See I wouldn't have that problem as I have no 'friends'.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Unless your "friend" works for Cryptic, he didn't get a look at the code. You're running a client, not the full game code.
We are however, able to look at a significant portion of the code. I don't know if you noticed this, but we have to download the game and run it off of our computer, many assets are on our end, and much of the code is as well. You can even create mods for the code that work server side, like certain Tailor hacks that have popped up(I don't mean the command you could put in on server I mean like actual hacks enabling you to use things like klingon restricted outfits on federation characters, or the much more often seen, cat girls). You can tell a fair bit about how the game is meant to run by looking through the code we have on our own end.
Edit: Also despite me mentioning the hacks or mods that are possible those are of course against the TOS and all that jargon, I'm simply mentioning them because we are fully capable of altering how some parts of the game run because of the code on our end, which most of it is.
Yeah, somebody who's claiming to be a Master Coder (and who, in my experience, is therefore quite likely to be a script kiddie) wants to believe he knows more about how the system works than the guys who, y'know, work for Cryptic and actually have their hands in the entire software base. You can believe as much of that as you like, of course, and it's unlikely that you'll be dissuaded from your belief in Cryptic's fundamental laziness and willingness to ignore potential income simply because some smartypants at the company says they know better...
"Everything Star Trek stands for" ??? I think you mean everything the Federation in Star Trek stands for. Granted the stories of Star Trek tend to revolve around the Federation, but making the whole known galaxy the Federation is NOT Star Trek, and would make for a rather boring TV show or movie.
The whole point of star trek was a future where understanding and cooperation could bring everyone together, even two people, or nations, who seemingly hated each other totally. This was true of even the Federation and Klingon Empire, with the Organians predicting it years before it happened.
Deep Space 9 took it even further, with the Dominion War bringing the Federation, the Klingon Empire, the Romulan Star Empire, the Ferengi Alliance, and the Cardassian people(though no necessarily their government) together in one big old super-Alliance to combat a shared foe.
Star Trek has always bee building to a unified future. Its part of the ideals Gene had for the future.
And yet every Star Trek TV series and movie has conflict with non Federation groups or individuals. If you took the conflict out of STO there would be no game other than the tailor. Who knows maybe Picard is all about him managing his Vineyard and STO will not only remove PvP like some of you want but also most PvE.
The only reason the factions are separate is they programmed them separate 10 years ago and it would be too expensive/too much work to undo it now.
And yet CBS has said no to cross faction use of FED/KDF ships in STO. I'm pretty sure they would have something to say about flooding the Federation with Klingons, Gorn, and Orions as well.
It's a wonder CBS has any time on their hands to create TV shows with all the time they spend going over Items in STO.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
STO can be big with the amount of content the franchise has to offer..But its where it is at the moment and we gotta work with that..CRYPTIC CAN DO MUCH BETTER..Not expecting much though..
Yeah, somebody who's claiming to be a Master Coder (and who, in my experience, is therefore quite likely to be a script kiddie) wants to believe he knows more about how the system works than the guys who, y'know, work for Cryptic and actually have their hands in the entire software base. You can believe as much of that as you like, of course, and it's unlikely that you'll be dissuaded from your belief in Cryptic's fundamental laziness and willingness to ignore potential income simply because some smartypants at the company says they know better...
How ironic that your attitude is almost exactly the same but for the opposite side of the argument. Nothing will dissuade you from your belief that cryptic can do no wrong, they're not human, just a bunch of perfect machines to you who are always working at 100% and fixing all those pesky bugs and making changes to the game that are universally loved.
No but seriously everything you just said about me, is true of you as well except in cryptic's favor. I do enjoy this game, and I enjoy some of cryptic, but I've been here since beta and they've had ups and downs and I trust this person a fair bit. THey aren't claiming to be a master coder I never said that, yet you immediately suggested it in an attempt to discredit my argument for your sake.
Look, kid, I've worked in software engineering off and on since the Eighties. I've worked through system limitations, spaghetti coding, end users who think the box is magical and can do anything... name it. (Well, I haven't designed a GUI from scratch, but then again nobody really does that any more anyway.) And I can tell you that anyone who claims to be a coder but tells you they can take your client apart and tell from that what the main software is capable of, ranks as being about as plausible as some armchair warrior who claims to be Special Forces, but carries his AR-15 pointed into the sky with his finger inside the trigger guard.
Look, kid, I've worked in software engineering off and on since the Eighties. I've worked through system limitations, spaghetti coding, end users who think the box is magical and can do anything... name it. (Well, I haven't designed a GUI from scratch, but then again nobody really does that any more anyway.) And I can tell you that anyone who claims to be a coder but tells you they can take your client apart and tell from that what the main software is capable of, ranks as being about as plausible as some armchair warrior who claims to be Special Forces, but carries his AR-15 pointed into the sky with his finger inside the trigger guard.
You realize we have forum goers who understood the foundry's code enough to make a program capable of running and saving missions right before the foundry was shutdown right? Why is it so implausible that someone like them has looked through the main games code and can tell how it runs or how to do certain things? And again, we have people capable of making mods and hacks in the game's code(though against the TOS) so why is it so hard to believe that out of the Millions of players there's a few who are coders and fully understand code and may have even been a developer on a different game?
Yes, it is indeed a good way to dismiss an argument. If people we know have experience in doing what they are doing claim A, and some unknown person names another even less known person and claims that said other person claims to have expertise and says B even though they by necessity lack information - that's not two possibly equally valid options. Every once in a blue moon, B may indeed be correct, but that is so rare a case that you'll save so many loads of time and energy by not caring about such arguments that you'll be still be better off. "It is physically possible" is not the same as "it should be considered".
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
Yes, it is indeed a good way to dismiss an argument. If people we know have experience in doing what they are doing claim A, and some unknown person names another even less known person and claims that said other person claims to have expertise and says B even though they by necessity lack information - that's not two possibly equally valid options. Every once in a blue moon, B may indeed be correct, but that is so rare a case that you'll save so many loads of time and energy by not caring about such arguments that you'll be still be better off. "It is physically possible" is not the same as "it should be considered".
I understand the skepticism, but dismissing an argument simply because you don't agree with it and won't consider the possibility that it could be true, because the possibility does indeed exist, makes for a pretty poor debate. Because then nothing can challenge your argument, or your side, you'll never have to change your ideas because no one else knows better than you and supposedly infallible perfect employees that you refuse to believe can do no wrong. I was merely mentioning my coder friend and of course was met with disbelief and dismissal, because of course in order for people to believe him he'll have to join the forums and show a resume and several credits for coding jobs he has worked or any major projects he was a part of because if he doesn't give you every single aspect of his life he's just some random shmuck so might as well not believe him.
I understand the skepticism, but dismissing an argument simply because you don't agree with it and won't consider the possibility that it could be true, because the possibility does indeed exist, makes for a pretty poor debate. Because then nothing can challenge your argument, or your side, you'll never have to change your ideas because no one else knows better than you and supposedly infallible perfect employees that you refuse to believe can do no wrong. I was merely mentioning my coder friend and of course was met with disbelief and dismissal, because of course in order for people to believe him he'll have to join the forums and show a resume and several credits for coding jobs he has worked or any major projects he was a part of because if he doesn't give you every single aspect of his life he's just some random shmuck so might as well not believe him.
But this is getting off topic.
No one says Cryptic is infallible. We're all playing the game, rearranging trays, stuff like that. But yeah, to be believable when claiming something that (a) contradicts people who do still have some expertise, while (b) not even having the code to look at (some things may be deduced, which is why hacks may work, but even they will be try and error), and (c) apparently already found out stuff after a cursory look at what he had (understanding code may not be as easy depending on how well documented it is, no matter how good you are) you will have to give some serious credentials or other factors to be believable. Just running around claiming an improbable thing without showing anything to back your claims isn't going to be taken seriously by many. Because just claiming "it is because I/my friend said so" also makes for a pretty poor debate because without background information it cannot be challenged.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
I understand the skepticism, but dismissing an argument simply because you don't agree with it and won't consider the possibility that it could be true, because the possibility does indeed exist, makes for a pretty poor debate. Because then nothing can challenge your argument, or your side, you'll never have to change your ideas because no one else knows better than you and supposedly infallible perfect employees that you refuse to believe can do no wrong. I was merely mentioning my coder friend and of course was met with disbelief and dismissal, because of course in order for people to believe him he'll have to join the forums and show a resume and several credits for coding jobs he has worked or any major projects he was a part of because if he doesn't give you every single aspect of his life he's just some random shmuck so might as well not believe him.
But this is getting off topic.
No one says Cryptic is infallible. We're all playing the game, rearranging trays, stuff like that. But yeah, to be believable when claiming something that (a) contradicts people who do still have some expertise, while (b) not even having the code to look at (some things may be deduced, which is why hacks may work, but even they will be try and error), and (c) apparently already found out stuff after a cursory look at what he had (understanding code may not be as easy depending on how well documented it is, no matter how good you are) you will have to give some serious credentials or other factors to be believable. Just running around claiming an improbable thing without showing anything to back your claims isn't going to be taken seriously by many. Because just claiming "it is because I/my friend said so" also makes for a pretty poor debate because without background information it cannot be challenged.
It can be challenged, but my point was the only attempt to challenge it was that it was meaningless. Sure its improbable, but rather than refute it in a proper debate you and others simply choose to dismiss it entirely because its easier that way. Rather than say ways my friend could be wrong in what he's said to me, you would rather call me a liar or tell me I'm fabricating things.
It can be challenged, but my point was the only attempt to challenge it was that it was meaningless. Sure its improbable, but rather than refute it in a proper debate you and others simply choose to dismiss it entirely because its easier that way. Rather than say ways my friend could be wrong in what he's said to me, you would rather call me a liar or tell me I'm fabricating things.
I will take the word of the Devs who work with the code for a living than an inspired amateur who makes a mod any day.
See? This is a much better way to combat my argument than just dismissing it.
Thank you Valoreah, I'll give you that, he probably just is some amateur, maybe its just some base thing in the games code that he found that would make it easy to remove factions but then somewhere else in the code removing factions would break it or stop it. I was just going off of what he said and I appreciate someone actually debating this instead of just refuting it.
The Narrative of STO as it is now is that of a single faction: The Alliance. But it still has the 2-faction barriers in place for a lot of things. And for the sake of PvP, those barriers need to remain. Except that as far as Cryptic seems to be concerned, PvP may as well not even exist, for all the effort they have put into supporting and maintaining it. So really, the only thing getting in their way of truly embracing "The Alliance" as THE complete player experience is the abandoned PvP aspect.
PvP has already been made almost completely non-factional. The only PvP that has any interaction with the faction system is Ker'rat. Removing the factions from the PvP queues is like the only thing they've done about the whole system in years.
It is in fact PvE where the faction restrictions are. Teaming, fleets, social zones, some missions. Plus Barbie stuff like ships and clothes of course.
Thank you Valoreah, I'll give you that, he probably just is some amateur, maybe its just some base thing in the games code that he found that would make it easy to remove factions but then somewhere else in the code removing factions would break it or stop it. I was just going off of what he said and I appreciate someone actually debating this instead of just refuting it.
The #1 mistake amateur programmers make is not tracing program functions. A does X and Y... is often only technically true. You also need to look at everything that points at it and the variables it touches. The devs have stated in interviews that the real issue isn't getting rid of the faction flags, the problem is that the faction system is the digital equivalent of a house of cards. THOUSANDS of things in the code are based on it, or based on things that are based on it... etc...
And yes, I did study computer programming while getting a degree at DeVry.
Return of the Foundry on steroids. You’ll be able to neatly integrate Foundry missions into the cryptic storylines. For example: A bunch of Foundry authors created content for the Iconion story arc. Their missions can be integrated into the Iconion story arc to create a seamless Super Iconion arc. Or, you create a non-human alt and can replace the initial 1-10 story arc with a group of Foundry missions created specifically for that race that blends you into the main story arc at level 10 (I'm sure Cryptic would have guidelines for these).
Other ideas, group of unhappy users. Change the face? Users will be able to turn off the light show hiding your ship during combat. You will be able to select which effects to leave on or turn off.
Then maybe a full immersion setting to select what StarTrek era/show to show on a user’s system. They are already doing it in a TFO, really simple to do the next step. For example, if you selected TOS era, you would see another users/npc Odyssey displayed as a TOS era equivalent ship. On the ground, everyone would be wearing a TOS uniform. Or you could leave it off and see what everyone is flying like currently. Note, this only affects what you see, not other users. They would be using their own immersion setting.
Last the character selection screen revamp that would allow you to set the sort order of all your alts displayed or break them into groups/squadrons (we are Fleet Admirals btw). Maybe I want to sort by ship type, or faction, or energy weapon type or some grouping I wanted. This would also make it easy to move hero characters/squadrons into the forthcoming (if they choose to do it) STO-RTS where we can level up characters in either the MMO or RTS.
Ok, one more, for all of us altaholics. Besides a link to a 12 step program (or 96 if you chose the Tholian one). The max characters per account for LTS subscribers is tied to the max level (currently 65). Any time the max level is increased, so is the max characters. And you can purchase a Jem Hadar like start for new characters.
Comments
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
We are however, able to look at a significant portion of the code. I don't know if you noticed this, but we have to download the game and run it off of our computer, many assets are on our end, and much of the code is as well. You can even create mods for the code that work server side, like certain Tailor hacks that have popped up(I don't mean the command you could put in on server I mean like actual hacks enabling you to use things like klingon restricted outfits on federation characters, or the much more often seen, cat girls). You can tell a fair bit about how the game is meant to run by looking through the code we have on our own end.
Edit: Also despite me mentioning the hacks or mods that are possible those are of course against the TOS and all that jargon, I'm simply mentioning them because we are fully capable of altering how some parts of the game run because of the code on our end, which most of it is.
My character Tsin'xing
And yet every Star Trek TV series and movie has conflict with non Federation groups or individuals. If you took the conflict out of STO there would be no game other than the tailor. Who knows maybe Picard is all about him managing his Vineyard and STO will not only remove PvP like some of you want but also most PvE.
And yet CBS has said no to cross faction use of FED/KDF ships in STO. I'm pretty sure they would have something to say about flooding the Federation with Klingons, Gorn, and Orions as well.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Adu-Uss Firefox NCC-93425-F (LVL 65 FED AoY ENG) UR/VR MKXV Fleet Intel Assault Cruiser (July 2016)
Jean-Uss Seratoga Ravenna (LVL 60 FED Delta ENG) UC/R MKVI Bajoran Escort (April 2018)
Dubsa-RRW Mnaudh (LVL 50 FED allied ROM Delta ENG) Warbird (May 2018)
Marop-IKS Orunthi (LVL 50 KNG Delta ENG) BoP (May 2018)
Kanak'lan-TRIBBLE (LVL 65 DOM Gamma ENG) TRIBBLE (June 2018)
How ironic that your attitude is almost exactly the same but for the opposite side of the argument. Nothing will dissuade you from your belief that cryptic can do no wrong, they're not human, just a bunch of perfect machines to you who are always working at 100% and fixing all those pesky bugs and making changes to the game that are universally loved.
No but seriously everything you just said about me, is true of you as well except in cryptic's favor. I do enjoy this game, and I enjoy some of cryptic, but I've been here since beta and they've had ups and downs and I trust this person a fair bit. THey aren't claiming to be a master coder I never said that, yet you immediately suggested it in an attempt to discredit my argument for your sake.
Look, kid, I've worked in software engineering off and on since the Eighties. I've worked through system limitations, spaghetti coding, end users who think the box is magical and can do anything... name it. (Well, I haven't designed a GUI from scratch, but then again nobody really does that any more anyway.) And I can tell you that anyone who claims to be a coder but tells you they can take your client apart and tell from that what the main software is capable of, ranks as being about as plausible as some armchair warrior who claims to be Special Forces, but carries his AR-15 pointed into the sky with his finger inside the trigger guard.
You realize we have forum goers who understood the foundry's code enough to make a program capable of running and saving missions right before the foundry was shutdown right? Why is it so implausible that someone like them has looked through the main games code and can tell how it runs or how to do certain things? And again, we have people capable of making mods and hacks in the game's code(though against the TOS) so why is it so hard to believe that out of the Millions of players there's a few who are coders and fully understand code and may have even been a developer on a different game?
Ah yes what a wonderful way to just dismiss an argument. the "I don't know this random person so their opinion and argument is meaningless"
I understand the skepticism, but dismissing an argument simply because you don't agree with it and won't consider the possibility that it could be true, because the possibility does indeed exist, makes for a pretty poor debate. Because then nothing can challenge your argument, or your side, you'll never have to change your ideas because no one else knows better than you and supposedly infallible perfect employees that you refuse to believe can do no wrong. I was merely mentioning my coder friend and of course was met with disbelief and dismissal, because of course in order for people to believe him he'll have to join the forums and show a resume and several credits for coding jobs he has worked or any major projects he was a part of because if he doesn't give you every single aspect of his life he's just some random shmuck so might as well not believe him.
But this is getting off topic.
No one says Cryptic is infallible. We're all playing the game, rearranging trays, stuff like that. But yeah, to be believable when claiming something that (a) contradicts people who do still have some expertise, while (b) not even having the code to look at (some things may be deduced, which is why hacks may work, but even they will be try and error), and (c) apparently already found out stuff after a cursory look at what he had (understanding code may not be as easy depending on how well documented it is, no matter how good you are) you will have to give some serious credentials or other factors to be believable. Just running around claiming an improbable thing without showing anything to back your claims isn't going to be taken seriously by many. Because just claiming "it is because I/my friend said so" also makes for a pretty poor debate because without background information it cannot be challenged.
It can be challenged, but my point was the only attempt to challenge it was that it was meaningless. Sure its improbable, but rather than refute it in a proper debate you and others simply choose to dismiss it entirely because its easier that way. Rather than say ways my friend could be wrong in what he's said to me, you would rather call me a liar or tell me I'm fabricating things.
See? This is a much better way to combat my argument than just dismissing it.
Thank you Valoreah, I'll give you that, he probably just is some amateur, maybe its just some base thing in the games code that he found that would make it easy to remove factions but then somewhere else in the code removing factions would break it or stop it. I was just going off of what he said and I appreciate someone actually debating this instead of just refuting it.
It is in fact PvE where the faction restrictions are. Teaming, fleets, social zones, some missions. Plus Barbie stuff like ships and clothes of course.
And yes, I did study computer programming while getting a degree at DeVry.
My character Tsin'xing
Return of the Foundry on steroids. You’ll be able to neatly integrate Foundry missions into the cryptic storylines. For example: A bunch of Foundry authors created content for the Iconion story arc. Their missions can be integrated into the Iconion story arc to create a seamless Super Iconion arc. Or, you create a non-human alt and can replace the initial 1-10 story arc with a group of Foundry missions created specifically for that race that blends you into the main story arc at level 10 (I'm sure Cryptic would have guidelines for these).
Other ideas, group of unhappy users. Change the face? Users will be able to turn off the light show hiding your ship during combat. You will be able to select which effects to leave on or turn off.
Then maybe a full immersion setting to select what StarTrek era/show to show on a user’s system. They are already doing it in a TFO, really simple to do the next step. For example, if you selected TOS era, you would see another users/npc Odyssey displayed as a TOS era equivalent ship. On the ground, everyone would be wearing a TOS uniform. Or you could leave it off and see what everyone is flying like currently. Note, this only affects what you see, not other users. They would be using their own immersion setting.
Last the character selection screen revamp that would allow you to set the sort order of all your alts displayed or break them into groups/squadrons (we are Fleet Admirals btw). Maybe I want to sort by ship type, or faction, or energy weapon type or some grouping I wanted. This would also make it easy to move hero characters/squadrons into the forthcoming (if they choose to do it) STO-RTS where we can level up characters in either the MMO or RTS.
Ok, one more, for all of us altaholics. Besides a link to a 12 step program (or 96 if you chose the Tholian one). The max characters per account for LTS subscribers is tied to the max level (currently 65). Any time the max level is increased, so is the max characters. And you can purchase a Jem Hadar like start for new characters.