The Foundry is a good, solid tool for player-generated content, and it ought to get the TLC it deserves to make it even more powerful and easier to use.
It is an entirely different beast than a procedurally-generated "exploration" system, and neither can (or should) substitute for the other.
The draw of a Rogue-style game/minigame is that it is random, unpredictable and open-ended. It's a cure for the theme-park blues, where every adventure is tightly scripted and there is only one path (or at best, a few converging paths) to success.
Story elements are problematic in a true Rogue-style game -- I happen to believe you could generate a satisfying plot, characters, story arc and dialogue in conjunction with a random adventure, but it would take some research and innovation to go where no MMO has gone before. But the archetype of the genre, Rogue itself, had no story and didn't suffer for the lack.
My perception from developer comments is that exploration is a back-burner side project that has hit some snags and won't be ready for prime time any time soon, if ever. My opinion is that a solid exploration system is going to take concentrated effort over time by a team dedicated just to that system. My evaluation is that this would have a significant payoff in retention and recruitment for players who enjoy this style of play... and given the hype for forthcoming titles in this genre, that's a significant market segment.
Maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe I'm quietly getting my portfolio in order for a career change.
(...)Devaluing the whole system because there might be things in it I don't like has about as much logic as saying Amazon.com is an awful website because they carry some products I don't want or like.
Ta-daa!
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
(...)Devaluing the whole system because there might be things in it I don't like has about as much logic as saying Amazon.com is an awful website because they carry some products I don't want or like.
Ta-daa!
Don't try to apply that to the old procedural system. Following the metaphor further, Amazon has actual, differentiated products that you can actually distinguish from each other. Similarly, so does the Foundry: judging it as a single whole is therefore fundamentally flawed.
The procedural system, however, doesn't qualify for that comparison; its very nature means it can only be judged as a single whole. The "missions" from that were about as differentiated from each other as the rocks in a bag of gravel. There's nothing making any particular mission any more special, interesting, or valuable than an individual pebble in that bag of gravel. Hence the system being pulled: it fundamentally couldn't offer anything of any sophistication, whereas the Foundry, if you sort through it, very much can.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
What is funny and sad at the same time and frustrating is that STO should be about exploration, the famous phrase "To boldly go where no one has gone before" has become a mothballed reality.
Seek and ye shall find. Ask and ye shall receive. Rabboni
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" (Benjamin Franklin).
Most unexpectedly, this turned into a flame-fest! Closed it goes!. /sigh What flamefestery is this? pwlaughingtrendy
I really feel like the Foundry is full of good missions that could have things tweaked and be moved to an exploration system, even if they can make a few dozen of them similar but with different species (I'm sure the breen are harassing multiple populations, etc)
But to be fair it could be said that by the very nature of making a Star Trek game (Seek out new life and new civilizations) they're promising exploration content.
(...)Devaluing the whole system because there might be things in it I don't like has about as much logic as saying Amazon.com is an awful website because they carry some products I don't want or like.
Ta-daa!
Don't try to apply that to the old procedural system. (...)
Why, because you don't like it? Show your bag of gravel to a geologist - she might tell you interesting stories about each pebble.
You made your point clear, but don't start to ridicule yourself by telling what I can and can't do because your view might differ.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
(...)Devaluing the whole system because there might be things in it I don't like has about as much logic as saying Amazon.com is an awful website because they carry some products I don't want or like.
Ta-daa!
Don't try to apply that to the old procedural system. (...)
Why, because you don't like it? Show your bag of gravel to a geologist - she might tell you interesting stories about each pebble.
You made your point clear, but don't start to ridicule yourself by telling what I can and can't do because your view might differ.
I'm willing to bet that at least 95% of the playerbase are NOT geologists though
Also, given that none of this game is really 'canon' in the true sense (an unfortunate inevitability of the whole licensing thing), arguing the canon of Foundry missions is moot really.
Real Temporal Operative: Purchased the Special Temporal Agent pack before it was even officially announced!
The *canonicity* of Foundry missions is not the point...it's the fact that the procedural mission system is systematically unable to create meaningful exploration. I strongly suspect that to get anything of that nature, you'd be looking at a fundamentally different game from the engine all the way up, not the Cryptic engine at all. It might not even be an MMO. It could be a single-player PC or console game, or something more in line with Minecraft or the Sims. But in an MMO, I just do not see any viable option because either you have to go to storylines to be engaging, or you have to do a fundamentally different kind of game with totally different objectives, scoring, and systems (like I said, Minecraft, Sims, Kerbal Space Program, etc.).
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
This has really been argued over too many times already (IMO, of course).
Nobody here can agree what exploration ought to be and many of the ideas that have been floated over time are simply not going to be practical. The old cluster system was removed in the sector space redesign and it's never going back the way it was -- it's a simple fact.
Yes, the Foundry can fill some of the gap. No, it will not fill the whole gap all by itself. In the end, the Devs need to come up with some kind of system. Given that we don't collectively have a clear vision of what that might be, it's reasonable to assume that maybe the dev team doesn't have a consensus on direction either. Until they do, it is what it is and arguing about it is pointless.
What isn't pointless is continuing to float new ideas. One of them just might spark.
I'm also going to say that exploration for the sake of exploration, with no real purpose, is probably not going to be something the Devs want to do. It's too nebulous. In game terms, it needs to accomplish something. Once it's clear what purpose exploration is supposed to be accomplishing, the vision will probably come quickly after that.
Is it gathering mats for crafting? Is it a kind of puzzle that needs to be solved? Is it a framework for random encounters for XP and drops? Is it building a colony or an outpost somewhere?
The other reality is that procedural encounters on random maps suck -- at least they suck without a lot of effort involved in making sure they don't suck. They'd probably work out okay in a space encounter, for the most part. But generally, the map and the mission need to fit and ground maps are dev-resource intensive. The Genesis maps were basically just bad. Colony structures on an uninhabited planet. Colonies with not a single colonist in sight. Unreliable map geometry that got you and/or your BOFFs stuck half the time. No, we don't need those back.
This has really been argued over too many times already (IMO, of course).
Nobody here can agree what exploration ought to be....snip
There really isn't anything more that needs to be said beyond this. Reading these threads about exploration, the only thing we know is players want exploration in the game, but everyone seems to have their own minds about what that is or what it looks like.
No matter what Cryptic does, there will be a few that will be happy about it, but many more unhappy.
Retired. I'm now in search for that perfect space anomaly.
I have to recant and redact my statement that you cannot land on a planet in Elite Dangerous. They recently released a Beta for certain players that will allow them to land on a planet and explore it in a buggy (the bad thing about not checking your emails regularly is you miss these things). Of course, expect to find and scavenge resources, crashed ships, and other things. It kind of reminds me of the old hovertank game Battlezone and Battlezone 2.
imho I believe that the exploration part would be a serious undertaking if they wanted to do it right. I am not going to say what I think constitutes for a perfect exploration system because everyone else has expressed some ideas that were close to my own. As far as the developers using Foundry missions as part of the exploration system (or borrow heavily off of them), I would expect some of the player base to complain that the developers "cop'd out" and that they are paid to entertain us, not the players. Another problem would be the fact that the developers might have a totally different "vision" on what they see as exploration for this game, but I do not think they would confirm anything as to what they have planned down the road for us.
It's funny, because I have played alot of mmo's and at the risk of sounding ancient I have seen enough interviews with developers that are less than satisfying. You would get a straighter answer from using a magic 8 ball than getting one from most developers. Alot of times they don't say what they have in store because they can't say it. A few developers here tried to be more forthcoming and when things didn't go as planned, the took alot of heat from it. So now I do not expect a developer to say for sure how the exploration part of this will be handled until they have something more or less set up for it and that could be a very long wait.
Who knows though? Maybe they might make exploration as a "visiting a new galaxy" thing after they finished with the Gamma Quadrant (if they ever start it that is).
TL;DR
*There could be some problems using foundry missions for exploration.
*Devs do not say much during interviews but when they do they run the risk of getting burned if they predict things that never happen.
*Exploration might consist of visiting other galaxies if they ever finish fleshing out our own.
**Bonus** I like angrytarg's pink targ emotes and I am jealous of hyperionx09's sig!
"There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men. The words of Ten Bears carries the same iron of life and death. It is good that warriors such as we meet in the struggle of life... or death. It shall be life." - Ten Bears (Will Sampson)
I'm willing to bet that at least 95% of the playerbase are NOT geologists though
Also, given that none of this game is really 'canon' in the true sense (an unfortunate inevitability of the whole licensing thing), arguing the canon of Foundry missions is moot really.
Me neither (only metaphorically), I personally would have been happier if he'd use the "trees in a forest" analogy . Canonicity though is irrelevant in that context if you talk about Trek canon. The only thing that might apply is consistency with STOs own lore which foundry missions ignore which makes them unfeasible for "official" content.
The *canonicity* of Foundry missions is not the point...it's the fact that the procedural mission system is systematically unable to create meaningful exploration. (...)
In your squeaking opinion. Why are you so bent on telling people that their preferences are presumably objectively wrong? There are people who enjoyed the system and had a sense of exploration, I am one of them, rendering your whole argument invalid. Because visiting random maps is literally what "exploration" means. Playing a scripted story is not exploration, it's experiencing a story.
Look, at no point I said the old system was perfect (it can't be because it was literlly abandoned by the devs the second it hit the live server). At no point I said if it was the only part of the game it would work and at no point did I say it should replace any of the content in the game. But I liked the basic concept and see lots of merit in it and have ideas to build on it. You on the other claw literally do not tire telling "us" who liked the experience that our opinion is objectively wrong, removing the system was right and we should accept to play completely different and unrelated content as a substitute for what we liked. And that's just rude. We all know your opinion now, repeating it over and over again doesn't make your stance any more solid because there's nothing constructive coming from you nor do you adress specific people which would count as a new debate, you just over and over repeat "Go play (my? Therse?) foundry missions, t's much better than what you liked."
This has really been argued over too many times already (IMO, of course).
Nobody here can agree what exploration ought to be (...)
This might be true and I acknowledge the big challenge establishing any new meaningful system would provide. But the simple fact that you stated above does also imply there's no merit in running around and telling people that their preferences are wrong and they should just take what's there. The debate will never die and ideas will never cease to be pushed around, no matter if the devs will at one point comment on them at all or not.
**Bonus** I like angrytarg's pink targ emotes and I am jealous of hyperionx09's sig!
Thanks But they are just regular terran pigs and can be found in the forum extension or on a external emote archive. I actually always wanted to Targify them, but I didn'T act on that urge yet
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I'm not sure you understand what the word "abandoned" means. It has barely been over a year. Not enough time to find a good way to implement exploration and fit it in a major content update. Also, exploration is among the top-listed features for release. PvP probably isn't.
I think that a point I made has been bent out of shape to claim that I said no one else is allowed to have an opinion (false), so I'm going to try my best to explain it one more time and call it a day.
The point I have been trying to make about the old procedural system is that its homogeneous nature means that there are really no new or varied experiences. Experience with a very few missions it generates is enough to be indicative of the entire system given the lack of variety. And as others have also pointed out, a more varied and enriching procedural experience would pretty much require a new game engine. Like it or dislike it (again, I did not say others are forbidden from opinions), you can judge the entire system based on very little interaction with it. With the Foundry--like it or dislike it--the experiences are so widely varied from each other that it is impossible to judge it based on one or a small set of interactions with it. The system inherently has more variety and flexibility.
So in a nutshell here is the point I was making about the variety or lack thereof, that has been twisted out of shape: whether it's a favorable judgment or an unfavorable one--either way--you CAN make a single judgment on the procedural exploration system based on limited interaction (and the system cannot be changed to surpass that limitation without extensive overhaul to the game engine if not a new game), but with the Foundry the experience is far too variable to allow for a single judgment.
And...
Day.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
(...)Devaluing the whole system because there might be things in it I don't like has about as much logic as saying Amazon.com is an awful website because they carry some products I don't want or like.
Ta-daa!
Don't try to apply that to the old procedural system. (...)
Why, because you don't like it? Show your bag of gravel to a geologist - she might tell you interesting stories about each pebble.
You made your point clear, but don't start to ridicule yourself by telling what I can and can't do because your view might differ.
I'm willing to bet that at least 95% of the playerbase are NOT geologists though
I am a proud Geologist. (meaning I appreciated the star cluster EXPLORATION back when we had more star trek in Star trek online..)
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
I think that a point I made has been bent out of shape to claim that I said no one else is allowed to have an opinion (false), so I'm going to try my best to explain it one more time and call it a day.
The point I have been trying to make about the old procedural system is that its homogeneous nature means that there are really no new or varied experiences. Experience with a very few missions it generates is enough to be indicative of the entire system given the lack of variety. And as others have also pointed out, a more varied and enriching procedural experience would pretty much require a new game engine. Like it or dislike it (again, I did not say others are forbidden from opinions), you can judge the entire system based on very little interaction with it. With the Foundry--like it or dislike it--the experiences are so widely varied from each other that it is impossible to judge it based on one or a small set of interactions with it. The system inherently has more variety and flexibility.
So in a nutshell here is the point I was making about the variety or lack thereof, that has been twisted out of shape: whether it's a favorable judgment or an unfavorable one--either way--you CAN make a single judgment on the procedural exploration system based on limited interaction (and the system cannot be changed to surpass that limitation without extensive overhaul to the game engine if not a new game), but with the Foundry the experience is far too variable to allow for a single judgment.
And...
Day.
You're explaining very well why people should not HAVE to play the old exploration missions, and why you did not like it but STILL fail to explain why it was OK to remove content players enjoyed without any reasonable replacement.
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
And any statements about the capabilities of the game engine come with an asterisk -- none of us have worked with it. I see no hard limits inherent in the engine that preclude an ambitious exploration system, and a good deal of evidence to suggest that it is, if not ideal, at least perfectly adequate to support such an endeavor.
And any statements about the capabilities of the game engine come with an asterisk -- none of us have worked with it. I see no hard limits inherent in the engine that preclude an ambitious exploration system, and a good deal of evidence to suggest that it is, if not ideal, at least perfectly adequate to support such an endeavor.
Who knows for sure, but considering the stuff they've been able to pump out in the recent missions (art assets, expansive maps, various mechanics, and so on), they're definitely capable of some great environment and interactive programming.
I'm sure one of the concerns on the table is that the old exploration system, while liked by some, was heavily criticized by others. I'd expect that the next time they try to introduce a new way of exploring, they're going to do it in a way that fits the current quality-level of the most recent art, styling, etc. aspects of the game, as well as including exploration-specific game mechanics. And that takes time, let alone trying figure out what they want to actually do with the system.
Putting truly random, unique content in an MMO is something that even the biggest companies have struggled with. Even single-player titles are laughed at farily often when they try a randomization system, although there's no doubt that some have excelled. It's doable, but it's a long process to produce a worthwhile outcome.
I think that a point I made has been bent out of shape to claim that I said no one else is allowed to have an opinion (false), so I'm going to try my best to explain it one more time and call it a day.
The point I have been trying to make about the old procedural system is that its homogeneous nature means that there are really no new or varied experiences. Experience with a very few missions it generates is enough to be indicative of the entire system given the lack of variety. And as others have also pointed out, a more varied and enriching procedural experience would pretty much require a new game engine. Like it or dislike it (again, I did not say others are forbidden from opinions), you can judge the entire system based on very little interaction with it. With the Foundry--like it or dislike it--the experiences are so widely varied from each other that it is impossible to judge it based on one or a small set of interactions with it. The system inherently has more variety and flexibility.
So in a nutshell here is the point I was making about the variety or lack thereof, that has been twisted out of shape: whether it's a favorable judgment or an unfavorable one--either way--you CAN make a single judgment on the procedural exploration system based on limited interaction (and the system cannot be changed to surpass that limitation without extensive overhaul to the game engine if not a new game), but with the Foundry the experience is far too variable to allow for a single judgment.
And...
Day.
I understand where you are coming from and not just the post. Sometimes people take apart what you try to say and translate it the way they want to and then it's pretty much downhill from there (and no I am not accusing anyone in the thread so don't kick my TRIBBLE, give me a break already lol!). I didn't care much for the old exploration system for the same reasons you have cited with the repetitious missions of either scanning or killing things. It was also all the hassle that came from it, from that one mission where the same five klingons you had to kill UNDER the building and map that were completely protected unless you found that one little niche on the wall where you could fire back at them to the mission where you had to board a freighter that trapped your away team at the entrances to rooms or trapped them behind some crates.
I started to hate the Wadi in ways that have only been surpassed now by the Vaadwaur in ground combat and absolutely detested the anomalous scans that would interfere with regular scans for derelict ships. This was the day in/day out drudgery of exploration back then so I didn't miss it as much when they yanked it. But what to do now?
I have been thinking that maybe a way the devs might approach this is to have certain sections of space with a mission pop up and several missions available that you can take that counts as "exploration" maybe even use that for some sort of "Exploration Reputation" whether they are aspects generated from the player made missions or not. It's not to say that this is some idea of mine but I think that would be one theory as to how the devs might approach the problem of exploration.
"There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men. The words of Ten Bears carries the same iron of life and death. It is good that warriors such as we meet in the struggle of life... or death. It shall be life." - Ten Bears (Will Sampson)
when did anyone in trek actually go where no one has gone before. All the shows I've seen always has someone where they are going already.
anyone that as watched Star Trek knows that exploration is the thing the Enterprise is doing before the episode's problem starts.
"We're charting stars and look a ship...and now Khan is trying to kill us all."
"We're exploring space and look Abe Lincoln is floating in front of us."
"We boldly going...and look a distress call from a planet which is modeled after TRIBBLE Germany."
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I think that a point I made has been bent out of shape to claim that I said no one else is allowed to have an opinion (false), so I'm going to try my best to explain it one more time and call it a day.
The point I have been trying to make about the old procedural system is that its homogeneous nature means that there are really no new or varied experiences. Experience with a very few missions it generates is enough to be indicative of the entire system given the lack of variety. And as others have also pointed out, a more varied and enriching procedural experience would pretty much require a new game engine. Like it or dislike it (again, I did not say others are forbidden from opinions), you can judge the entire system based on very little interaction with it. With the Foundry--like it or dislike it--the experiences are so widely varied from each other that it is impossible to judge it based on one or a small set of interactions with it. The system inherently has more variety and flexibility.
So in a nutshell here is the point I was making about the variety or lack thereof, that has been twisted out of shape: whether it's a favorable judgment or an unfavorable one--either way--you CAN make a single judgment on the procedural exploration system based on limited interaction (and the system cannot be changed to surpass that limitation without extensive overhaul to the game engine if not a new game), but with the Foundry the experience is far too variable to allow for a single judgment.
And...
Day.
You're explaining very well why people should not HAVE to play the old exploration missions, and why you did not like it but STILL fail to explain why it was OK to remove content players enjoyed without any reasonable replacement.
The developers cited among the reasons they decided to remove them:
- People actually got lost in the exploration clusters. E.g. people that wouldn't have to go there, but who did there anyway, because they could.
- It cost a lot of download size
- It considerably impacted the build/release process. (I wonder if the long time it takes to republish Foundry missions after a season or expansion release might be similar to that.)
You can of course say all these are insuffiicent reasons or could be untrue, but that's what we have to go by.
It seems obvious to me that the clusters were not content used heavily, compared to featured episodes or queued missions.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
It seems obvious to me that the clusters were not content used heavily, compared to featured episodes or queued missions.
They were never advertised. Of course most players probably didn't know they existed. the percentage of players who use the forums and are always up to date on every feature of the game without it being waved in their face is about 1-2%
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
They were never advertised. Of course most players probably didn't know they existed. the percentage of players who use the forums and are always up to date on every feature of the game without it being waved in their face is about 1-2%
People have the comprehension skills and attention span of a drunken mushroom, at least that is what I have to assume when a major point stated by those responsible for removing the clusters was that people got lost in them. And when we design a game for people that get lost on a square shaped map without obstructions or objects whatsoever I have a really hard time arguing in favour of systems that do not spell everything out for you, I know.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Ticks me off when I keep reading people say you cant monitize the Foundry. Medium to High level foundry content keeps the REAL Star Trek fans coming back, buying ships and gear, not that they need it to complete Foundry stuff, but you usually felt really powerful with average gear in Foundry missions. Any content keeps the money flowing in, and a quality foundry that the devs actually put 75% effort into would be well worth the investment.
Like I said earlier in thread, PAY the authors for quality content, bigger dil tip options and a stipend of 1000 Zen a month per high quality mission if Cryptic feels they can feature it. We never got the author Follow system that would be a HUGE help to getting and maintaining the best foundry authors, who'd be inspired to make more good content if they knew they had a following that would quickly send new missions to the top of the community charts.
Another thing that just dawned on me, we could bring Genesis back, with foundry community help. In addition to plugging regular foundry mission award winners into a new cluster system, we could also have Foundry template missions. Its rare to find authors that can create epic missions from scratch, but surely we have tons of decent creative players that could take the old cluster missions, and make minor tweaks to them, to feel different, and Cryptic plugs those into the cluster rotation as well.
Imagine having the plot laid out, with most of the functionality locked in. But you let the players pick the planet map, move some building props around, add a few extra to the base set pieces that HAVE to be there, pick the look of the Maguffin from a list of props, edit the names of the ships, species, character names, looks, clothes. Places to edit the dialogue here and there in and around the locked in text critical to the basic plot. Youd then get a TON of cluster missions that varied much more than the original Genesis system did, because you are adding 1/3 player creativity into the formula of each mission. Players couldnt turn the templates into exploiters, and youd get a lot of playable approved content with only 1/3 the creative work that foundry authors do now.
STO: @AGNT009 Since Dec 2010
Capt. Will Conquest of the U.S.S. Crusader
Also, keep the Foundry template missions fresh. Each selected template mission runs for 3 months, Cryptic pays the winners 600 zen for 3 months of play. After 3 months, new winning missions are plugged in and they get their limelight. But a fully created mission that gets spotlighted gets 1000 zen a month for as long as Cryptic feels it adds special value to their mission library. And by template winners, I mean authors who took their edits seriously, no stupid USS KillsRus ship names, stuff like that.
STO: @AGNT009 Since Dec 2010
Capt. Will Conquest of the U.S.S. Crusader
I personally would like to see "exploration" handled as a progressive system where you do missions to unlock more maps and special encounters.
You'd start by charting an unexplored cluster, which eventually unlocks the discovery of an inhabited planet and leads to a first contact. From there, you learn of a legend of another starfaring race which leads you to an uninhabited class M planet with ruins on it. On that planet, you start building an outpost and then supporting a small colony while you unlock the mysteries of the ruins. Like a fleet holding, the outpost/colony would develop over time but ought to be somewhat flexible about what structures/features get built and in what order. You would be involved in helping the colony survive a series of events and near disasters.
Ideally, it would take a long time to complete. It might or might not be a multi-player effort. The Devs could theoretically build it up over time and add new elements to it. I would expect that the fully-realized world would be the same for every character, but flexible in how you get to that point for each individual.
It would be an undertaking worthy of its own expansion. That's my vision. Will we see anything like that? Don't know. I'm not going to drive myself nuts worrying about it.
Comments
It is an entirely different beast than a procedurally-generated "exploration" system, and neither can (or should) substitute for the other.
The draw of a Rogue-style game/minigame is that it is random, unpredictable and open-ended. It's a cure for the theme-park blues, where every adventure is tightly scripted and there is only one path (or at best, a few converging paths) to success.
Story elements are problematic in a true Rogue-style game -- I happen to believe you could generate a satisfying plot, characters, story arc and dialogue in conjunction with a random adventure, but it would take some research and innovation to go where no MMO has gone before. But the archetype of the genre, Rogue itself, had no story and didn't suffer for the lack.
My perception from developer comments is that exploration is a back-burner side project that has hit some snags and won't be ready for prime time any time soon, if ever. My opinion is that a solid exploration system is going to take concentrated effort over time by a team dedicated just to that system. My evaluation is that this would have a significant payoff in retention and recruitment for players who enjoy this style of play... and given the hype for forthcoming titles in this genre, that's a significant market segment.
Maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe I'm quietly getting my portfolio in order for a career change.
Ta-daa!
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Don't try to apply that to the old procedural system. Following the metaphor further, Amazon has actual, differentiated products that you can actually distinguish from each other. Similarly, so does the Foundry: judging it as a single whole is therefore fundamentally flawed.
The procedural system, however, doesn't qualify for that comparison; its very nature means it can only be judged as a single whole. The "missions" from that were about as differentiated from each other as the rocks in a bag of gravel. There's nothing making any particular mission any more special, interesting, or valuable than an individual pebble in that bag of gravel. Hence the system being pulled: it fundamentally couldn't offer anything of any sophistication, whereas the Foundry, if you sort through it, very much can.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Most unexpectedly, this turned into a flame-fest! Closed it goes!. /sigh What flamefestery is this? pwlaughingtrendy
But to be fair it could be said that by the very nature of making a Star Trek game (Seek out new life and new civilizations) they're promising exploration content.
No one from the planet Earth. Or the Federation, Or the human race.
Most unexpectedly, this turned into a flame-fest! Closed it goes!. /sigh What flamefestery is this? pwlaughingtrendy
Why, because you don't like it? Show your bag of gravel to a geologist - she might tell you interesting stories about each pebble.
You made your point clear, but don't start to ridicule yourself by telling what I can and can't do because your view might differ.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I'm willing to bet that at least 95% of the playerbase are NOT geologists though
Also, given that none of this game is really 'canon' in the true sense (an unfortunate inevitability of the whole licensing thing), arguing the canon of Foundry missions is moot really.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Nobody here can agree what exploration ought to be and many of the ideas that have been floated over time are simply not going to be practical. The old cluster system was removed in the sector space redesign and it's never going back the way it was -- it's a simple fact.
Yes, the Foundry can fill some of the gap. No, it will not fill the whole gap all by itself. In the end, the Devs need to come up with some kind of system. Given that we don't collectively have a clear vision of what that might be, it's reasonable to assume that maybe the dev team doesn't have a consensus on direction either. Until they do, it is what it is and arguing about it is pointless.
What isn't pointless is continuing to float new ideas. One of them just might spark.
I'm also going to say that exploration for the sake of exploration, with no real purpose, is probably not going to be something the Devs want to do. It's too nebulous. In game terms, it needs to accomplish something. Once it's clear what purpose exploration is supposed to be accomplishing, the vision will probably come quickly after that.
Is it gathering mats for crafting? Is it a kind of puzzle that needs to be solved? Is it a framework for random encounters for XP and drops? Is it building a colony or an outpost somewhere?
The other reality is that procedural encounters on random maps suck -- at least they suck without a lot of effort involved in making sure they don't suck. They'd probably work out okay in a space encounter, for the most part. But generally, the map and the mission need to fit and ground maps are dev-resource intensive. The Genesis maps were basically just bad. Colony structures on an uninhabited planet. Colonies with not a single colonist in sight. Unreliable map geometry that got you and/or your BOFFs stuck half the time. No, we don't need those back.
In my opinion.
There really isn't anything more that needs to be said beyond this. Reading these threads about exploration, the only thing we know is players want exploration in the game, but everyone seems to have their own minds about what that is or what it looks like.
No matter what Cryptic does, there will be a few that will be happy about it, but many more unhappy.
Of course, the rest of my statement stands.
It's funny, because I have played alot of mmo's and at the risk of sounding ancient I have seen enough interviews with developers that are less than satisfying. You would get a straighter answer from using a magic 8 ball than getting one from most developers. Alot of times they don't say what they have in store because they can't say it. A few developers here tried to be more forthcoming and when things didn't go as planned, the took alot of heat from it. So now I do not expect a developer to say for sure how the exploration part of this will be handled until they have something more or less set up for it and that could be a very long wait.
Who knows though? Maybe they might make exploration as a "visiting a new galaxy" thing after they finished with the Gamma Quadrant (if they ever start it that is).
TL;DR
*There could be some problems using foundry missions for exploration.
*Devs do not say much during interviews but when they do they run the risk of getting burned if they predict things that never happen.
*Exploration might consist of visiting other galaxies if they ever finish fleshing out our own.
**Bonus** I like angrytarg's pink targ emotes and I am jealous of hyperionx09's sig!
Me neither (only metaphorically), I personally would have been happier if he'd use the "trees in a forest" analogy
In your squeaking opinion. Why are you so bent on telling people that their preferences are presumably objectively wrong? There are people who enjoyed the system and had a sense of exploration, I am one of them, rendering your whole argument invalid. Because visiting random maps is literally what "exploration" means. Playing a scripted story is not exploration, it's experiencing a story.
Look, at no point I said the old system was perfect (it can't be because it was literlly abandoned by the devs the second it hit the live server). At no point I said if it was the only part of the game it would work and at no point did I say it should replace any of the content in the game. But I liked the basic concept and see lots of merit in it and have ideas to build on it. You on the other claw literally do not tire telling "us" who liked the experience that our opinion is objectively wrong, removing the system was right and we should accept to play completely different and unrelated content as a substitute for what we liked. And that's just rude. We all know your opinion now, repeating it over and over again doesn't make your stance any more solid because there's nothing constructive coming from you nor do you adress specific people which would count as a new debate, you just over and over repeat "Go play (my? Therse?) foundry missions, t's much better than what you liked."
This might be true and I acknowledge the big challenge establishing any new meaningful system would provide. But the simple fact that you stated above does also imply there's no merit in running around and telling people that their preferences are wrong and they should just take what's there. The debate will never die and ideas will never cease to be pushed around, no matter if the devs will at one point comment on them at all or not.
Thanks
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
The point I have been trying to make about the old procedural system is that its homogeneous nature means that there are really no new or varied experiences. Experience with a very few missions it generates is enough to be indicative of the entire system given the lack of variety. And as others have also pointed out, a more varied and enriching procedural experience would pretty much require a new game engine. Like it or dislike it (again, I did not say others are forbidden from opinions), you can judge the entire system based on very little interaction with it. With the Foundry--like it or dislike it--the experiences are so widely varied from each other that it is impossible to judge it based on one or a small set of interactions with it. The system inherently has more variety and flexibility.
So in a nutshell here is the point I was making about the variety or lack thereof, that has been twisted out of shape: whether it's a favorable judgment or an unfavorable one--either way--you CAN make a single judgment on the procedural exploration system based on limited interaction (and the system cannot be changed to surpass that limitation without extensive overhaul to the game engine if not a new game), but with the Foundry the experience is far too variable to allow for a single judgment.
And...
Day.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I am a proud Geologist. (meaning I appreciated the star cluster EXPLORATION back when we had more star trek in Star trek online..)
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
You're explaining very well why people should not HAVE to play the old exploration missions, and why you did not like it but STILL fail to explain why it was OK to remove content players enjoyed without any reasonable replacement.
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
Who knows for sure, but considering the stuff they've been able to pump out in the recent missions (art assets, expansive maps, various mechanics, and so on), they're definitely capable of some great environment and interactive programming.
I'm sure one of the concerns on the table is that the old exploration system, while liked by some, was heavily criticized by others. I'd expect that the next time they try to introduce a new way of exploring, they're going to do it in a way that fits the current quality-level of the most recent art, styling, etc. aspects of the game, as well as including exploration-specific game mechanics. And that takes time, let alone trying figure out what they want to actually do with the system.
Putting truly random, unique content in an MMO is something that even the biggest companies have struggled with. Even single-player titles are laughed at farily often when they try a randomization system, although there's no doubt that some have excelled. It's doable, but it's a long process to produce a worthwhile outcome.
I understand where you are coming from and not just the post. Sometimes people take apart what you try to say and translate it the way they want to and then it's pretty much downhill from there (and no I am not accusing anyone in the thread so don't kick my TRIBBLE, give me a break already lol!). I didn't care much for the old exploration system for the same reasons you have cited with the repetitious missions of either scanning or killing things. It was also all the hassle that came from it, from that one mission where the same five klingons you had to kill UNDER the building and map that were completely protected unless you found that one little niche on the wall where you could fire back at them to the mission where you had to board a freighter that trapped your away team at the entrances to rooms or trapped them behind some crates.
I started to hate the Wadi in ways that have only been surpassed now by the Vaadwaur in ground combat and absolutely detested the anomalous scans that would interfere with regular scans for derelict ships. This was the day in/day out drudgery of exploration back then so I didn't miss it as much when they yanked it. But what to do now?
I have been thinking that maybe a way the devs might approach this is to have certain sections of space with a mission pop up and several missions available that you can take that counts as "exploration" maybe even use that for some sort of "Exploration Reputation" whether they are aspects generated from the player made missions or not. It's not to say that this is some idea of mine but I think that would be one theory as to how the devs might approach the problem of exploration.
anyone that as watched Star Trek knows that exploration is the thing the Enterprise is doing before the episode's problem starts.
"We're charting stars and look a ship...and now Khan is trying to kill us all."
"We're exploring space and look Abe Lincoln is floating in front of us."
"We boldly going...and look a distress call from a planet which is modeled after TRIBBLE Germany."
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
- People actually got lost in the exploration clusters. E.g. people that wouldn't have to go there, but who did there anyway, because they could.
- It cost a lot of download size
- It considerably impacted the build/release process. (I wonder if the long time it takes to republish Foundry missions after a season or expansion release might be similar to that.)
You can of course say all these are insuffiicent reasons or could be untrue, but that's what we have to go by.
It seems obvious to me that the clusters were not content used heavily, compared to featured episodes or queued missions.
They were never advertised. Of course most players probably didn't know they existed. the percentage of players who use the forums and are always up to date on every feature of the game without it being waved in their face is about 1-2%
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
People have the comprehension skills and attention span of a drunken mushroom, at least that is what I have to assume when a major point stated by those responsible for removing the clusters was that people got lost in them. And when we design a game for people that get lost on a square shaped map without obstructions or objects whatsoever I have a really hard time arguing in favour of systems that do not spell everything out for you, I know.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Like I said earlier in thread, PAY the authors for quality content, bigger dil tip options and a stipend of 1000 Zen a month per high quality mission if Cryptic feels they can feature it. We never got the author Follow system that would be a HUGE help to getting and maintaining the best foundry authors, who'd be inspired to make more good content if they knew they had a following that would quickly send new missions to the top of the community charts.
Another thing that just dawned on me, we could bring Genesis back, with foundry community help. In addition to plugging regular foundry mission award winners into a new cluster system, we could also have Foundry template missions. Its rare to find authors that can create epic missions from scratch, but surely we have tons of decent creative players that could take the old cluster missions, and make minor tweaks to them, to feel different, and Cryptic plugs those into the cluster rotation as well.
Imagine having the plot laid out, with most of the functionality locked in. But you let the players pick the planet map, move some building props around, add a few extra to the base set pieces that HAVE to be there, pick the look of the Maguffin from a list of props, edit the names of the ships, species, character names, looks, clothes. Places to edit the dialogue here and there in and around the locked in text critical to the basic plot. Youd then get a TON of cluster missions that varied much more than the original Genesis system did, because you are adding 1/3 player creativity into the formula of each mission. Players couldnt turn the templates into exploiters, and youd get a lot of playable approved content with only 1/3 the creative work that foundry authors do now.
Capt. Will Conquest of the U.S.S. Crusader
Capt. Will Conquest of the U.S.S. Crusader
You'd start by charting an unexplored cluster, which eventually unlocks the discovery of an inhabited planet and leads to a first contact. From there, you learn of a legend of another starfaring race which leads you to an uninhabited class M planet with ruins on it. On that planet, you start building an outpost and then supporting a small colony while you unlock the mysteries of the ruins. Like a fleet holding, the outpost/colony would develop over time but ought to be somewhat flexible about what structures/features get built and in what order. You would be involved in helping the colony survive a series of events and near disasters.
Ideally, it would take a long time to complete. It might or might not be a multi-player effort. The Devs could theoretically build it up over time and add new elements to it. I would expect that the fully-realized world would be the same for every character, but flexible in how you get to that point for each individual.
It would be an undertaking worthy of its own expansion. That's my vision. Will we see anything like that? Don't know. I'm not going to drive myself nuts worrying about it.