test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Faction conundrum, STO insanity, console stats and promo bias.

1356789

Comments

  • admiralkogaradmiralkogar Member Posts: 875 Arc User
    nightken wrote: »
    People complain about anti-KDF bias in the game, where KDF faction got both scarcely-clad Orion girls and big bad-a$$ Gorn dudes without any grounds in Trek canon whatsoever.
    Yeah, right - sounds legit.

    *get a orion on his fed the a gorn on his tos fed then looks over the much larger ship selection* what were you saying again?

    disagreeing about what, if anything should be done about the current imbalance is fine but pretending it doesn't exist is not.

    I normally avoid these kinds of threads, but I'd like to ask what the KDF is supposed to call a good science ship? I kind of force my Fleet K'tinga to stand in for one. I consider the ship to be very versatile. It is even more versatile if you managed to get a lot of Zen store ships you can borrow universals from.

    My main Fed could get the Recon Sci, and the Fleet version, either of which I recommend highly as you near the top levels. It is in my opinion a truly combat worthy sci ship. The K'tingas of any stripe just aren't there. Combat worthy yes. Not a science ship.

    I am giving KDF allied race ships a chance to fill in, but I am still trying to make up my mind. Either way, the ship selection is pretty weak. It's almost worse though if you are a Romulan KDF because KDF faction allegiance does not always help you qualify for ship access. It is slightly better for UFP Romulans because even if they don't get to use all Federation ships, they still have more choices than the KDF Roms.

    Since thelordofshades brings up Orion 'girls' and Gorn 'dudes' in an attempt to claim that makes it all better some how, let me point out that the Fed side is more than capable of having a girl character who is every bit as hot as an Orion, and who can kick every bit as much butt as a Gorn, and they have more racial templates to build from. I'd also point out that the Gorn, and the Orions were both at least nominally hostile to the Federation in canon, so if there was a logical, canon side for them to be on, it would be the KDF.

    But I want to clarify that I don't believe there is a bias. I think it is indifference and apathy that is primarily at work here. That is why the C-store has more ships, costumes, and options in general for the UFP. Nobody is likely saying "To heck with those Klingons! They don't need cool stuff! Lets give it all to the Federation!"

    Instead it is more like "Klingons? We have Klingons in the game? Well then we will have to get around to making some content for them someday, won't we? Someday soon! Next episode for sure ..."

    At a minimum there should be more overlap between Romulan and KDF options. The Romulans had KDF ships in TOS! Remember the NCC-1701 going to warp NINE! Do you also remember the ship type that was gaining on her after she did?! It was a D-7 Battle cruiser! The Duras had so many dealings with the Romulans it seems like an obvious thing for the KDF to have acquired some Romulan ships prior to the destruction of Hobus, and maybe even dress those ships up a bit to be better tools for KDF captains to go marauding with.

    Actually, in all the decades and centuries of warfare, it isn't even a stretch to think that the KDF could have working examples of nearly any ship they engaged since TOS days. Dominion, Romulan, Federation, etc. A way to represent that could be to allow the KDF to use C-Store ships outside their faction as 'prize ships'.

    I am all for fairness ... let the UFP have captured ships also :)

    Anyway, at least then the ship disparity would be a lot less, and maybe we would get some decent sci ships out of it.

    Qapla!
  • admiralkogaradmiralkogar Member Posts: 875 Arc User
    I wouldn't call it poorly researched. that would imply that Olivia collects information then uses the information collected to make a conclusion. Instead Olivia looks for things to argue a nonsensical point.

    I would have to say that all my 'research' supports your conclusion about said poster. I will say that the UFP-KDF option choices are lopsided though. It's ok. I got MY Fleet K'tinga ...

    Qapla!
  • admiralkogaradmiralkogar Member Posts: 875 Arc User
    there was nothing tying the Gorn and the Orions to the Klingons.
    This.

    Except a common enemy ... not technically refuted by any canon I remember seeing for this timeline.

    Qapla!
  • This content has been removed.
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    staq16 wrote: »
    People complain about anti-KDF bias in the game, where KDF faction got both scarcely-clad Orion girls and big bad-a$$ Gorn dudes without any grounds in Trek canon whatsoever.
    Yeah, right - sounds legit.

    Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

    14e02f3014c762b0727d1d3a437134aa.jpg
    tos-arena11.jpg

    I'd say the portrayals of Gorn and Orions were pretty dead-on....

    I think they're referring less to the appearance of the characters than the fact that, in the shows, there was nothing tying the Gorn and the Orions to the Klingons.

    Considering the Federation had Humans, Vulcans, Benzite, Betazoid, Bolian, Andorian, Bajoran, Saurian, Trill, and a few other races while Klingons have no one else, then adding Orions and Gorn to the Klingons makes sense. Otherwise, Cryptic would have to create new subject races for the Klingon Empire and Romulan Star Empire since you can't have a playable faction with only one race. A micro-faction might be possible since those amount to alternate tutorials instead of an actual faction.

    Story-Wise it's prety much a "meh". The Klingons and Romulans were never displayed as culturally diverse or allowing "aliens" into their ranks. The Federation was decidedly human-heavy, but it had quite a few prominent non-humans in its ranks.

    But it's obvious that this is one of the big weaknesses of the Klingon faction. If you don't give them some non-Klingon options, you already have a serious probelm at character creation - "DO I play Fed, that allows all kinds of fancy aliens, including fan favorites like Vulcans or Trill or my own personal creation, or do I play KDF and can choose to play a Klingon, or a Klingon, or a Klingon."
    But forcing Orions and Gorn into the KDF has its own drawback - it dilutes the Klingon experience. It's silly that Orions and Gorn care about Klingon notions of honor, especially if you consider the Gorn are recently conquerend and the Orion are just allied (and everyone else is basically a Merc). No way to believe that these people would just assimilate into the Klingon warrior tradition. Heck, no even reason to believe the Klingon would let them join like that.
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • gawainviiigawainviii Member Posts: 328 Arc User
    The problem I see with the Fed-centric bias is, quite simply, a Catch-22:
    * Cryptic doesn't make KDF/RRF material a priority because they're a small minority of the player-base
    * Players don't choose to play KDF/RRF characters because Cryptic doesn't make faction-specific content a priority

    Sic vita! Quid agis?
    newstosiggy.png
  • This content has been removed.
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
    gawainviii wrote: »
    The problem I see with the Fed-centric bias is, quite simply, a Catch-22:
    * Cryptic doesn't make KDF/RRF material a priority because they're a small minority of the player-base
    * Players don't choose to play KDF/RRF characters because Cryptic doesn't make faction-specific content a priority

    Sic vita! Quid agis?

    Except that the consoles have proven that the Fed-centric bias is not a Catch-22. No new faction-specific content means that it doesn't matter which faction you play as. The consoles have none of the problems with the Klingons (originally PvP only faction) and Romulans (didn't exist for the first couple of years) that supposedly produced the Fed-centric bias on the PC.

    The Fed-centric bias is due to the hundreds of Star Trek episodes that focused purely on a Starfleet crew. Players want to play as Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, or Archer not a Klingon or Romulan captain that was shown in only a couple of episodes. If Star Trek Discovery or a future Star Trek series focuses on a non-Federation Captain, then the Fed-centric bias will be reduced.
  • admiralkogaradmiralkogar Member Posts: 875 Arc User
    coolbatman wrote: »
    i still think that the D7/k'tinga would make a good sci ship just need to make it with a sci varient,i seem to recall that in'day of the dove' that Kang had his sci officer/wife with him, so it would make sense that the klinks having the D7 for so many years would make a sci version of it.

    It is what I try to do with it. Go with the Fleet version since it can be customized more. :)

    Qapla!
  • scarlingscarling Member Posts: 708 Arc User
    frabz-it-dont-matter-none-of-this-matters-9facce.jpg
  • admiralkogaradmiralkogar Member Posts: 875 Arc User
    gawainviii wrote: »
    The problem I see with the Fed-centric bias is, quite simply, a Catch-22:
    * Cryptic doesn't make KDF/RRF material a priority because they're a small minority of the player-base
    * Players don't choose to play KDF/RRF characters because Cryptic doesn't make faction-specific content a priority

    Sic vita! Quid agis?

    I really think it is that simple in terms of the effects on the game. You hit the Nausicaan on the head! ;)

    Qapla!
  • admiralkogaradmiralkogar Member Posts: 875 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    gawainviii wrote: »
    The problem I see with the Fed-centric bias is, quite simply, a Catch-22:
    * Cryptic doesn't make KDF/RRF material a priority because they're a small minority of the player-base
    * Players don't choose to play KDF/RRF characters because Cryptic doesn't make faction-specific content a priority

    Sic vita! Quid agis?

    Except that the consoles have proven that the Fed-centric bias is not a Catch-22. No new faction-specific content means that it doesn't matter which faction you play as. The consoles have none of the problems with the Klingons (originally PvP only faction) and Romulans (didn't exist for the first couple of years) that supposedly produced the Fed-centric bias on the PC.

    The Fed-centric bias is due to the hundreds of Star Trek episodes that focused purely on a Starfleet crew. Players want to play as Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, or Archer not a Klingon or Romulan captain that was shown in only a couple of episodes. If Star Trek Discovery or a future Star Trek series focuses on a non-Federation Captain, then the Fed-centric bias will be reduced.

    In short, the franchise has a Fed-centric bias which programs the majority of fans to lead with visions of how cool their Federation captain will be. I don't think that is actually in dispute.

    I believe the main point in bringing up the disparity is that unless someone here (us, the devs, someone ...) does something to bring attention to the KDF as a fun place to be, this will remain a weak game in terms of having true factions.

    Since the designers went with two factions as part of their vision, and since it is a fairly normal MMO feature, putting a little more energy into making the factions equally attractive would seem wise.

    We had Romulans, Delta Recruits, Temporal Agents, now why not a KDF/Klingon focused event?

    The Temporal Agents had to be TOS core race characters. This gives the idea of going with a single faction for an event some precedence. I really don't see why the KDF couldn't have temporal agents. Because of the future 'peace' and the current ability to have a Federation Klingon I don't see why the Agent couldn't be able to choose to go to to the UFP or the KDF at a certain point in the story missions. The Romulans already do that. More fun ... you could have a character that has the ability to use KDF gear/ships, move freely in Klingon social areas, and is still aligned with the UFP for Fleets and such.

    Or you could be crazy and have a Klingon Diplomat story/event to make some or all of the above happen. Give Fleets another holding at Khitomer, that can act as a shared social hub. Add some content with that theme. Crazy yeah, but sort of sane at the same time ... ;)

    Anyway, Live Long and Qapla!
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    Isn't Orion a Member of the Federation? In any case, it's rather deep in Fed space to be part of the Klingon Empire.
    In the new Star Trek movies and In a Mirror, Darkly, there was Orion Officers, but they are in parallel universes to the Prime Universe and STO Universe. There is only a mention of Orions in Deep Space 9 and Voyager about Orion traders and the Orion Institute of Cosmology. So there is very little known about Orions in the 24th Century. Orions could be members of the Federation, but there is absolutely no proof.
    In TOS it was said that the Orions were working towards becoming part of the Federation. But when it was revealed that they tried to assassinate those ambassadors at the Babel conference, this process was apparently halted. But the Kelvin Timeline hasn't gotten to that point yet. And the mirror!Orions seen in ENT were also from before that point. So early TOS and Pre-TOS Orions were actually allied with Starfleet. At least that's what they wanted the Feds to think anyways. After that? Apparently not.
    and Orion is unoccupied anyway; their homeworld in STO is Terjas Mor​​
    Yes and no, it became largely unlivable, but there's nothing saying it was completely abandoned.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • This content has been removed.
  • thelordofshadesthelordofshades Member Posts: 258 Arc User
    Since thelordofshades brings up Orion 'girls' and Gorn 'dudes' in an attempt to claim that makes it all better some how, let me point out that the Fed side is more than capable of having a girl character who is every bit as hot as an Orion, and who can kick every bit as much butt as a Gorn, and they have more racial templates to build from.

    You are kind of missing the point here.
    I'm pointing out that the fact that Cryptic gave this two rather interesting non-Fed races to Klingons clearly indicates that they WERE making certain efforts to boost the popularity of the Klingon faction in the beginning. (And I have are strong suspicion that there are more - or at least somewhat equal number of - Orion and Gorn characters in the Klingon faction than actual Klingons at the moment).
    I'm more than sure, for example, if they made Orion and Gorn stuff and this races' playbale characters it would have generated more revenue, than restricting them to Klingons.
  • admiralkogaradmiralkogar Member Posts: 875 Arc User
    Since thelordofshades brings up Orion 'girls' and Gorn 'dudes' in an attempt to claim that makes it all better some how, let me point out that the Fed side is more than capable of having a girl character who is every bit as hot as an Orion, and who can kick every bit as much butt as a Gorn, and they have more racial templates to build from.

    You are kind of missing the point here.
    I'm pointing out that the fact that Cryptic gave this two rather interesting non-Fed races to Klingons clearly indicates that they WERE making certain efforts to boost the popularity of the Klingon faction in the beginning. (And I have are strong suspicion that there are more - or at least somewhat equal number of - Orion and Gorn characters in the Klingon faction than actual Klingons at the moment).
    I'm more than sure, for example, if they made Orion and Gorn stuff and this races' playbale characters it would have generated more revenue, than restricting them to Klingons.

    I don't feel I missed the point actually. I agree it was something by way of an attempt to give some equality to the factions. I just feel like most such efforts are more of the "oh yeah, lets give the Klingons something as well" variety. My point in what you quoted was that the UFP has way more options, and it seems easier to make each captain more unique when you have all that.

    I agree also that if the Gorns and Orions had more ships/gear aimed at them,, (C-store or otherwise) it would be awesome for the gamers and Cryptic both. I am going after the ships to fit my captains species where I can. There are no Lethean ships (please tell me if I am wrong, I would be glad to see it). Talaxians could arguably go with a Kazon heavy Raider, (my current plan) and still have it make some sense. Joined Trill have zero access to ships that are not purely factional. There are no Ferasan ships, even though there are Caitian ones.

    I do think it is appropriate to keep the Gorns and Orions with the KDF unless a massive effort is made to introduce other KDF oriented options in their place, and then I would be willing to see them as neutrals in the same way the Romulans supposedly are. Since the UFP has so many 'interesting' species, I don't think we need to worry about them so much though.

    Anyway, we don't have to agree, and I am not big on complaining over the disparity at any great length, as it does little to change things. ;)

    Qapla!
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    I believe the main point in bringing up the disparity is that unless someone here (us, the devs, someone ...) does something to bring attention to the KDF as a fun place to be, this will remain a weak game in terms of having true factions.

    Let's just attack the core of that train of thought though. Does this game, or any MMO need true factions to be a good game?

    This game is strong, and a fun place to be even with its weak alternate "mini" factions.

    And that's the upper level management decision that's been made here for 6 years. Instead of having the Horde versus the Alliance like one particularly successful MMO, they went with factions being a minimal aspect of the game, like other successful MMOs of their own design.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • officerbatman81officerbatman81 Member Posts: 2,761 Arc User
    Everyone here has fallen into the troll trap. You guys should know better.

    How organized would we be if we all ignored "her"?
  • trusinxtrusinx Member Posts: 1 Arc User
    wait, what
  • admiralkogaradmiralkogar Member Posts: 875 Arc User
    I believe the main point in bringing up the disparity is that unless someone here (us, the devs, someone ...) does something to bring attention to the KDF as a fun place to be, this will remain a weak game in terms of having true factions.

    Let's just attack the core of that train of thought though. Does this game, or any MMO need true factions to be a good game?

    This game is strong, and a fun place to be even with its weak alternate "mini" factions.

    And that's the upper level management decision that's been made here for 6 years. Instead of having the Horde versus the Alliance like one particularly successful MMO, they went with factions being a minimal aspect of the game, like other successful MMOs of their own design.

    @snoggymack22 :)

    And I am Ok with that as long as we know the options for KDF are limited more, and we allow that people might wish it was otherwise. I don't think the game is weak. I like it quite a bit, and on another few threads I was saying 'yes, you should get a lifetime sub'.

    If they promote the idea of factions, then they are leading people to an expectation. It cam come across as misleading, unintentionally or not. I would like it that if we don't really care about factions that much, then we should allow more cross faction use of unlocked resources in the game, and I don't think that is so unreasonable. I hope you agree?

    @trusinx this whole topic is likely just a trap to get people to argue. It seems there is a lot of pent up emotion over the content differences for the factions. It can't make me mad, it probaly won't make most of us mad, but the idea @officerbatman81 was putting forth is that as long as we keep this thread alive, the chance of some silly flame war will increase. On that note, maybe it is time to pull our troops out, what do you say? :)

    Respect to all. :)
    Qapla!
  • theraven2378theraven2378 Member Posts: 6,015 Arc User
    eec.jpg

    Op, you have way too much time on your hands
    NMXb2ph.png
      "The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
      -Lord Commander Solar Macharius
    • admiralkogaradmiralkogar Member Posts: 875 Arc User
      patrickngo wrote: »
      starkaos wrote: »
      gawainviii wrote: »
      The problem I see with the Fed-centric bias is, quite simply, a Catch-22:
      * Cryptic doesn't make KDF/RRF material a priority because they're a small minority of the player-base
      * Players don't choose to play KDF/RRF characters because Cryptic doesn't make faction-specific content a priority

      Sic vita! Quid agis?

      Except that the consoles have proven that the Fed-centric bias is not a Catch-22. No new faction-specific content means that it doesn't matter which faction you play as. The consoles have none of the problems with the Klingons (originally PvP only faction) and Romulans (didn't exist for the first couple of years) that supposedly produced the Fed-centric bias on the PC.

      The Fed-centric bias is due to the hundreds of Star Trek episodes that focused purely on a Starfleet crew. (snip)

      In short, the franchise has a Fed-centric bias which programs the majority of fans to lead with visions of how cool their Federation captain will be. I don't think that is actually in dispute.(snip)

      Anyway, Live Long and Qapla!

      It's really a signficant problem from a game-design end. HOW do they make the faction more interesting/attractive without:

      1. blowing the budget.
      2. losing their existing base. (snip)
      3. That first "Winback weekend" might have left psychological scars in it's wake, and a bit of a bunker mentality at the studio.

      I hope nobody minds if I trimmed the above down a bit? ;)

      I think there is a catch 22 effect in that is always word of mouth marketing, and so the difference in content will at least occasionally get mentioned to a new customer. That doesn't mean that most of the problem isn't directly related to the lack of canon Klingon lead roles, and it seems valid to consider that Cryptic has data to support that.

      I still think it is at least a viable option to make more c-store content cross factional.

      Also, really, why can't the KDF capture and use Mirror Fed ships if the Feds can? That is more of what I am trying to get at.

      Anyway, good chance this thread will go south soon. I personally want to thank people for caring enough to look. KDF is what my main character was right off the bat, and I do not regret that. I only sometimes wish my main had more content that fit the faction. More of a wish, than it is a complaint.

      Qapla!
    • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
      I still think it is at least a viable option to make more c-store content cross factional.

      The 31st Century C-Store ships seems to be the start of more cross-factional C-Store ship content. For all we know, some of the options in the Lukari Anniversary Ship event could be used a cross-factional C-Store ships.
    • This content has been removed.
    • jbmonroejbmonroe Member Posts: 809 Arc User
      edited November 2016
      There are two factors the OP ignores:
      1. Regardless of what someone said in 2008 (or 2009, or 2010), this is 2016 and whatever was perceived to be true and viable at that time isn't anymore. (TL;DR: that was then and this is now.)
      2. You can't make a living selling what nobody's buying.

      boldly-watched.png
    • xyquarzexyquarze Member Posts: 2,120 Arc User
      patrickngo wrote: »
      They've actually been homogenizing their asses off for four years...and I don't see KDF numbers increasing.

      Which I doubt would happen (similarily for Romulans) unless they got a really decisive advantage. Not necessarily an overall advantage, although that would help, but one that is a must for certain ways of playing this game. It must beat the current Rom situation by a lot though. And if that were to happen, I can premake some outrage posts about how money grabbing Cryptic forces players to have a Klink/Rom and level through everything once again and buy loads of shinies anew.

      The second question is: is it really that important to have different factions of comparable size? In that other game mentioned here, yes, and it is by far the largest MMO. But having factions just for the sake of having factions isn't necessary the way this game is built, and with the decline of open PvP will not become so. Having factions with unique abilities and/or quirks is nice for choice and a wider gameplay experience, but it doesn't mean everybody needs to be shoehorned into all of them. Yes, the problem with a certain size needed for viable options of making more KDF/Rom stuff does exist, but I don't see the inherent need for KDF and Fed to be on equal footing, since they don't compete the way the factions do in other MMOs.
      My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
    • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
      The second question is: is it really that important to have different factions of comparable size?
      By the standard of economic viability, I'd say STO proves it's not neccessary. I'd even say that it could be a hindrance, trying to split your development efforts across the player population is really only something if you're big.

      t might be seen as desirable by many, but a lot of things that seem desirable are not neccessarily feasible.
      Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
    • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
      nightken wrote: »
      People complain about anti-KDF bias in the game, where KDF faction got both scarcely-clad Orion girls and big bad-a$$ Gorn dudes without any grounds in Trek canon whatsoever.
      Yeah, right - sounds legit.

      *get a orion on his fed the a gorn on his tos fed then looks over the much larger ship selection* what were you saying again?

      disagreeing about what, if anything should be done about the current imbalance is fine but pretending it doesn't exist is not.

      I normally avoid these kinds of threads, but I'd like to ask what the KDF is supposed to call a good science ship? I kind of force my Fleet K'tinga to stand in for one. I consider the ship to be very versatile. It is even more versatile if you managed to get a lot of Zen store ships you can borrow universals from.

      My main Fed could get the Recon Sci, and the Fleet version, either of which I recommend highly as you near the top levels. It is in my opinion a truly combat worthy sci ship. The K'tingas of any stripe just aren't there. Combat worthy yes. Not a science ship.

      I am giving KDF allied race ships a chance to fill in, but I am still trying to make up my mind. Either way, the ship selection is pretty weak. It's almost worse though if you are a Romulan KDF because KDF faction allegiance does not always help you qualify for ship access. It is slightly better for UFP Romulans because even if they don't get to use all Federation ships, they still have more choices than the KDF Roms.

      Since thelordofshades brings up Orion 'girls' and Gorn 'dudes' in an attempt to claim that makes it all better some how, let me point out that the Fed side is more than capable of having a girl character who is every bit as hot as an Orion, and who can kick every bit as much butt as a Gorn, and they have more racial templates to build from. I'd also point out that the Gorn, and the Orions were both at least nominally hostile to the Federation in canon, so if there was a logical, canon side for them to be on, it would be the KDF.

      But I want to clarify that I don't believe there is a bias. I think it is indifference and apathy that is primarily at work here. That is why the C-store has more ships, costumes, and options in general for the UFP. Nobody is likely saying "To heck with those Klingons! They don't need cool stuff! Lets give it all to the Federation!"

      Instead it is more like "Klingons? We have Klingons in the game? Well then we will have to get around to making some content for them someday, won't we? Someday soon! Next episode for sure ..."

      At a minimum there should be more overlap between Romulan and KDF options. The Romulans had KDF ships in TOS! Remember the NCC-1701 going to warp NINE! Do you also remember the ship type that was gaining on her after she did?! It was a D-7 Battle cruiser! The Duras had so many dealings with the Romulans it seems like an obvious thing for the KDF to have acquired some Romulan ships prior to the destruction of Hobus, and maybe even dress those ships up a bit to be better tools for KDF captains to go marauding with.

      Actually, in all the decades and centuries of warfare, it isn't even a stretch to think that the KDF could have working examples of nearly any ship they engaged since TOS days. Dominion, Romulan, Federation, etc. A way to represent that could be to allow the KDF to use C-Store ships outside their faction as 'prize ships'.

      I am all for fairness ... let the UFP have captured ships also :)

      Anyway, at least then the ship disparity would be a lot less, and maybe we would get some decent sci ships out of it.

      Qapla!
      patrickngo wrote: »
      patrickngo wrote: »
      starkaos wrote: »
      gawainviii wrote: »
      The problem I see with the Fed-centric bias is, quite simply, a Catch-22:
      * Cryptic doesn't make KDF/RRF material a priority because they're a small minority of the player-base
      * Players don't choose to play KDF/RRF characters because Cryptic doesn't make faction-specific content a priority

      Sic vita! Quid agis?

      Except that the consoles have proven that the Fed-centric bias is not a Catch-22. No new faction-specific content means that it doesn't matter which faction you play as. The consoles have none of the problems with the Klingons (originally PvP only faction) and Romulans (didn't exist for the first couple of years) that supposedly produced the Fed-centric bias on the PC.

      The Fed-centric bias is due to the hundreds of Star Trek episodes that focused purely on a Starfleet crew. (snip)

      In short, the franchise has a Fed-centric bias which programs the majority of fans to lead with visions of how cool their Federation captain will be. I don't think that is actually in dispute.(snip)

      Anyway, Live Long and Qapla!

      It's really a signficant problem from a game-design end. HOW do they make the faction more interesting/attractive without:

      1. blowing the budget.
      2. losing their existing base. (snip)
      3. That first "Winback weekend" might have left psychological scars in it's wake, and a bit of a bunker mentality at the studio.

      I hope nobody minds if I trimmed the above down a bit? ;)

      I think there is a catch 22 effect in that is always word of mouth marketing, and so the difference in content will at least occasionally get mentioned to a new customer. That doesn't mean that most of the problem isn't directly related to the lack of canon Klingon lead roles, and it seems valid to consider that Cryptic has data to support that.

      I still think it is at least a viable option to make more c-store content cross factional.

      Also, really, why can't the KDF capture and use Mirror Fed ships if the Feds can? That is more of what I am trying to get at.

      Anyway, good chance this thread will go south soon. I personally want to thank people for caring enough to look. KDF is what my main character was right off the bat, and I do not regret that. I only sometimes wish my main had more content that fit the faction. More of a wish, than it is a complaint.

      Qapla!

      I don't mind, you kept the key problems...admittedly without much explanation. I don't think cross-factioning MORE stuff is the answer, given the direction Cryptic's taken in the past via Lockbox items (particularly consoles, and later Traits). They've actually been homogenizing their asses off for four years...and I don't see KDF numbers increasing. See lots of feds running gear that was initially only released KDF side, but the opposite has not been exactly a shining example of how reducing or removing unique traits from factions can grow those minority factions.

      Quite the opposite, actually, so history in the game and in this community doesn't support your thesis, rather, it supports the opposing view. HOw many Fed captains out there are insistent, for example, that Plas Leech is a key element of their build? I know Bort let it slip that it's a critical element of his calculations....and he's a dev.

      The more pertinent question, is whether we'll even HAVE factions in the future-because the development trend for the last few years has not been in support of that-yet factions remain.

      Instead of being developed, they're treated as irrelevant. It IS a catch-22, and that has also become a problem-the self-reinforcing statistical trend made manifest. While I protested this occasionally (and even got quite salty with the wording at times) simple fact, now, is after cost-analysis, Cryptic really can't afford to deliver a multi-faction game where the focus is not exclusively on a Federation/Starfleet centric storyline. Even their token stories like House of Pegh are written from a Federation/Starfleet perspective, and the tutorial you spend a lot of time being Frank Drake's fetchboy.

      this is largely because they truly don't have, and likely can't afford, enough staff to handle a two-faction situation.
      I have to admit, I think the ultimate outcome for the Klingon faction will be, to paraphrase James. T Kirk, to let it[them] die...

      To accuse the game of Fed-centric bias is unfair, because apparently the analytics for both consoles and PC, support the fact that more people want to play as Feds, than as Klinks... Maybe that is due to the focus of the past series', maybe it's not, but ultimately, it's an example of a majority of the people (aka players) 'casting a vote' of sorts, and so an example of democracy(ish) at work, where support and resources are going towards the largest player base. It stands to reason that Cryptic aren't going to waste resources developing content, for a faction which the majority of their players have only a passing (if that) interest in engaging with...

      I have a Klingon toon (because I wanted to bring Q'sha to life) but frankly, what I've seen of the Klingon faction, doesn't really hold my interest (although the story is quite engaging) and the ship options, frankly, don't interest me to acquire. I don't like the over-saturation of Gorn, and for the reasons patrickngo has previously discussed on the inviability of keeping and maintaining slaves, it shows the Klingon Empire as being on the brink of being brought down. Not by defeat at the hands of an external foe, but subsumed from within, by growing population of the underling races, as was massively contributory to the downfall of the Roman Empire (and in Andromeda, the downfall of the Commonwealth, due to the Nietzschean uprising) InVerse, all that needs to happen, is enough Orion/Gorn captains to realize "We have positions of power on a lot of their ships..." and the Klingons (and their Empire) are(is) toast...

      Personally speaking, I think one answer may be to make more Klingon ships available to Federation characters (as suggested, as Prize Ships) Kirk flew one, so why can't everyone else? The first time I played Agents of Yesterday, after confronting the Gorn ship in orbit, and tussling with the Romulans (who had that D-7 type warbird) one of the dropped items, was plasma torpedoes... As I've played more extensively, I've learned that Plasma torpedoes really aren't 'All That', and there are better options available (Ael's Mogai, for example, is packing dual quantum torpedoes, with phaser dual heavy cannons fore, with quantum mine launcher and phaser beam array aft) but at the time, I was super-jazzed about the idea of my Federation ship, firing salvaged Romulan plasma torpedos... I'm not saying that I want to put a Starfleet officer in charge of a Bird of Prey, but someone else might want to, and if they then had to pay for that non-faction ship (or maybe a better non-faction ship) that's going to mean $$s in Cryptic's pocket... I never thought I'd be someone who 'paid for pixels', but I paid for Cara to have the Armitage, the Rademaker and Valiant class ships... I can easily accept that someone might not necessarily want to play the Klingon faction, but might want to roll a Klingon-in-Starfleet toon or fly a Klingon ship... Further homogenization of the game would allow that (while maintaining the faction option, for those who actually want to play a different storyline...) and IMHO, that would probably bring in more money, than a standalone faction can, because it is i) aiming to the majority of the playerbase, not the minority, and ii) increasing their options for customization, and that is where I believe this game's true strength, in terms of player retention and sustainability, lies.

      If I wasn't for Ael, I would have no real interest in playing the Romulan arc. I highly doubt I will roll another Romulan character to do it all over again, simply because the lack of ship options, mean there'll be no difference, so to me, no point... I'm tempted to roll some more KDF toons, because I have some character ideas I want to try, but as with the Romulan arc, I've no interest in actually replaying the Klingon arc with different ships, because IMHO, there aren't enough to choose from... Of the various Fed toons I've created; Cara, Galatea, T'Karra, Illya and Mas, they have all had different low-tier ships, in various forms of customization. Regardless of my interest admittedly being to Federation, rather than KDF or RR, the game itself best facilitates the customization options, which is what makes the game interesting to me, via the Fed faction...

      The more Cryptic homogenizes the game, the more opportunities players will have to try new options, without being railroaded into a stagnating and under-supplied faction... So yeah, perhaps the best thing, would simply be to 'let it[them] die...
    • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
      The second question is: is it really that important to have different factions of comparable size?
      By the standard of economic viability, I'd say STO proves it's not neccessary. I'd even say that it could be a hindrance, trying to split your development efforts across the player population is really only something if you're big.

      t might be seen as desirable by many, but a lot of things that seem desirable are not neccessarily feasible.
      And for yet another POV: why do factions NEED to be the same size at all? Sure I see more Starfleet people in shared zones, but I always see non-Starfleet too.

      this is one of the core failures of Patrick's thinking IMO, he thinks that there is actually a need to have "equality". It'd be nice, but does it actually help much? IMO... no.
      -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      My character Tsin'xing
      Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
    • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
      edited November 2016
      The second question is: is it really that important to have different factions of comparable size?
      By the standard of economic viability, I'd say STO proves it's not neccessary. I'd even say that it could be a hindrance, trying to split your development efforts across the player population is really only something if you're big.

      t might be seen as desirable by many, but a lot of things that seem desirable are not neccessarily feasible.
      And for yet another POV: why do factions NEED to be the same size at all? Sure I see more Starfleet people in shared zones, but I always see non-Starfleet too.

      this is one of the core failures of Patrick's thinking IMO, he thinks that there is actually a need to have "equality". It'd be nice, but does it actually help much? IMO... no.
      I'd see it as more an instance of trying to 'force equality' onto a situation which (according to player analytics) clearly does not want to be 'equal'... This is why I think that more homogenization, would be a better route to go down, because it would allow Fed-Players who might want to 'dip their toe' to do so, rather than having to 'go Full Empire' (Because you never want to 'go Full Empire' ;) ) and Cryptic would then have more money to mean more resources which they could then afford to devote to the Klingon faction... Rather than simply thinking "We only have X to spend, we'll spend it on the majority..." it would then be "We have enough to spend X on the majority, but can now afford to spend Z on the rest..." Which would mean that everyone gets an appropriately-allocated slice of the pie (and which could even lead to more genuine interest in the Klingon faction... B)
    Sign In or Register to comment.