty ships are *not* our inactive ships, they are completely different things. They are doffs that represent the inactive ships, but *not* the inactive ships themselves. Our actual inactive ships are *not* going to be sent on any missions, as the announcement of S11 incorrectly stated.

    Let's not skirt around little wording technicalities. Because you and I know that is all just TRIBBLE for what people are truly after.

    Let's get to the REAL HEART of the matter. People are jumping down Cryptic's TRIBBLE because it's not the system where they can call in their old ships to fight alongside them. Since the official news release isn't that, we have threads like these.
    XzRTofz.gif
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,114 Arc User
    The only thing that has been deceptively advertised about the new system is the assumptions people had about it.

    First of all, that statement doesn't even make sense, because you just said that people's assumptions had been advertised. But anyway, my point of issue with this system is that admiralty ships are being referred to as "our inactive ships", which is 100% false. Admiralty ships are *not* our inactive ships, they are completely different things. They are doffs that represent the inactive ships, but *not* the inactive ships themselves. Our actual inactive ships are *not* going to be sent on any missions, as the announcement of S11 incorrectly stated.

    Let's not skirt around little wording technicalities. Because you and I know that is all just TRIBBLE for what people are truly after.

    Let's get to the REAL HEART of the matter. People are jumping down Cryptic's TRIBBLE because it's not the system where they can call in their old ships to fight alongside them. Since the official news release isn't that, we have threads like these.

    The incorrect wording of the news announcement actually gave some people false impressions about the system. This thread is intended to point out that incorrect wording so people can understand what the admiralty system actually is. Our inactive ships are not actually being used at all, only a doff playing card. Those are 2 fundamentally different things, with different meanings.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • warmaker001bwarmaker001b Member Posts: 9,204 Arc User
    The only thing that has been deceptively advertised about the new system is the assumptions people had about it.

    First of all, that statement doesn't even make sense, because you just said that people's assumptions had been advertised. But anyway, my point of issue with this system is that admiralty ships are being referred to as "our inactive ships", which is 100% false. Admiralty ships are *not* our inactive ships, they are completely different things. They are doffs that represent the inactive ships, but *not* the inactive ships themselves. Our actual inactive ships are *not* going to be sent on any missions, as the announcement of S11 incorrectly stated.

    Let's not skirt around little wording technicalities. Because you and I know that is all just TRIBBLE for what people are truly after.

    Let's get to the REAL HEART of the matter. People are jumping down Cryptic's TRIBBLE because it's not the system where they can call in their old ships to fight alongside them. Since the official news release isn't that, we have threads like these.

    The incorrect wording of the news announcement actually gave some people false impressions about the system. This thread is intended to point out that incorrect wording so people can understand what the admiralty system actually is. Our inactive ships are not actually being used at all, only a doff playing card. Those are 2 fundamentally different things, with different meanings.

    There is no "understanding" to bring to people. Again, people had this idea already in their heads because the requests for it are years and years old. Since the news isn't describing that exact dream, again, we have all this new drama.

    People often go into news releases of anything with already predetermined beliefs, expectations. If the news isn't exactly that, people flip their TRIBBLE.
    XzRTofz.gif
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,114 Arc User
    The only thing that has been deceptively advertised about the new system is the assumptions people had about it.

    First of all, that statement doesn't even make sense, because you just said that people's assumptions had been advertised. But anyway, my point of issue with this system is that admiralty ships are being referred to as "our inactive ships", which is 100% false. Admiralty ships are *not* our inactive ships, they are completely different things. They are doffs that represent the inactive ships, but *not* the inactive ships themselves. Our actual inactive ships are *not* going to be sent on any missions, as the announcement of S11 incorrectly stated.

    Let's not skirt around little wording technicalities. Because you and I know that is all just TRIBBLE for what people are truly after.

    Let's get to the REAL HEART of the matter. People are jumping down Cryptic's TRIBBLE because it's not the system where they can call in their old ships to fight alongside them. Since the official news release isn't that, we have threads like these.

    The incorrect wording of the news announcement actually gave some people false impressions about the system. This thread is intended to point out that incorrect wording so people can understand what the admiralty system actually is. Our inactive ships are not actually being used at all, only a doff playing card. Those are 2 fundamentally different things, with different meanings.

    There is no "understanding" to bring to people. Again, people had this idea already in their heads because the requests for it are years and years old. Since the news isn't describing that exact dream, again, we have all this new drama.

    People often go into news releases of anything with already predetermined beliefs, expectations. If the news isn't exactly that, people flip their TRIBBLE.

    It really doesn't matter what idea people had going on, the wording is still incorrect. "Our inactive ships" are not being sent on missions, as the news post says. Instead, a doff that represents them is. Calling that doff "our inactive ship" is just as incorrect as calling a duty officer a bridge officer. They are 2 fundamentally different things, with 2 fundamentally different types of gameplay associated with them.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,218 Arc User
    lizwei wrote: »
    No, that is inherently deceptive. Because I was deceived, and so were many others.
    Just because someone is deceived does not make something deceptive. And by definition, nothing is "inherently" deceptive, as the status of something being deceptive is purely subjective.
  • nickodaemusnickodaemus Member Posts: 711 Arc User
    edited August 2015
    ravin wrote: »
    ravin wrote: »
    I have already provided links on the third page to the Dev Blog and Wiki entry for NW's Sword Coast Adventurers. If you read those entries you will see that the Admiralty system is a reskin of that.

    Ok, you are now officially wrong:





    Now you can finally stop saying this.

    And Vince McMahon said wrestling was real, he had to be reliable he ran the WWF.

    It's so blatantly obvious, how he's been explaining how the system works and the way the NW dev blog reads is almost word for word. If it's not a direct port, it does use elements from it.

    But alas, I can't help a blind person to see, I'll be back when the system releases.

    Dude is exactly right.

    For those who don't play it, you should be aware that Neverwinter now has Strongholds, which are essentially Starbases without the stars. Each system is a testbed for the other to see what players will tolerate in the way of letting them have access to your time and money. PT Barnum's philosophy encapsulates their business model. Also, it is very easy to say this is not the same thing as that in the same way one can say that zebras are not the same thing as horses. Which is not a lie at all.

  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,114 Arc User
    edited August 2015
    orangeitis wrote: »
    lizwei wrote: »
    No, that is inherently deceptive. Because I was deceived, and so were many others.
    And by definition, nothing is "inherently" deceptive, as the status of something being deceptive is purely subjective.

    Technically, you are incorrect. A lie is inherently deceptive, as the intent is to deceive. However, I do NOT think anyone at Cryptic intentionally tried to make anyone believe something that wasn't true. Likewise, I am NOT judging the system or saying it will suck. However, the fact is that calling the admiralty ships "our inactive ships" is incorrect, because they are fundamentally different things. And because they are different things, by calling admiralty ships "our inactive ships", it does give people a wrong impression about what the Admiralty system really is.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • uryenserellonturyenserellont Member Posts: 858 Arc User
    A simple doff system for our ships is not what I wanted or envisioned. Like many others I wanted our actual ships to be used, possibly by our boffs.

    It's sort of like when they were saying we were getting zip lines for ground combat. Omg so cool...unless you were like me and knew right away it was only going to be used in certain maps in designated areas, so we wouldn't be able to go zip lining around maps getting to good sniper positions etc.

    I still hope for a true admiral mission system that uses our ships and boffs.
Sign In or Register to comment.