Be that as it may your first post was directed at me personally. My original post was not directed at any one person. There is an extreme difference. I can say what I want it is a free country epsecially since I was not sngling any one person or group out. You on the other hand chose to single one person out.
Correct. The post was directed to you. That's because it was a reply to YOU. That's why I used your own quotation blocks.
I'm not taking anything personally. Are you? I'm not using any little emoticons but, nothing personal is intended.
It means to not take it to heart and feel all hurt or broken up by it. You see the difference, don't you?
How could I reply to multiple posts of yours without directing it at you? If you're going to say things here (as I do) then, you have to expect that others will reply in disagreement or with critisism TO what you say (as I expect it). That doesn't mean you have to take it "personally", like they hate you, or something. You know, you feel like you can say anything you want and if you add a little 'smiley', it's all OK. Nobody should take it "PERSONALLY". Same word, different usages, different contexts.
Correct. The post was directed to you. That's because it was a reply to YOU. That's why I used your own quotation blocks.
When I say ...
It means to not take it to heart and feel all hurt or broken up by it. You see the difference, don't you?
How could I reply to multiple posts of yours without directing it at you? If you're going to say things here (as I do) then, you have to expect that others will reply in disagreement or with critisism TO what you say (as I expect it). That doesn't mean you have to take it "personally", like they hate you, or something. You know, the same way you feel like you can say anything you want and if you add a little 'smiley', it's all OK. Nobody should take it "PERSONALLY". Same word, different contexts.
Ok I agree with that; however, your original post could be considered to be on the insulting side. There is a difference between disagreement, criticism, and insults. I have issue only with the last.
No, it is you who keeps missing the point. This feature is a complete waste of time. Since you are able to delete your character on your own, you do not need any additional tools to do so.
No, it is you who keeps missing the point. This feature is a complete waste of time. Since you are able to delete your character on your own, you do not need any additional tools to do so.
It is the emotional difference, they feel different, even if one is willful enough for the consequence to be the same.
Use any example you like, when one is in control, and can decide the consequences, or avoid them entirely, the feeling is different then when one cannot decide on or avoid the consequences, that's simply a fact of how we work as human beings, and no amount of semantic equivocation is going to change it.
It's the feeling, not the result, that I seek. Your solution provides the result, but the circumstances of that result prevent the very feeling I seek.
I would support some sort of "covert op" type gameplay (Section 13, Tal'Shiar, those kinds of guys) where your character... not the whole account... becomes /anon for everybody other than his team, and can't return to regular gameplay until the mission (over several parts/days of play) is resolved all the way to pass or fail.
No supply runs, no loot banking, injuries are stuck unless you can fix them, no boff swapping, etc... prepare and make do in the field or go without.
THIS is **infinitely** more interesting to me, than the OP idea. As Shard has pointed out, the mechanic for deleting ship and character are already in place.
THIS would add truly a new element to the game, especially if it was somewhat random. It would have to pop up, and you either accept or decline right there. (Close box is a decline) AND it would immediately disable all in-game chat, docking at Starbases, etc etc etc.
My luck - I would get caught in my shuttle. :rolleyes:
It's the feeling, not the result, that I seek. Your solution provides the result, but the circumstances of that result prevent the very feeling I seek.
You can already create this feeling each and every time you log in to the game. It is all in your mind. Each and every mission has the potential for failure or "perma-death" if you want it to. If you cannot achieve that sense of realism or immersion that you seek now, nothing Cryptic programs is going to do it for you.
This is interesting. I like the idea behind the scenario. Their is still choice of taking the mission on and their is a chance of loss. it gives a complete balance. While most of you arent real trekkies to sit back and say no. lol This is trek. always doing something daring. To bodly go where no man has ever gone. to seek out new life and new civilizations. How dare you sit their and say not a fit to STO. What do you think those letters stand for STAR TREK ONLINE. It is star trek and by gosh its meant to have loss and sacrifice and some good gain.
The penalty can come with a 15 day cool down of the ship and gear and a officer recovery system that is gradual at best. perhaps 5 days but over that time officer return in increments.
I dont get it. why do people not care to have a real star trek experience. The possibility of loss if you are reckless, careless and just a spam officer. This will revive the game. if cryptic allows players to build ships or upgrade template ships then loosing them isnt such a bad deal. death and loss is apart of every game and life. for one to sit and say "no i dont want to lose my ship and gear that by far is endless" is well not allowing star trek to take its place in the game and is a bit childish to say the least.
Oh well i find the idea a good star trek really exploring space and getting all its benefits good and bad.
The penalty can come with a 15 day cool down of the ship and gear and a officer recovery system that is gradual at best. perhaps 5 days but over that time officer return in increments.
And what about players who have only one character? You are automatically making it that if they try this and fail, they cannot log in and play for 15+ days.
I could very well be wrong, but I think Cryptic wants you logging in and playing and having fun. This idea prevents the player from doing so with their favorite character.
I don't think Cryptic would ever go for supporting this beyond your own player delete button due to the potential for raging "takebacksies" on the part of people who made a bad decision.
I don't think Cryptic would ever go for supporting this beyond your own player delete button due to the potential for raging "takebacksies" on the part of people who made a bad decision.
Or when the server has an "oops!" and a player loses the mission due to server lag/crashing.
And what about players who have only one character? You are automatically making it that if they try this and fail, they cannot log in and play for 15+ days.
I could very well be wrong, but I think Cryptic wants you logging in and playing and having fun. This idea prevents the player from doing so with their favorite character.
Kind of stupid, wouldn't you agree?
not really, you dont have to part take in the mission. Thats first off, its all about choice. I have my engineer character play all the parts and my science character has not been log into for over 2 months. Why do you guys always go to the negative when an idea about the potential for loss is mentioned. you bought this game based upon star trek but for some reason loss is not in your vocabulary when it comes to the game play. that is weird. Star trek always had loss and even the greats from the movies and shows died or had loss of crewmen. I think everyone in DS9 has had injury and had to rest a few days or do other attributes. How about this you are injured and star fleet puts you on leave. certain missions become open to you like diplomatic missions or missions to do trade negotiations or missions that require ohh look at that a shuttle. You can expand your knowledge at memory alpha, or at jupiter space station. There are so many possibilities as to not being in combat for a few days.
not really, you dont have to part take in the mission. Thats first off, its all about choice.
Yes, it is about choice. Cryptic will choose not to create content that will prevent a (paying) customer from playing the game. That should be a no-brainer.
You can already create this feeling each and every time you log in to the game. It is all in your mind. Each and every mission has the potential for failure or "perma-death" if you want it to. If you cannot achieve that sense of realism or immersion that you seek now, nothing Cryptic programs is going to do it for you.
Sad? Imagine what it feels like to be happy, create the feeling in your mind, does that solve your problem and make you happy?
Feeling angry at something? Imagine pummeling it into little bitty bits, now, aren't you just as satisfied as if you'd done it in real life?
People can't simply "choose" to have whatever emotional experience we want at any given time.
People feel different in different situations, impromptu self-imposed consequences do not, and cannot, create the same feelings as actual, out-of-your-hands consequences.
Insult me all you like, there is a huge difference between 'bold" and "a stupid waste of time". I would love for you to post where I said anything about STO being a 'Barney's Playhouse". Perhaps you might want to follow your own advice and re-read the thread again?
All other arguments aside if enough people want this type of mission it will happen. Those who don't like it don't have to play. However, the almighty dollar speaks loudest at the end of the day and if enough customers want a mission like the OP suggested it will happen.
Ok, then just "imagine" that I've agreed with you and no longer want a perma-death mission, and stop cluttering up this thread.
Alternatively, you could imagine that you have come up with a good idea that will appeal to a larger portion of the playerbase. Differing points of view are not "clutter".
All other arguments aside if enough people want this type of mission it will happen. Those who don't like it don't have to play. However, the almighty dollar speaks loudest at the end of the day and if enough customers want a mission like the OP suggested it will happen.
Enough customers may want a mission where they rescue Pinky and the Brain from Godzilla too. That does not mean it will happen.
Follow the Engineering and Developer posts more. It is fairly easy to follow that they are developing content to appeal to as many people as possible. Perma-deaths are not going to appeal to the majority here. Look at the outcry when the Difficulty Slider and Injury System were introduced. People were not happy with injuries. Now you want to delete their character?
Alternatively, you could imagine that you have come up with a good idea that will appeal to a larger portion of the playerbase. Differing points of view are not "clutter".
Except I'm not the one purporting imagination to create emotional reality, you are.
If you can "imagine" yourself into feeling whatever you like, fine, good for you, I can't, in fact, most people can't, if they could, there would be no need for human interaction, psychiatrists, etc.. As people would just "imagine" themselves happy and satisfied with whatever circumstances they find themselves in, misery, unhappiness, and depression would not exist if you were right.
Also, your point of view was put forth by your initial post in the thread, everything since has been putting down the opinions of others and putting forth ridiculous "challenges" which miss the point entirely (hint: it's not the deletion of a character, it's the externally-imposed risk of deletion you can do nothing about).
Alternatively, you could imagine that you have come up with a good idea that will appeal to a larger portion of the playerbase. Differing points of view are not "clutter".
Enough customers may want a mission where they rescue Pinky and the Brain from Godzilla too. That does not mean it will happen.
Follow the Engineering and Developer posts more. It is fairly easy to follow that they are developing content to appeal to as many people as possible. Perma-deaths are not going to appeal to the majority here. Look at the outcry when the Difficulty Slider and Injury System were introduced. People were not happy with injuries. Now you want to delete their character?
Still declining my challenge, eh? Thought so.
As I have said when you actually make sense we will have a legitimate discussion. No one is talking about Pinky and Godzilla but you. As for your challenge. Well lets just say I am ignoring it because I find it dumb and leave it at that.
This is interesting. I like the idea behind the scenario. Their is still choice of taking the mission on and their is a chance of loss. it gives a complete balance. While most of you arent real trekkies to sit back and say no. lol This is trek. always doing something daring. To bodly go where no man has ever gone. to seek out new life and new civilizations. How dare you sit their and say not a fit to STO. What do you think those letters stand for STAR TREK ONLINE. It is star trek and by gosh its meant to have loss and sacrifice and some good gain.
If by 'real trekkie' you mean someone whos dons fake uniforms and Vulcan pointed ears or prosthetic Klingon foreheads at a convention or someone who pays homage to Captain Picard or Spock with the same reverence and conviction as somone might pay homage to General Ulysses Grant or President Franklin Roosevelt (real people), then no. I'm not a 'real trekkie'. I am someone who thinks Star Trek and its sequel shows were, for the most part, well written and produced entertainment and I have a better than average knowledge of the show. I really like the backdrop of the various series and I think they present some very compelling characters and story lines. That being said, I have stated the reason for my opposition to this idea. It's mainly economic.
I am fully aware what STO means. It replicates the world of Star Trek in an MMO format. It's owned/operated by Cryptic/Atari and it's a BUSINESS. It comes with loss and sacrifice and good gain. I lose time and sacrifice money to play it. I gain fun and relaxation. It's like building model airplanes, just more aesthetically pleasing at times. How dare I say the idea is not a fit for STO? How dare you say it is? As an MMO and a business it would represent (to me) a waste of assets to appeal to a very small fraction of subscribers. Businesses with limited assets have to make decisions. I'd be willing to bet this idea won't realize.
For some of you pre madona's and fake trekkies, the penalty can come with a 15 day cool down of the ship and gear and a officer recovery system that is gradual at best. perhaps 5 days but over that time officer return in increments.
It always comes down to this.
The following is a reenactment:
Gamer A - "The cloaking tractor mine is awful and it ruins PvP!"
Gamer B - "I diasgree. You should try new tactics."
Gamer A - "Well, you don't PvP. You must be one of those PvE'ers."
Gamer B - "No. I PvP quite often."
Gamer A - "Well! You Do not! You're not a 'real PvP'er or you'd agree with me!"
Trasnsfer the subject of conversation to the OP's idea and you get something similar. Except you get called a "jerk", or you don't "have what it takes", or you're "ego-centric", or a "prima donna".
I dont get it. why do people not care to have a real star trek experience. The possibility of loss if you are reckless, careless and just a spam officer. This will revive the game. if cryptic allows players to build ships or upgrade template ships then loosing them isnt such a bad deal. death and loss is apart of every game and life. for one to sit and say "no i dont want to lose my ship and gear that by far is endless" is well not allowing star trek to take its place in the game and is a bit childish to say the least.
Just what is a 'real Star Trek' experience? I want to play (and PAY for) a Star Trek based MMO. Is it perfect? No. I'm hoping it will improve. Granted, I've only been playing since September 2010 but, I was not aware it need reviving. Oh, it needs new content. Things like more Klingon content, better ground combat, a fully functioning Romulan faction (and hopefully Cardassian someday, too). All of these will 'revive' the game because they have a much broader appeal and will keep/draw in more customers. While the idea you support can hardly be seen as having that broad of an appeal. Especially not as a hook to draw more customers.
All other arguments aside if enough people want this type of mission it will happen. Those who don't like it don't have to play. However, the almighty dollar speaks loudest at the end of the day and if enough customers want a mission like the OP suggested it will happen.
Which us precisely why this will never be implemented. I'll bet if Cryptic/Atari took a survey of the player base the "Hell No" option would win, walking away. Hands down.
How would you create a mission that would have the game make one of your characters be dead or unavailable for a length of time. You know? Removing it from your selection list, ENTIRELY.
Wouldn't a feature like that require completely rewriting some game code? I don't know but, if that is the case. It won't EVER happen.
Which us precisely why this will never be implemented. I'll bet if Cryptic/Atari took a survey of the player base the "Hell No" option would win, walking away. Hands down.
How would you create a mission that would have the game make one of your characters be dead or unavailable for a length of time. You know? Removing it from your selection list, ENTIRELY.
Wouldn't a feature like that require completely rewriting some game code? I don't know but, if that is the case. It won't EVER happen.
Maybe or maybe not. The real point is if some people want to play a mission like this and are willing to take the risk then why not. If it becomes technically feasable then why not. There really is no argument against that. The dev time argument fails because I can point out that I don't want them wasting time on a Romulan faction or the Klingons etc. This game is not just about what you want or what I want. The game can and should cater to every one.
I want to be an actual explorer. If I had my wish (and trust me many others feel the same way) I think cryptic should drop everything and work on exploration. However, that is unrealistc and we must all share dev resources for our pet projects. So if a few people want this and the tech is possible then let them have it.
Except I'm not the one purporting imagination to create emotional reality, you are.
If you can "imagine" yourself into feeling whatever you like, fine, good for you, I can't, in fact, most people can't, if they could, there would be no need for human interaction, psychiatrists, etc.. As people would just "imagine" themselves happy and satisfied with whatever circumstances they find themselves in, misery, unhappiness, and depression would not exist if you were right..
Maybe you should say most "western people" the east and middle east tend to live in the Moment and are content with being happy.
For those that cant, a good smack in the back of the head usually snaps people out of their self pity.
read my sig, you can get my outlook on all that wishy washy depression TRIBBLE.
I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough, without ever having felt sorry for itself.
Then D.H. Lawrence never saw an elephant visiting the grave of a dead relative. Or a Dolphin or Whale intentionally beaching themselves, committing suicide. Depression is a chemical imbalance in the brain, an actual medical condition, it's not "wishy-washy TRIBBLE".
You want to talk "wishy-washy TRIBBLE", look up the number of people taken in by "positive thinking" courses who ended up worse off then before because they were optimistic and oblivious when they should have been concerned and careful.
Then D.H. Lawrence never saw an elephant visiting the grave of a dead relative. Or a Dolphin or Whale intentionally beaching themselves, committing suicide. Depression is a chemical imbalance in the brain, an actual medical condition, it's not "wishy-washy TRIBBLE".
You want to talk "wishy-washy TRIBBLE", look up the number of people taken in by "positive thinking" courses who ended up worse off then before because they were optimistic and oblivious when they should have been concerned and careful.
and you look at how entire cultures don't believe in it either. Self pity gets you no where fast, i learned that under fire my friend, it doesn't take much to snap you out of it if your motivated.
Comments
Correct. The post was directed to you. That's because it was a reply to YOU. That's why I used your own quotation blocks.
When I say ...
It means to not take it to heart and feel all hurt or broken up by it. You see the difference, don't you?
How could I reply to multiple posts of yours without directing it at you? If you're going to say things here (as I do) then, you have to expect that others will reply in disagreement or with critisism TO what you say (as I expect it). That doesn't mean you have to take it "personally", like they hate you, or something. You know, you feel like you can say anything you want and if you add a little 'smiley', it's all OK. Nobody should take it "PERSONALLY". Same word, different usages, different contexts.
Ok I agree with that; however, your original post could be considered to be on the insulting side. There is a difference between disagreement, criticism, and insults. I have issue only with the last.
No, it is you who keeps missing the point. This feature is a complete waste of time. Since you are able to delete your character on your own, you do not need any additional tools to do so.
See the above:
It's the feeling, not the result, that I seek. Your solution provides the result, but the circumstances of that result prevent the very feeling I seek.
THIS is **infinitely** more interesting to me, than the OP idea. As Shard has pointed out, the mechanic for deleting ship and character are already in place.
THIS would add truly a new element to the game, especially if it was somewhat random. It would have to pop up, and you either accept or decline right there. (Close box is a decline) AND it would immediately disable all in-game chat, docking at Starbases, etc etc etc.
My luck - I would get caught in my shuttle. :rolleyes:
You can already create this feeling each and every time you log in to the game. It is all in your mind. Each and every mission has the potential for failure or "perma-death" if you want it to. If you cannot achieve that sense of realism or immersion that you seek now, nothing Cryptic programs is going to do it for you.
The penalty can come with a 15 day cool down of the ship and gear and a officer recovery system that is gradual at best. perhaps 5 days but over that time officer return in increments.
I dont get it. why do people not care to have a real star trek experience. The possibility of loss if you are reckless, careless and just a spam officer. This will revive the game. if cryptic allows players to build ships or upgrade template ships then loosing them isnt such a bad deal. death and loss is apart of every game and life. for one to sit and say "no i dont want to lose my ship and gear that by far is endless" is well not allowing star trek to take its place in the game and is a bit childish to say the least.
Oh well i find the idea a good star trek really exploring space and getting all its benefits good and bad.
This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Cryptic Studios Forum Usage Guidelines ~GM Tiyshen
And what about players who have only one character? You are automatically making it that if they try this and fail, they cannot log in and play for 15+ days.
I could very well be wrong, but I think Cryptic wants you logging in and playing and having fun. This idea prevents the player from doing so with their favorite character.
Kind of stupid, wouldn't you agree?
Or when the server has an "oops!" and a player loses the mission due to server lag/crashing.
Yes there are many ways a mistaken deletion could occur and I don't think Cryptic would want to deal with the many that would occur.
not really, you dont have to part take in the mission. Thats first off, its all about choice. I have my engineer character play all the parts and my science character has not been log into for over 2 months. Why do you guys always go to the negative when an idea about the potential for loss is mentioned. you bought this game based upon star trek but for some reason loss is not in your vocabulary when it comes to the game play. that is weird. Star trek always had loss and even the greats from the movies and shows died or had loss of crewmen. I think everyone in DS9 has had injury and had to rest a few days or do other attributes. How about this you are injured and star fleet puts you on leave. certain missions become open to you like diplomatic missions or missions to do trade negotiations or missions that require ohh look at that a shuttle. You can expand your knowledge at memory alpha, or at jupiter space station. There are so many possibilities as to not being in combat for a few days.
Yes, it is about choice. Cryptic will choose not to create content that will prevent a (paying) customer from playing the game. That should be a no-brainer.
Sad? Imagine what it feels like to be happy, create the feeling in your mind, does that solve your problem and make you happy?
Feeling angry at something? Imagine pummeling it into little bitty bits, now, aren't you just as satisfied as if you'd done it in real life?
People can't simply "choose" to have whatever emotional experience we want at any given time.
People feel different in different situations, impromptu self-imposed consequences do not, and cannot, create the same feelings as actual, out-of-your-hands consequences.
Insult me all you like, there is a huge difference between 'bold" and "a stupid waste of time". I would love for you to post where I said anything about STO being a 'Barney's Playhouse". Perhaps you might want to follow your own advice and re-read the thread again?
Yes.
Yup.
Ok, then just "imagine" that I've agreed with you and no longer want a perma-death mission, and stop cluttering up this thread.
Alternatively, you could imagine that you have come up with a good idea that will appeal to a larger portion of the playerbase. Differing points of view are not "clutter".
Enough customers may want a mission where they rescue Pinky and the Brain from Godzilla too. That does not mean it will happen.
Follow the Engineering and Developer posts more. It is fairly easy to follow that they are developing content to appeal to as many people as possible. Perma-deaths are not going to appeal to the majority here. Look at the outcry when the Difficulty Slider and Injury System were introduced. People were not happy with injuries. Now you want to delete their character?
Still declining my challenge, eh? Thought so.
Except I'm not the one purporting imagination to create emotional reality, you are.
If you can "imagine" yourself into feeling whatever you like, fine, good for you, I can't, in fact, most people can't, if they could, there would be no need for human interaction, psychiatrists, etc.. As people would just "imagine" themselves happy and satisfied with whatever circumstances they find themselves in, misery, unhappiness, and depression would not exist if you were right.
Also, your point of view was put forth by your initial post in the thread, everything since has been putting down the opinions of others and putting forth ridiculous "challenges" which miss the point entirely (hint: it's not the deletion of a character, it's the externally-imposed risk of deletion you can do nothing about).
As I have said when you actually make sense we will have a legitimate discussion. No one is talking about Pinky and Godzilla but you. As for your challenge. Well lets just say I am ignoring it because I find it dumb and leave it at that.
Edit: Go Katic Go!
If by 'real trekkie' you mean someone whos dons fake uniforms and Vulcan pointed ears or prosthetic Klingon foreheads at a convention or someone who pays homage to Captain Picard or Spock with the same reverence and conviction as somone might pay homage to General Ulysses Grant or President Franklin Roosevelt (real people), then no. I'm not a 'real trekkie'. I am someone who thinks Star Trek and its sequel shows were, for the most part, well written and produced entertainment and I have a better than average knowledge of the show. I really like the backdrop of the various series and I think they present some very compelling characters and story lines. That being said, I have stated the reason for my opposition to this idea. It's mainly economic.
I am fully aware what STO means. It replicates the world of Star Trek in an MMO format. It's owned/operated by Cryptic/Atari and it's a BUSINESS. It comes with loss and sacrifice and good gain. I lose time and sacrifice money to play it. I gain fun and relaxation. It's like building model airplanes, just more aesthetically pleasing at times. How dare I say the idea is not a fit for STO? How dare you say it is? As an MMO and a business it would represent (to me) a waste of assets to appeal to a very small fraction of subscribers. Businesses with limited assets have to make decisions. I'd be willing to bet this idea won't realize.
It always comes down to this.
The following is a reenactment:
Gamer A - "The cloaking tractor mine is awful and it ruins PvP!"
Gamer B - "I diasgree. You should try new tactics."
Gamer A - "Well, you don't PvP. You must be one of those PvE'ers."
Gamer B - "No. I PvP quite often."
Gamer A - "Well! You Do not! You're not a 'real PvP'er or you'd agree with me!"
Trasnsfer the subject of conversation to the OP's idea and you get something similar. Except you get called a "jerk", or you don't "have what it takes", or you're "ego-centric", or a "prima donna".
Just what is a 'real Star Trek' experience? I want to play (and PAY for) a Star Trek based MMO. Is it perfect? No. I'm hoping it will improve. Granted, I've only been playing since September 2010 but, I was not aware it need reviving. Oh, it needs new content. Things like more Klingon content, better ground combat, a fully functioning Romulan faction (and hopefully Cardassian someday, too). All of these will 'revive' the game because they have a much broader appeal and will keep/draw in more customers. While the idea you support can hardly be seen as having that broad of an appeal. Especially not as a hook to draw more customers.
Which us precisely why this will never be implemented. I'll bet if Cryptic/Atari took a survey of the player base the "Hell No" option would win, walking away. Hands down.
How would you create a mission that would have the game make one of your characters be dead or unavailable for a length of time. You know? Removing it from your selection list, ENTIRELY.
Wouldn't a feature like that require completely rewriting some game code? I don't know but, if that is the case. It won't EVER happen.
Maybe or maybe not. The real point is if some people want to play a mission like this and are willing to take the risk then why not. If it becomes technically feasable then why not. There really is no argument against that. The dev time argument fails because I can point out that I don't want them wasting time on a Romulan faction or the Klingons etc. This game is not just about what you want or what I want. The game can and should cater to every one.
I want to be an actual explorer. If I had my wish (and trust me many others feel the same way) I think cryptic should drop everything and work on exploration. However, that is unrealistc and we must all share dev resources for our pet projects. So if a few people want this and the tech is possible then let them have it.
Maybe you should say most "western people" the east and middle east tend to live in the Moment and are content with being happy.
For those that cant, a good smack in the back of the head usually snaps people out of their self pity.
read my sig, you can get my outlook on all that wishy washy depression TRIBBLE.
The Saucer separation of the Exploration Cruiser Retrofit required rewriting some game code, and we have it.
The MVAM of the new Advanced Escort Retrofit and the Advanced Escort required rewriting some game code, and we have it.
Putting in the Romulans as a playable faction will require rewriting some game code, but my money says we'll get it too.
it all depends on how much of the code we're talking about here.
Then D.H. Lawrence never saw an elephant visiting the grave of a dead relative. Or a Dolphin or Whale intentionally beaching themselves, committing suicide. Depression is a chemical imbalance in the brain, an actual medical condition, it's not "wishy-washy TRIBBLE".
You want to talk "wishy-washy TRIBBLE", look up the number of people taken in by "positive thinking" courses who ended up worse off then before because they were optimistic and oblivious when they should have been concerned and careful.
and you look at how entire cultures don't believe in it either. Self pity gets you no where fast, i learned that under fire my friend, it doesn't take much to snap you out of it if your motivated.
I'm just asking.
Are these known facts or surmisals?