Yes, well wishes to Rod's wonderful talent and the legacy he left us with - he is rolling in his grave because his concepts and the name brand value of Star Trek went down the tubes due solely to Cryptic. If Cryptic didn't have such an enormous ego, instead of blocking posts and blacklisting or threatening members, Cryptic should enjoy the help that knowledgeable Trekkie have freely offered - we all want a game that is fun to play but almost everyone I know is VERY unhappy with STO. Nowadays, instead of raising an eyebrow, getting excited, or asking a bunch of question like what's it like? --- no one seems interested now. It is so sad that Interest (and name brand value) in Star Trek has clearly been damaged.
Wouldn't it be far better if such a large number of Trekkie were not so dissatisfied with STO?,,, (so many are dissatisfied because STO is not anything like any other previous edition of Star trek games) and (if posts are actually read, you will find that every true code hacker and programmer out there insists that STO is nothing more than a mod of City of Heroes and needs a more robust engine and cleaner code.) Being a retired engineer and competent programmer, I tend to agree with that assessment. I could be wrong - they could be wrong, too. We have reasons to simply believe otherwise. This is all a shame because you did such a fine job with character creation.
BUT, if correct, Cryptic MUST change their ways with STO. In point, we really would like for STO to be successful, for us as well as for Cryptic (we don't really give a lick for Cryptic because they have poorly treated so many of their customers) If STO is not fixed --- It is unlikely that anyone will ever risk giving Cryptic another contract.- you cannot make much money with STO when it is being discounted for a measly $29.00 dollars, even seen STO discounted to 10 ten bucks. I paid a lot more.
You probably will block this post, and I do not know why. The intent of this post is to freely tell you how so many Trekkie believe it is. I'm sure that some will disagree. However, other customers should be able do as they will with it - comment about the game is GOOD. Blocking conversation about the game, is BAD. Face facts and fix the game, If you don't fix it, your game developing days will go down the tube in a major way. You should realize that. And if not fixed, it is now and will be further and forever boycotted by dissatisfied, angry customers that put faith in Cryptic to fix STO properly. On the other hand, if you fix it, you will receive oodles of good comment, maybe even earn an Industry award from peers --- if you fix it.
Moreover, you realize that there has not been a single game developer out there yet that hasn't relied on customers to point out the little things that too often would otherwise be overlooked - those are the little details that make or break a game. Good game developers value and encourage their customers feedback. They are intelligent enough to want good customer relationships. Cryptic blocks customer feedback as though no one will notice.
YOU,,,, YOU disrespect your customers. You are not developing good relationships with your customers. We are trying to form a community that generates huge profit for you, and huge fun for us --- AND YOU ARE STILL DELETING YOUR Customer's POSTS and blacklisting them, and without a sound rational.
The only thing (wrong???) about the posts is that they probably complained about the game giving them problems (from the horses mouth), but that is not a reason to remove/block posts i.e., if posts are not favorable to Cryptic, Cryptic should find out why a customer has complained, instead of blocking the member's post. But Cryptic knows that. STO is not fun and not what you told us it would be, AND certainly not what we expected. You have made a game that still exists today, only because it is named Star Trek, otherwise by any other name it would have been tossed in the deep discount box for a buck or two. It's like Star Trek has died. Your concept is simply NOT Star Trek. You should realize that. I think CBS is going to be pretty disappointed and/or angry when they figure out the truth. Deleting posts that are trying to help chase down issues, is absolutely the wrong thing to do to customers. It is really sad that Cryptic has decided to take the approach of just deleting the posts THEY don't like, claiming the post was flaming or trolling. This is not ethical and I think Cryptic Studios as well as CBS, should know about the conduct involving misrepresentations of the nature of the deleted posts. I have come to know a lot of Trekkie and they tell me how they feel - I know how I fell - I just wish someone responsible would address these matters. I think the persons that read the posts must not be telling their superiors (an executive) about misrepresentations or deleted/removed/blocked posts.
If you think I am wrong, please tell me what is wrong instead of blocking the post saying is it "trolling" or that it is "Flaming" I have looked in many reference books and I find that the word is used to describe a way to fish for fish and "Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it'..." I don't think anyone is fishing by merely posting of a message. I know exactly what Flaming is, and this post does not meet the criteria to be flaming or trolling: e.g., "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. In addition to the offending poster, the noun troll can also refer to the provocative message itself, as in "that was an excellent troll you posted. While the term troll and its associated action trolling are primarily associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels highly subjective, with trolling being used to describe intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context. For example, recent media accounts have used the term troll to describe "a person who defaces internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families." Theoretically then, my post should not be blocked. It is in fact, reporting a problem with communication and in trying to understand why that after nearly a year, STO is still broken in many aspects, and what Cryptic has done to change all that - just numbers would go a long way towards communicating with your customers. I have yet to see Cryptic tell us about intentions to fix many of the specifically reported issues and what has been done to ultimately fix STO to work properly and be fair (which it is not at present) and be fun. So, will you communicate with your customers or simply make my post go away, or will you alter it to have a different meaning? I know these thing have happened to web friends (they told me), so I half expect to be treated the same way, i.e., like badly. A customer sends a message advising of a bug found in the game that seriously interferes with game play,,,, and the message gets deleted,,, Why is that? I do know that such has happened to several of my friends. Someone simply must not want the public to read that type of information,,, could that be it? Quit frankly, if the game wasn't ready to be released, it should not have been released. That is on Cryptic, and it was a dis-service to all of us.
CC Cryptic Studios
maybe CC to CBS
well said popa i have had a major problem with the admin/ mods of this forum.. it got to the point i actually have tried to get banned from the forums.
to me the admin/mods on here are little geeks that have been given power & its went to there heads.
your other point is very valid with the flaws this game has & here is what i see is wrong with the game.
In any other game if have played (that has muliple factions) those factions are equal they each have there
plus side & there draw backs.
Right enough most games i have played before STO were strategy games.
AGE OF EMPIRES / AGE OF KINGS / C&C / ST ARMADA even first person shooters where you can play
vs other players.
The opposit factions were always equal not one sided UNLIKE STO.
now i will base this example on a game that is now 10 years + & i hold in high regards ST ARMADA.
you have 4 factions in it
FEDERATION the intro faction
KLINGON / ROMULANS & BORG
each faction had the same amount of ships unlike STO where the federation have loads of ships & the klingons have ..well lets just say they dont have :(
example at VA/LTG
FEDERATION has access to 10 this is inc the refits the (not inc the galaxy x) in you inc that + the nebula soon to be released it takes the federation ship count to 12.
KLINGON ship count is a total of 5
Now you also have the disparity in the hull & shields the feds have more again than there klingon counter parts.
Now i find this very strange as the klingons are meant to be a warrior race now wouldnt you think that a race who is always at war.
Come up with ships equal to or better than there enemy ships ?.
Now i started playing back on the last week & half of the beta (i didnt come on the forums back then)
I play this game for PVP with a smattering of PVE the game was getting advertised as a war game.
& in the last days of the beta they had klingons & feds in open war yet we have nothing like that in game
Then you have devs telling klingon players to wait for content yes i will wait for PVE missions what i wont wait for is the time when feds have 20 ships to pick from & the klingons still have 5.
Dstahl stated at start of season 2 klingon refits would be the end of august (i called BS in that post in the first week of august).
And yes they proved me right those refits were pushed back while they give federation more ships.
Now this is what makes me laugh the most back to a point i made earlier the lower hull & shields of the klingon ships.
the first exscuse i heard was because klingons have cloak ... lol well hello look at the defiant refit
yes it has a crap BO layout just like the raptor & i dont fly that either.
to me if you could put the same person behind the controls of the defiant & the raptor & play them head to head the defiant would win hands down .. why the turn rate it has.
Now by far the worst exscuse iv heard for the klingons lower hulls & shields is the fact that all klingon ships can mount cannons.
while that might be true try keeping a fed ship in your firing arc while flying a neg or carrier lolz is all im gonna say. plus the fact that cannons have been nerfed to the point that to mount them on either of those ships is just laughable.
while the one advantage the klingons have over the federation is the BOP you put a bop in against a half good fed team in PVP that bop is dead, you put it in against a good PVP team it be as well staying cloaked.
you put that said bop in against a very good PVP team it just better not decloak.
& i dont care who is the pilot of that BOP.
Well to the point of my post as its early doors & iv rattled on to much as it is each faction should have equal amount of ships to pick from & each faction should have its own plus side & drawbacks.
This game does not the only drawback the federation has is the players themselfs.
Most are spoon fed xp from start to finish have no idea what to spend said xp on & at end game
jump in to pvp & get slaughtered then come here crying nerf the klingons.
Instead of actually learning how to pvp.
OP, you don't really have the right to speak for the whole fanbase. Plus, you'e wrong. Cryptic does respect us and relies heavily on our feedback (as already demonstrated) to decide what to do next with the game.
It wouldn't be the last error or misconception in the OPs post, unfortunately.
While you are entitled to your opinions, I think you should refrain from speaking for everyone when you do not. I enjoy the game, I have few technical issues, and I believe it is getting better. I am sorry you do not like the game, but many of your opinions/issues are yours alone and perhaps some are shared by different players for different reasons.
I might be going out on a limb here, but I am nearly certain you do not speak for a dead man and posting his name does not make your opinions any more relevant. To be honest I am not sure what you are using Gene Roddenberry’s name to get attention for. Is it technical issues, the direction of the game, or just general resentment for how it has turned out? In most of your post, it seems you are complaining about not being allowed to complain.
Instead of posting a long nearly incoherent story and making wild assumptions about who your represent perhaps you should stick to specifics. However, this is just my opinion on how you should proceed.
OP is wrong. Gene's vision of Star Trek disappeared as soon as he died. Cryptic isn't responsible.
Gene, while on his death bed really had a problem with the Star Trek VI script because in his Universe he didn't want any bigotry. Especially from the main hero of his franchise. Berman wanted to do an entire season regarding a war with the Borg. Gene nixed it because Star Trek wasn't supposed to be about war. There's a whole list of examples of Gene shooting down Star Trek ideas, only for them to be realized after he wasn't around anymore.
Don't blame Cryptic for the current state Star Trek is in. Paramount/Berman/Braga did that.
Unfortunately he did not own the rights and did not like a lot of what they did from day one. A that time he made almost any deal how could to get on the air and then to make enough show to bring it to syndication. He would never given the thumbs up to the deal under the terms in the contacts. Much of which has hurt STO bad.
Obviously STO did not meet your expectations, but I can only wonder... what were your expectations founded upon? Did you visit the website, listen to any podcasts, view the trailers, play the beta... any of it? Or simply conjure up your own idea of the perfect STO and then call it a "fail" when that is not what was released?
STO is not the perfect MMO, not the most exacting representation of the entire ST intellectual property, and not the most fun MMO I've ever played, but, to me, it's still FUN! The key words there are "to me;" in my opinion, lest anyone accuse me of speaking for them. Will STO ever achieve any of those 3 points? Probably not, but that doesn't stop it from being fun, interesting and engaging.
There are TONS of features, content, changes and what-not that I'd love to see implemented, but I also understand that bitterly ranting about them on these forums is not the best way to create change, or inspire anyone to do anything but ignore me. To promote change, get involved; be an active, positive part of the community; inspire support for your ideas from others, multiply your voice. If your ideas are good, feasible, and desired by many, Cryptic has been listening! There's no denying this, and no amount of blustering can undermine this fact. If your idea is to scrap the current product and start from scratch, be realistic... that cannot happen. That is like asking an architect to tear down a brand-new building because you don't like the floor colors and window treatments.
OP, your post was immense, so I must confess, I pulled a TL, DNR about 1/2 way through. If you already addressed any of these points, I do apologize. Actually, this is an example of a sour message that does not get heard, because not many wish to listen.
The best of luck to you in helping to make STO the MMO you desire, or finding the MMO that you truly enjoy.
|All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:35 PM.|