test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Is no one interested in content expansion? Habitable Biomes!

245678

Comments

  • salazarrazesalazarraze Member Posts: 3,794 Arc User
    If the content doesn't somehow drive you to spend money on ships, lock box keys, or promo packs, then cryptic isn't interested in developing it.
    Because all those story missions, patrols, TFOs, Battlezones, and other content that has nothing to do with any of that doesn't exist right?

    Those all drive ship sales. Customizable ground maps don't.
    When you see "TRIBBLE" in my posts, it's because I manually typed "TRIBBLE" and censored myself.
  • smr12smr12 Member Posts: 49 Arc User
    I would prefer cryptic doing a QoL update to fix all the bugs and problems so to game runs better and things actually work.
    Until Cryptic fixes the bugs and the huge lag problem, i refuse to give them a single cent. A company that charges hundreds of dollars but can't even give a stable bugfree game (or at least doesn't have bugs that are years and years old), doesn't deserve my money.
    Also when coming back after 2 years not playing STO, spending $30 and getting hit immediately with a 7 day account probation.
    This shows very little respect from cryptic towards their playerbase and, this is another reason to not spend any single cent on this game.
  • paladinrja#5247 paladinrja Member Posts: 155 Arc User
    edited April 2020

    The problem with this is that "Minecraft Trek" or "TrekCity 2000" or "The Long Trek Dark" would be a new, different game bolted on to the existing STO. It would require new game design and engine changes, and possibly even license approval from CBS.

    People ask for exploration, sandbox building, space trading, etc. and they all could be fun. They just are either impractical or possible but would take away resources from creating content that the majority of STO players want and will pay for.

    "Sorry mom, the mob has spoken. Monorail!"

    Or the other golden rule: them that pays Cryptic the most gold, gets to rule on the content we get.

    Lol, actually it should be evident Cryptic have most of the sandbox already. The question is developing a UIx for players; defining rules of useage and tying the result in with other content. -- You really should just speak for yourself, btw. Lol!

    Y'know.. as "just another player"?
    If the content doesn't somehow drive you to spend money on ships, lock box keys, or promo packs, then cryptic isn't interested in developing it.

    People make their own minds up about such things, I'm afraid.. All the devs are doing is making it available. -- When put like that, its food for thought, huh?

    Most would say 'pricing' is the issue. Well.. do say, tbh.
    spiritborn wrote: »

    In essence we're not saying those systems would never be fun but rather that implementing them into STO is not viable and would only serve to take away resources from other parts of the game.
    smr12 wrote: »
    I would prefer cryptic doing a QoL update to fix all the bugs and problems so to game runs better and things actually work.

    You both don't think they're capable of accomplishing multiple targets in a development cycle? Hmm..

    One goes hand-in-hand with the other, I should think.
    XBOX One GT: Paladinrja
  • trennantrennan Member Posts: 2,839 Arc User

    The problem with this is that "Minecraft Trek" or "TrekCity 2000" or "The Long Trek Dark" would be a new, different game bolted on to the existing STO. It would require new game design and engine changes, and possibly even license approval from CBS.

    People ask for exploration, sandbox building, space trading, etc. and they all could be fun. They just are either impractical or possible but would take away resources from creating content that the majority of STO players want and will pay for.

    "Sorry mom, the mob has spoken. Monorail!"

    Or the other golden rule: them that pays Cryptic the most gold, gets to rule on the content we get.

    Lol, actually it should be evident Cryptic have most of the sandbox already. The question is developing a UIx for players; defining rules of useage and tying the result in with other content. -- You really should just speak for yourself, btw. Lol!

    Y'know.. as "just another player"?

    We have this already. The assets and broken UI from the foundry. Unfortunately, that's in the "legacy code" area. So they'd have to recode the whole thing. Then it's a matter of how to monetize it to make it worth the expense of making it.
    If the content doesn't somehow drive you to spend money on ships, lock box keys, or promo packs, then cryptic isn't interested in developing it.

    People make their own minds up about such things, I'm afraid.. All the devs are doing is making it available. -- When put like that, its food for thought, huh?

    Most would say 'pricing' is the issue. Well.. do say, tbh.

    Yup, I'm still waiting on content that inspires me to buy c-store ships. They haven't managed that in 10 years. So I'm not expecting it anytime soon. Only T6 ship I've acquired so far, the Hathos with a free T6 coupon. Might grab the Nav'Soj or some other sci ship for my KDF sci characters with the other.
    spiritborn wrote: »

    In essence we're not saying those systems would never be fun but rather that implementing them into STO is not viable and would only serve to take away resources from other parts of the game.
    smr12 wrote: »
    I would prefer cryptic doing a QoL update to fix all the bugs and problems so to game runs better and things actually work.

    You both don't think they're capable of accomplishing multiple targets in a development cycle? Hmm..

    One goes hand-in-hand with the other, I should think.

    They are capable of it, yes, and do what they can. However, when the bug is in older content, it's starts running into that "legacy code" problem. That double edged sword that's always hanging over Cryptic's head.

    As smr12 said, a QoL update. Which they're working on, I believe. I think they may have missed the stickied "Lag Hunting round 2" post, where all evidence is currently pointing toward Akami technologies, and their program having a bit of a hard time distinguishing between normal player and a DDOS attack. So some of it is out of Cryptic's hands currently. Which reminds me, I need to add something to that post that I noticed last night.
    Mm5NeXy.gif
  • paladinrja#5247 paladinrja Member Posts: 155 Arc User
    edited April 2020
    Trennan,

    Actually "we" don't have anything. Cryptic might, and it might be a foundation to work with for something like this, for "us". -- which is the reason for this thread.

    That said. Ever present in my mind, is that "I don't work on this game"; and it really is about that difference before any tech discussion should be brought up. What you're telling me, is probably not what you're wanting to tell me. So.. not a great idea? For any of us gaming consumers to go down this path.
    XBOX One GT: Paladinrja
  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,867 Arc User
    edited April 2020
    If the content doesn't somehow drive you to spend money on ships, lock box keys, or promo packs, then cryptic isn't interested in developing it.
    Because all those story missions, patrols, TFOs, Battlezones, and other content that has nothing to do with any of that doesn't exist right?

    Those all drive ship sales. Customizable ground maps don't.

    Uniforms, boffs, and the lobi store stand ready to capitalize on interest in ground content, assuming that no other steps are taken to leverage investment in non-ship combat.

    The key to reductive business economics (ie. WE DO THING DAT HAS GIVES CASH, DO DAT THING MORE. MOOOOOOOOORE!!!!) is that even if you have a top earner (which is practically inevitable), growth for the business isn't most easily achieved by doubling down on that one revenue source. See basic principle: diminishing returns and resource exploitation (something reductive business logic tends to see as something that happens to other people, having failed to consider it prior to the point at which it kills you.)

    With GOT TO MAKE IT ABOUT SHIPS it only stands as a "you have to keep the ship revenue stream going because it makes up a critical revnue source." Ie. keep the game viable by not taking a hammer to your core support. It DOESN'T mean by absolutely any stretch of the imagination that other forms of content shouldn't be explored in significant ways simply because they don't directly plug into that main cash source. If you narrow yourself like that, you're building a fault point in the business model as you become dependent on both that transaction type and the demographic that's associated with it.

    (Something we've seen crippling problems with in, for example, the original Donnie fiasco where Cryptic had to take a giant backlash across all media channels [which didn't help business and has broadly informed major c-store changes since], because of their dependence then on promo sales, and more broadly, on the fanciest of fancy ships. They achieved that through the over-investment in one area and a relative lack of development in others (which STO is well built to capitalize on versus the competition.) Because, you know, gotta be chasing the most obvious data point like any junior manager with a spreadsheet.)

    The absolute BEST thing Cryptic can do right now to help sales is to put a major emphasis on DIVERSIFYING their portfolio. If done correctly (see. a conceptual model for which you can find in the broad strokes of Markov Chain Monte Carlo modeling. This is a fundamental principle of how evolution in any system works), it brings you to new markets, stimulate new niches within their current population (ie. two fundamental components of growth. See by contrast STO settling for stability over recent years), and avoids overburdening any one type of content or distribution channel (which also helps the psychological side. See. burnout at over-repetition, which in turn helps retention figures.)

    Basically, the mindset your applying is probably one of the most prominent examples of why we can't have nice things. Time to throw the idea out the window, eh?
    Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
    Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
    Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
  • trennantrennan Member Posts: 2,839 Arc User
    Trennan,

    Actually "we" don't have anything. Cryptic might, and it might be a foundation to work with for something like this, for "us". -- which is the reason for this thread.

    That said. Ever present in my mind, is that "I don't work on this game"; and it really is about that difference before any tech discussion should be brought up. What you're telling me, is probably not what you're wanting to tell me. So.. not a great idea? For any of us gaming consumers to go down this path.

    No, my point is spot on. Just my typonese set in and I typed have, instead of had, and didn't catch the error. Tis my bad there.
    Mm5NeXy.gif
  • paladinrja#5247 paladinrja Member Posts: 155 Arc User
    edited April 2020
    Uniforms, boffs, and the lobi store stand ready to capitalize on interest in ground content, assuming that no other steps are taken to leverage investment in non-ship combat.

    The key to reductive business economics (ie. WE DO THING DAT HAS GIVES CASH, DO DAT THING MORE. MOOOOOOOOORE!!!!) is that even if you have a top earner (which is practically inevitable), growth for the business isn't most easily achieved by doubling down on that one revenue source. See basic principle: diminishing returns and resource exploitation (something reductive business logic tends to see as something that happens to other people, having failed to consider it prior to the point at which it kills you.)

    With GOT TO MAKE IT ABOUT SHIPS it only stands as a "you have to keep the ship revenue stream going because it makes up a critical revnue source." It DOESN'T mean that by absolutely any stretch of the imagination that other forms of content shouldn't be explored simply because they don't directly plug into that main cash source. If you narrow yourself like that, you're building a fault point in the business model as you become dependent on both that transaction type and the demographic that's associated with it.

    (Something we've seen crippling problems with in, for example, the original Donnie fiasco where Cryptic had to take a giant backlash across all media channels [which didn't help business and has broadly informed major c-store changes since], because of their dependence then on promo sales, and more broadly, on the fanciest of fancy ships. They achieved that through the over-investment in one area and a relative lack of development in others (which STO is well built to capitalize on versus the competition.) Because, you know, gotta be chasing the most obvious data point like any junior manager with a spreadsheet.)

    The absolute BEST thing Cryptic can do right now to help sales is to put a major emphasis on DIVERSIFYING their portfolio. If done correctly (see. a conceptual model for which you can find in the broad strokes of Markov Chain Monte Carlo modeling. This is a fundamental principle of evolution), it capture new markets, stimulate new niches within their current population (ie. two fundamental components of growth. See. STO's stability over recent years), and avoids overburdening any one type of content or distribution channel (which also helps the psychological side. See. burnout at over-repetition.)

    QFTMFT!

    The nuances herein, are those echoed by practically everyone I've spoken to both within and outside the game, about STO. That means observers and players. Yes, many people watch the status and progress of games.

    The hardcore stat gamer simply isn't the largest portion of an exponentially increasing gaming public. Theres a large population out there that have never experienced the stigmatism directed at "gaming", and view their interaction with games as a virtual hobby.

    They aren't baffled by conventions and are realistic towards their habits. Its a great time to be developing.

    Great post, btw Duncan. Right on point! -- I also play Neverwinter and that vibe is very much evident there.
    XBOX One GT: Paladinrja
  • section31agent#8506 section31agent Member Posts: 665 Arc User
    I too have never played "Neverwinter" or for that fact any other MMO. If STO didn't exist I would still be playing table top Dungeons and Dragons. (Yeah I cut my teeth on it in 1974). One of the guys at work said STO was coming online back in 2010. So my group all bought lifetime memberships. Since then I've seen a lot of changes that ran off a bunch of players especially PvP players. The ground combat needs a serious overhaul and content expansion.
  • salazarrazesalazarraze Member Posts: 3,794 Arc User
    edited April 2020
    Basically, the mindset your applying is probably one of the most prominent examples of why we can't have nice things. Time to throw the idea out the window, eh?

    What I said was a sarcastic dig at Cryptic. It was not an endorsement of such an idea. I actually love ground content and overall I prefer it to space. I just don't expect something new that's similar in scope and scale to the Dyson Ground Battlezone for instance. But it would be more than welcome.
    When you see "TRIBBLE" in my posts, it's because I manually typed "TRIBBLE" and censored myself.
  • trennantrennan Member Posts: 2,839 Arc User
    edited April 2020
    (Something we've seen crippling problems with in, for example, the original Donnie fiasco where Cryptic had to take a giant backlash across all media channels [which didn't help business and has broadly informed major c-store changes since], because of their dependence then on promo sales, and more broadly, on the fanciest of fancy ships. They achieved that through the over-investment in one area and a relative lack of development in others (which STO is well built to capitalize on versus the competition.) Because, you know, gotta be chasing the most obvious data point like any junior manager with a spreadsheet.)
    Which Donnie fiasco are we talking about here? Because I don't recall one.

    Everyone was already 100% aware it would be an R&D promo pack only because Cryptic had already stated numerous times that CBS has expressly forbid a T6 C-store Constitution class for years due to CBS seeing it as an iconic ship they want to keep rare. And the original Connie was R&D promo already.

    Unless you meant Connie, not Donnie, and even then, most everyone was aware it wouldn't be C-store because they had already said CBS said no, so there was by no means a "major" backlash, much less one across all media channels.
    The absolute BEST thing Cryptic can do right now to help sales is to put a major emphasis on DIVERSIFYING their portfolio. If done correctly (see. a conceptual model for which you can find in the broad strokes of Markov Chain Monte Carlo modeling. This is a fundamental principle of how evolution in any system works), it brings you to new markets, stimulate new niches within their current population (ie. two fundamental components of growth. See by contrast STO settling for stability over recent years), and avoids overburdening any one type of content or distribution channel (which also helps the psychological side. See. burnout at over-repetition, which in turn helps retention figures.)
    This ignores that Cryptic has already stated they simply don't have the team size to do something like customizable ship interiors even if they wanted to.

    Which iconic Connie are we talking here? Because as I discovered today, the Enterprise series was supposed to be it's own class of ship. So the iconic Connie, is actually an iconic Enterprise class.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701)

    The Enterprise was originally going to be named Yorktown, but Roddenberry said he was fascinated by the story of the actual Enterprise and that he had "always been proud of that ship and wanted to use the name." The ship's NCC-1701 registry stems from NC being one of the international aircraft registration codes assigned to the United States. The second C was added because Soviet aircraft used Cs, and Jefferies believed a venture into space would be a joint operation by the United States and Russia. NCC is the Starfleet abbreviation for "Naval Construction Contract", comparable to what the U.S. Navy would call a hull number. Jefferies rejected 3, 6, 8, and 9 as "too easily confused" on screen; he eventually reasoned the Enterprise was the first vessel of Starfleet's 17th starship design, hence 1701. The Making of Star Trek explains that USS means "United Space Ship" and that "Enterprise is a member of the Starship Class". The ship was changed to Constitution class with the release of Franz Joseph's Star Fleet Technical Manual in 1975.

    So, technically, we're suppose to have an Enterprise class and a Constitution class.
    Mm5NeXy.gif
  • davefenestratordavefenestrator Member Posts: 10,501 Arc User
    trennan wrote: »
    So, technically, we're suppose to have an Enterprise class and a Constitution class.
    And technically there is supposed to be no religion in the future, and crew members are never supposed to get into real arguments, and all meetings with alien species are supposed to be peaceful, and women aren't allowed to be captains, and large parts of TOS and the TOS movies aren't supposed to be canon, and a lot of other things Gene said and wanted.

    None of that is canon however.

    Also no money, except when there is.

    If you're wondering how he eats and breathes, and other science facts,
    Then just repeat to yourself "It's just a show, I should really just relax"
  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,867 Arc User
    edited April 2020
    Which Donnie fiasco are we talking about here? Because I don't recall one.

    Nice gaslighting, not going to be baited by it. If you were out sick that week maybe try looking up that week's ten forward for the company real talk from Kael.
    This ignores that Cryptic has already stated they simply don't have the team size to do something like customizable ship interiors even if they wanted to.

    They "can't do" customizable ship interiors because of how the system is set up. Ie. with a large collection of separate maps that cannot be practically retrofitted to accommodate just about any major system revamp. "Your" ship exists as one of a series of discrete maps without consistent reference points that could be used for a systemic overhaul of the system (see also bridge interior gameplay and story integration suggestions over the years. This is an old and well covered topic.) It was simply not built with further development in mind and the existing bridge system is serviceable enough to some interests (ex. role players) to represent a major trade-off in any attempt to throw the existing system out and start over. It could be done but not in a way that Cryptic would be at all satisfied with.

    #TheMoreYouKnow

    They can do customizable ground maps though. See. every single fleet holding. The concept can be improved upon and leveraged in different ways than group grinding through progress bars, which was always a questionable strategy because of the endless development cycle required to fully maintain it and nadir of structural motivation involved. They could do something else (with better gameplay integration, structural incentives, project remit, and presentation.)

    That's fairly basic and a benign comment as far as they go, mind you. The question is simply whether this project would be the best way for Cryptic to grow STO. Ie. the valid counterargument is a cost-benefit trade off with any number of other niches that might be worth exploring (which you only get to with critical thought and analysis by the dev team), not a tautological stand on "IT CANT BE DONE" because you remembered some things about STO.
    Post edited by duncanidaho11 on
    Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
    Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
    Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,867 Arc User
    edited April 2020
    This is a misrepresentation of how fleet holding additions actually work.

    The "customizations" are pre-made objects, in pre-set places, as to accommodate things like NPC pathing. Its really no different then the phasing done in that one room of DS9 that later becomes the Dominion operations room. Where objects can only be in the same place both before and after its been phased, because of NPC pathing requirements, and collision boxes(something Cryptic themselves talked about before)

    Yes, I'm well aware of that.

    What I'd like to see (in focusing on how to make this work for STO and get to the core benefits of the OP's suggestion without rebuilding the game from stractch to accommodate that kind of live building) is a space where those triggers are built around more immediate and personal decision making in the context of world building, character, gameplay, and story telling. Ie. basic motivators of playing an video game (do we need to pretend this is also a point for debate?) Being able to place specific assets where ever I want is not required, at all to carry that out. And even if it was feasible, I don't think it would help the system. Freeform environment shaping works very well, in some hands, but for others its an added complication with questionable results for the extra effort. If you want to make this good, it should be structured on a dev-built trigger system.

    In me (not the OP) referencing fleet holdings, you should have been able to do the math on this one. Take that same principle and build it into a personal space where system interactions are much more immediate than the fleet holding system. Furthermore, build these spaces so that they can be used in PVE gameplay (as the fleet holding space map was back in season 6) for better integration (and venues to display achievements, personal character decisions, and monetizations.) There's a lot to build on here. Whether you see it I don't think is going to be the deciding point on this feedback.

    Ie. I can let this stand pretty easily.
    Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
    Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
    Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,867 Arc User
    edited April 2020
    How, or even WHY for that matter, would something like a personal apartment on Risa by affected by what you do in any sort of story mission, patrol, TFO, or any other such gameplay mechanic

    What the hell are you talking about there, M8? If you want a customizable apartment I suggest you take that suggestion and own it yourself. Don't put that into my post (in reaching for contrarianism and holding to a presumption on what you thought I was talking about with "take the core mechanic of the fleet holding system, expand it, make it more immediate, and better connected to other gameplay." What Cryptic built was a cudgel to the idea (naturally so, given that it was only intended to serve as the backdrop to a fleet revamp.) With sophistication and a "step back" to rethink, I think they could cultivate a new market with this suggestion (and without any hideous expenditure of resources worthy of the faux shock you've brought to discussion here. In practical terms this is ultimately just "build a map with more triggers on it and use it for several things.")


    Although I think in retrospect it would be cruel not to give you a concrete suggestion. So here's one: in-faction colony. The role playing element comes first from its use in a mission (count one for economical use of dev resources) with emotional connections built from the use of characters and writing (see. human involvement in video games if this is somehow a controversial point for you.) On completing the episode the player can return to the colony (it's a sector map location). For this you're probably looking at an equal amount of NPC dialog to what the episode contained so count the second episode in the now customary double bill as this project (point two for economy, this is season update territory.)

    Anyway, on the colony you can do several things. 1. interact to folk (basic theater of gaming and I would put a random rotation on some characters to add a vernier or organic life and avoid burning through all content in one go.) 2. build things. 3. make decisions. 2 and 3 are where the fleet holding mechanics come in and I would necessitate that 2 always involves 3. If you build something, you make a trade off between choices. Whether the colony builds a greenhouse or an armory, or hires a security officer or geologist, is the basic Molyneaux extension with buffs, lore, and cosmetics to motivate. Decor also fits into it as well (basic space barbie, and the choices here darn well need to relate back to the player and how they view themselves) but I'd extend it to items relevant to point 4, combat.

    New TFO: defend the colony (point three for economy, more content from the same map) where the build items and decisions also include defensive emplacements and support personnel (balanced so they play a significant role in whether your team attains optional objectives.) What you build pays off for the group (prime motivator for system participation.) However, rather than taking the randomization approach on enemy selection (like the previous colony TFO) I would make it a specific engagement so Cryptic could come back to the colony for more TFO's in future (point four for economy) including those themed to special events. Also, future episode connections (keep building the cast and in-universe developments) and dailies to add to the permanent map. Ie. this is something that Cryptic can expand over time (literally too) which would give them another content type to add to the release cadence.

    Add to that: this would be per character. Point five for economy: this refreshes a hell of a lot faster through turnover in fleets and can be relied upon to be something players can come back to for new creative takes or strategic builds (so put THAT as the focus, not arbitrary grinding thresholds for linear progress.)

    Now I'm sure you're keen to give this an inane point by point breakdown and treat the total suggestion as dependent on the specific points of me offering a dream development project off the cuff, but I'll let myself offering an earnest creative suggestion stand as a difference between the two of us.
    Post edited by duncanidaho11 on
    Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
    Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
    Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,867 Arc User
    edited April 2020
    It doesn't matter if its an apartment or a fleet holding, its the same argument.

    Um...no, they're substantially different. This is what we call minimization per selective interpretation. Compare what you were saying about the difficulty in incorporating combat, episodes, or any connectivity to a small habitable space (of your own imagining, reading the posts of others being an insufficient substitute for finding something to disagree with) with the demonstrated ease of adding combat to a colony ground map. This kind of location is in the game and being used for directly analogous purposes. How could they weave a colony project in with the main story? I don't know, maybe you should play the Dranuur TFO's and related content if you're unfamiliar (I can't say what you've chosen to focus on in-game or given conscious thought to), or the Romulan Republic story arc for potential themes and character potential.

    I'm not going to pretend this is a point for debate and thereby validate your questing shotgun blast approach to discussion (which holds that "supporting Virinat 2.0" set as a personal fleet holding with emphasis on choices and heavier integration with TFO's, episodes, patrols, ect. is SOMEHOW a step too far in forum discourse.) Your other comments are have absolutely nothing to do with my post (I never said that decisions would be made in the introductory episode) and I don't see them as anything more than strawmanning.

    Other folks can chime in if they want to, I'll give them consideration.
    Post edited by duncanidaho11 on
    Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
    Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
    Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
  • trennantrennan Member Posts: 2,839 Arc User
    How, or even WHY for that matter, would something like a personal apartment on Risa by affected by what you do in any sort of story mission, patrol, TFO, or any other such gameplay mechanic

    What the hell are you talking about there, M8? If you want a customizable apartment I suggest you take that suggestion and own it yourself. Don't put that into my post (in reaching for contrarianism and holding to a presumption on what you thought I was talking about with "take the core mechanic of the fleet holding system, expand it, make it more immediate, and better connected to other gameplay." What Cryptic built was a cudgel to the idea (naturally so, given that it was only intended to serve as the backdrop to a fleet revamp.) With sophistication and a "step back" to rethink, I think they could cultivate a new market with this suggestion (and without any hideous expenditure of resources worthy of the faux shock you've brought to discussion here. In practical terms this is ultimately just "build a map with more triggers on it and use it for several things.")


    Although I think in retrospect it would be cruel not to give you a concrete suggestion. So here's one: in-faction colony. The role playing element comes first from its use in a mission (count one for economical use of dev resources) with emotional connections built from the use of characters and writing (see. human involvement in video games if this is somehow a controversial point for you.) On completing the episode the player can return to the colony (it's a sector map location). For this you're probably looking at an equal amount of NPC dialog to what the episode contained so count the second episode in the now customary double bill as this project (point two for economy, this is season update territory.)

    Anyway, on the colony you can do several things. 1. interact to folk (basic theater of gaming and I would put a random rotation on some characters to add a vernier or organic life and avoid burning through all content in one go.) 2. build things. 3. make decisions. 2 and 3 are where the fleet holding mechanics come in and I would necessitate that 2 always involves 3. If you build something, you make a trade off between choices. Whether the colony builds a greenhouse or an armory, or hires a security officer or geologist, is the basic Molyneaux extension with buffs, lore, and cosmetics to motivate. Decor also fits into it as well (basic space barbie, and the choices here darn well need to relate back to the player and how they view themselves) but I'd extend it to items relevant to point 4, combat.

    New TFO: defend the colony (point three for economy, more content from the same map) where the build items and decisions also include defensive emplacements and support personnel (balanced so they play a significant role in whether your team attains optional objectives.) What you build pays off for the group (prime motivator for system participation.) However, rather than taking the randomization approach on enemy selection (like the previous colony TFO) I would make it a specific engagement so Cryptic could come back to the colony for more TFO's in future (point four for economy) including those themed to special events. Also, future episode connections (keep building the cast and in-universe developments) and dailies to add to the permanent map. Ie. this is something that Cryptic can expand over time (literally too) which would give them another content type to add to the release cadence.

    Add to that: this would be per character. Point five for economy: this refreshes a hell of a lot faster through turnover in fleets and can be relied upon to be something players can come back to for new creative takes or strategic builds (so put THAT as the focus, not arbitrary grinding thresholds for linear progress.)

    Now I'm sure you're keen to give this an inane point by point breakdown and treat the total suggestion as dependent on the specific points of me offering a dream development project off the cuff, but I'll let myself offering an earnest creative suggestion stand as a difference between the two of us.

    The economy part I like, Though, with this it may be better as random merchant X on DS9 has X random goods, useless stuff like furniture. Things that currently have no place to be used in the game. Then X random merchant over there might want to buy them for a higher price. The random I mention is to denote, they may or may not be there. So if you want to play galactic merchant, you might have to do a bit of hunting to find the merchants. But this is also gets hung up on it being only for cross-faction social zones. Which of course there's quite a few. Except in Gamma, there's no social zone there. The could even appear in random locations in adventure and battlezones. Because the life of a merchant isn't easy, and you have to go where the goods are.


    The TFO part, I'd see this as more customized simulations. You put one together. The start phase would be building your defenses. However, with this, it's not an automated one, you have to man each one, and not with an NPC. A player has to man these for them to work. For example a boolean with a seat on a turret base. Then with selectable enemies and difficulties, this kind of thing starts becoming more important. Of course with something like this, or even your TFO idea. The likelihood of them rewarding colony provisions would be high. SO, they'd either have to allow players to sell these to vendors again, or give some other use for them. The former is half the reason the simulation channel is now dead. Fleets are finishing up the colony holding and there's nothing else to do with provisions.
    Mm5NeXy.gif
  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,867 Arc User
    edited April 2020
    trennan wrote: »

    The economy part I like, Though, with this it may be better as random merchant X on DS9 has X random goods, useless stuff like furniture. Things that currently have no place to be used in the game. Then X random merchant over there might want to buy them for a higher price. The random I mention is to denote, they may or may not be there. So if you want to play galactic merchant, you might have to do a bit of hunting to find the merchants. But this is also gets hung up on it being only for cross-faction social zones. Which of course there's quite a few. Except in Gamma, there's no social zone there. The could even appear in random locations in adventure and battlezones. Because the life of a merchant isn't easy, and you have to go where the goods are.

    The TFO part, I'd see this as more customized simulations. You put one together. The start phase would be building your defenses. However, with this, it's not an automated one, you have to man each one, and not with an NPC. A player has to man these for them to work. For example a boolean with a seat on a turret base. Then with selectable enemies and difficulties, this kind of thing starts becoming more important. Of course with something like this, or even your TFO idea. The likelihood of them rewarding colony provisions would be high. SO, they'd either have to allow players to sell these to vendors again, or give some other use for them. The former is half the reason the simulation channel is now dead. Fleets are finishing up the colony holding and there's nothing else to do with provisions.

    The random merchant would also be a good place to throw costumes that otherwise would be difficult to monetize/promote. For example: civilian wear and miscellaneous uniforms that never found their way to the game (ex. Scientist jacket, Ocampa, Hazari.) Selling characters from the colony as bridge and duty officers would also help flesh out the listings. An obvious parallel would be the randomly rotating traders from Destiny or Warframe, so count this as a tried industry mechanic for engaging players on a punctuated basis (to fully capitalize on that also put special items in that are otherwise hard to get. So, count this another promo delivery or special sales channel.) Cryptic might also play around with buying furniture/decor themes carrying some desirable bonus (like a small amount of endeavor XP) to incentivize players who might not be keen on collecting everything for space barbie alone.

    Thought on the TFO: what about linking customizable TFO parameters with build choices? That would be a diegetic way (ie. playing to the fictional immersive universe) for making difficulty/enemy/objective decisions without front loading the start of the encounter with a UI. For example: if you've set building A up as a high value research lab versus (practical implementation: have object set A spawn in versus object set B, same dimensions) versus a greenhouse, that triggers (by simply referencing a player decision log) a defense objective at a given phase with more/higher level enemies (rational: them putting more into an attack on said high value target as opposed to a greenhouse or tardigrade nursery) and higher bonus objective payouts to match. Different factions could also be tied to different builds (ex. Tardigrade nursery -> J'ula, armory -> Gorn separatists), although I'd leave some doors open to separate variants of this TFO so building the colony counts for more ongoing content. Ex. TFO one: raids by Klingons/Elachi/Gorn (each tied to specific build choices.) TFO two: Borg invasion with Tal Shiar interference. TFO three: winter event, Q's minions have arrived! You either fight gingerbread men or snowmen depending on which side you've picked with a new decor item. Year two: add a space component and do the same.

    Changing those building decisions could be handled in a couple different ways depending on how much this counts as a build or a project. Option 1: make it a zen service (challenging players to stick to what they have and vary the colony across multiple characters) or option 2: make it a free thing (like parts of a build setup.) I think it depends on the feel of it when launched and how much players might want to tinker with the details (the more intricate the better IMO, with the chance of meaningful error in approaches deciding the flexibility of rebuilds.)
    Post edited by duncanidaho11 on
    Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
    Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
    Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,569 Arc User
    '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.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • paladinrja#5247 paladinrja Member Posts: 155 Arc User
    edited April 2020
    Guys, some of you have gone off into the boonies with this, and taken the conversation into a whole other realm.

    Y'know.. it could just be as simple as: Trends within the game from past content offered, imply the general audience aren't all that interested?

    Which, no one wants to waste resources, driving goals, that won't get good reception. I'm sure the whole concept of this thread has crossed the minds of producers and developers, and has been considered as one possible pathway for them. Among many, I would imagine.

    I'm also pretty confident that they know they have the "Star Trek" license, which means pretty much anything they offer up, will have an audience. The thing is "a happy audience?". -- there are plethora of reasons why this is important.

    Broader gaming trends suggest that gaming audiences are best served when individuals can get stuck into the physical aparatus of the constructed world. With group based objectives offered optionally. This has been fairly evident since Skyrim (2011). More recently with Legend of Zelda, Breath of the Wild (2016); along with continuing successes in titles such as No Man's Sky (afore memtioned). There are many more titles and each offer different extremes based on an evolution of a similar idea.

    The concept really, only impacts on what people do when they aren't in their starships. Things that mimic glimpses in the TV series & films. -- Few would sit and watch Carol Marcus (for example) develop Regula I, for two hours; and call that engaging cinema; but most will happily spend months developing much smaller outposts and maintaining them (see, The Martian) -- isn't even a question.

    Thats the purpose of this thread. -- To inspire people to come forward and show their interest. Not debate on the validity of a widely welcome concept.
    XBOX One GT: Paladinrja
  • paladinrja#5247 paladinrja Member Posts: 155 Arc User
    edited April 2020
    Thats the purpose of this thread. -- To inspire people to come forward and show their interest. Not debate on the validity of a widely welcome concept.
    No one is debating the validity of the concept as a concept. Obviously those games exist, and do well with it. The debate is on if STO can actually manage said concept within the already established framework of the 10 year old game we have.

    Its no different then the "new exploration system" debate. People point out that games like No Mans Sky exist, and thus, such a system is possible(if only poorly like NMS). The argument revolves around if its possible for STO to do the same, and do so within the already established game functions we have, instead of having to make an entirely separate game altogether, and then bolt it onto the current game. Which is obviously possible, but not monetarily worth doing.

    No ones citing other games as "proof of existence". Its to draw a mental image of the kinds of things they'd like to see in "this" game. Of course, if you're unfamiliar with such games, then there is discussion there. Merely enquire.

    This, interpretating factoids, derrived from public discourse with the devs about their game. -- You realise its rhetorical information based on specifics, right? I think, if there exists a discussion there, then its back at the point of digress. Which isn't.. here.

    So I'm a little unsure of what position you're attempting to elevate yourself to? I can only therefore conclude, you're not in support of the subject. Which you've made abundantly clear.

    That said. You can never have too much dil / EC, eh?
    XBOX One GT: Paladinrja
This discussion has been closed.