Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 1 Jiffy Pop FAQ
06-09-2011, 06:09 AM
Jermbots Ideas For Fixing Yssues via Potentially Outrageous Proposals

This is a new forum series I intend to run where I submit a Potentially Outrageous Proposal, explain my reasoning and then anticipate the questions and objections most likely to be raised. If you have questions or objections that I haven't mentioned feel free to add them in your response, if you just want to share your thoughts on the ideas presented that's cool too. I read all comments with an open mind.

Today's suggestion, Faction Transfers!

The idea, as presented here, would be to allow pre-general characters to complete 1 of 3 level scaling quests or chains to desert their faction and join the other side, taking whatever bridge officers, gear and ships they have with them. General level characters can do the same thing but with the additional cost of 500 Emblems. Cryptic could also add a "Benedict Arnold" token to the C-Store that allowed players to spend Cryptic Points to make the transfer instead of emblems but for reasons explained later, the cost would have to be significant to deter abuse.

I believe this would help address the population disparity by permitting players to bypass the painful grind that is the Klingon experience in exchange for the slightly less, or sometimes even enjoyable, grind that is the Federation experience, while still giving that Klingon the opportunity to jump back over to the red side of the game at the ending levels of Captain. Even after, or if, that content disparity is ever corrected it still creates an opportunity to create unique feeling characters with interesting back stories to explain exactly why they are the expatriates.

Now, onto the FAQ!

Question 1. Why are you doing this, your suggestions are always terrible and nobody likes you?

Well, that's a little harsh. I mean, my dog likes me, sorta... and my social worker thinks I'm swell.

Question 2. No seriously, you support homogenization why should your opinion hold any weight with anyone?

Well, I'm going to avoid the rant about people misusing the word opinion and just say, don't worry about my opinion, look at my reasons, they're sound, weigh them against the negative effects you would feel as a player and come to your own conclusion. If you want to discuss your conclusion and the opinion you've reached from it, that's fine, I can and do prefer to discuss things reasonably. If you just want to flame, that's fine too as one look at my posting history shows I'm not really here to make friends.

Question 3. Speaking of homogenization, this looks just like some devious plan to get Klingon ships for the Federation!

That's not a question...

Question 3. Okay smart guy, IS this a devious plan to get Klingon ships for the Federation?

Yes, you caught me. You are far too clever. Under this proposal a Federation Admiral could spend 500 Emblems or enough cryptic points to buy a ship to 'desert' to the Klingon side, he can buy a Vorcha-R for energy credits, or a B'Rel-R for another 500 Emblems or equivalent cash shop points, and then spend another 500 emblems or cash shop points to transfer right back to the Federation, thus playing us for suckers.

Or even more deviously, a Federation Admiral could level an entirely new character up to Captain, transfer over to the KDF for free at the last possible moment, level up to General, buy his Heghta BoP and then spend cryptic points to transfer back. He, of course, will be 10 levels of soul sucking General grinding away from having any emblems on that entirely new character.

However, if a Federation Admiral feels strongly enough about wanting an Orion Patrol Cruiser piloted by a Bolian Starfleet officer that he's willing to go to those lengths, I say let him. The amount of enjoyment he'll get from pulling that feat off and having that character will far surpass any damage it would do to my enjoyment of the game.

Question 4. How does this not lead to an entire armada of Federation players piloting Klingon ships, I could go into a Cap and Hold and find I'm up against 3 Kafir Carriers and a Gurumba, what should I do then?

That's two questions. As for the first, it doesn't, if there's an entire Armada's worth of Federation players or disgruntled Klingons willing to make the faction switch to the Federation side of the game, the option will be there for those willing to invest the time or money. As for the second question, I dunno, target practice?

Question 5. Would not seeing a B'Rel-R Captained by the Federation not utterly destroy the unique feeling of Star Trek forever?

Seemed to work out in the sixth Star Trek movie, and didn't Gul Dukat fly a Bird of Prey for awhile during the Klingon/Cardassian war?

Question 6. Wasn't that Star Trek IV?

Oh yeah, whatever.

Question 7. No, but seriously, those were special cases! I mean, in Star Trek IV we're talking Captain Kirk! And Gul Dukat flew his ship as spoils of war, after he had been demoted to flying a cargo hauler.

Okay, I agree, nobody in this game should be as special or awesome as Captain Kirk. And while that was an awesome episode of DS9, still, the war's been going on for almost two years now and any player willing to invest the time and effort should be ATLEAST as special as Gul Dukat!

Question 8. Won't this just discourage Cryptic from working on new Klingon content?

Oh thank god, finally a question that's not about homogenization. No, I believe with the end game populations closer to even Cryptic will in fact be encouraged to work on new Klingon content. People are going to want to level alts within the same fleets as their friends, a more balanced population should create more competitive gameplay and may even draw in new players.

Question 9. I don't think it's likely that any TRUE Klingon player will support this kind of blatant destruction of the only things that give the KDF a unique feel.

Oh good God. Okay, that's not a question, that's a veiled accusation, and, just no. I care about this faction enough to subject myself to the abuses of fellow members of this board in my own attempts to help it and the game as a whole.

Question 10. Why do you think this will increase Klingon population numbers, why wouldn't it cause Klingons to just leave for Starfleet?

Well, two reasons. First, the Klingons we still have are not going to Starfleet, they will apparently quit the game first. You don't need to trust me, just check out my "scrap the faction" thread. They've ground their way up to General through vast deserts of no content just to play as Klingons. Two, apparently the Klingons have just a little more solo content to do at end game.

Question 11. Won't Klingon's quit the game if the KDF gets filled to the brim with Vulcans, Andorians and Humans?

Well, they seem okay with all the Dax's we have running around.

Question 12. Well, that was because of Kurzon Dax and the Dax symbiote, you should know that if you're such a DS9 fan.

Yeah, there's still only one Dax symbiote and Ezri Dax, the most recent canon recipient even said, "I don't share their idealistic view of the Klingon empire. It's dying Worf, and I think it should."

Question 13. I just don't want to see Starfleet uniforms running around Qonos.

Me neither, force outfit changes when they desert. Shouldn't be wearing the uniform of the enemy anyway.

Question 14. But people shouldn't just abandon Starfleet, it's an honor to serve Starfleet!

Tom Riker, Cal Hudson, Ro Laren, Lon Suder, Kenneth Dalby and yellow shirted security liason from DS9 who's name I can't remember disagree. Now, I know, they joined the Maquis, a Federation terrorist organization, but it shows not just the potential to become frustrated with Starfleet/Federation policies tying the hands of its captains but also, in the case of Tom Riker and Ro Laren, the definite possibility that the mentally unstable can make it past Starfleet quality control.

Question 15. Those were exceptional cases!

Screw that, I'm an exceptional case because it's FUNNER to play a character who is exceptional.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
06-09-2011, 07:02 AM
Please read all my responses with a level, calm voice, it is how I intend them. My intent is not an argumentative one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
Question 2. No seriously, you support homogenization why should your opinion hold any weight with anyone?

Well, I'm going to avoid the rant about people misusing the word opinion and just say, don't worry about my opinion, look at my reasons, they're sound, weigh them against the negative effects you would feel as a player and come to your own conclusion.
While I hate to point it out, it's really just an assertion that your reasons are sound. From the reactions and counter-arguments your other threads have drawn out, I think you should be at least be willing to consider that your reasons are not as sound as you may think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
Question 8. Won't this just discourage Cryptic from working on new Klingon content?

Oh thank god, finally a question that's not about homogenization. No, I believe with the end game populations closer to even Cryptic will in fact be encouraged to work on new Klingon content.
You think homogenization would lead to a larger KDF population. This is an assertion you have made multiple times, but never explained. To put it in question form: Why would a Fed player who desires ~KDF asset~ roll a KDF character if they already have access to ~KDF asset~ with their Fed(s)?

Basically:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
Question 10. Why do you think this will increase Klingon population numbers
The only answer you (kind of) supply is:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
..apparently the Klingons have just a little more solo content to do at end game.
I do not understand, please explain how giving KDF assets to the Federation will result in more KDF characters rather than Fed characters with KDF assets.

I've specifically avoided the questions I consider specious, as they neither represent my reasoning, nor my objections to your proposal(s).

I thank you for your time, and hope you understand that a reasonable, level-headed debate between you and I is likely to do far more good than all the flaming/arguing we might otherwise engage in.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
06-09-2011, 08:31 AM
Quote:
Please read all my responses with a level, calm voice, it is how I intend them. My intent is not an argumentative one.

While I hate to point it out, it's really just an assertion that your reasons are sound. From the reactions and counter-arguments your other threads have drawn out, I think you should be at least be willing to consider that your reasons are not as sound as you may think.
Fair enough, then lets discuss my reasons. Opinions need not be involved.

Quote:
You think homogenization would lead to a larger KDF population. This is an assertion you have made multiple times, but never explained. To put it in question form: Why would a Fed player who desires ~KDF asset~ roll a KDF character if they already have access to ~KDF asset~ with their Fed(s)?

I do not understand, please explain how giving KDF assets to the Federation will result in more KDF characters rather than Fed characters with KDF assets.
I think, in this case, the gaping lack of leveling content causes more problems for the KDF population than exclusive access to what few things are still unique to us do good. The faction swapping proposal would alleviate this by allowing players to bypass the torturous KDF leveling experience.

As far as your other question. There are a couple of definite benefits to the Federation having the unique assets. In a previous post I went on in detail about how bugs and failures with those specific assets would be corrected with a higher priority if they more severely effected the larger player base. The introduction of other play style combinations or options could be a draw to players currently not involved in the game, even if they were on the Federation side, which would be better for the game overall.

Now, from an exclusively Klingon point of view, it becomes a question of whether the benefit we see in terms of players ONLY playing on the KDF or new players choosing to play on the KDF because of these unique benefits is greater than the benefit we would see by having cloaking bugs, fighter AI, universal slot balance plus whatever future problems we have fixed sooner. I admit freely it's a question that I don't think anyone has the numbers to answer objectively, but subjectively, it feels like there are precious few who decide to play Klingon and stick with it through all the stuff we have to put up with for the sole reason of access to a few unique assets.

Quote:
I've specifically avoided the questions I consider specious, as they neither represent my reasoning, nor my objections to your proposal(s).

I thank you for your time, and hope you understand that a reasonable, level-headed debate between you and I is likely to do far more good than all the flaming/arguing we might otherwise engage in.
You've chosen to focus on the potential homogenization aspects of the 'faction switch' proposal, and that's fair given that I focused questions 2-8 on homogenization myself and it does open up alot of the homogenization options that I support and others do not. But this isn't a homogenization proposal, I say with an almost straight face, this is a proposal to allow players currently on the Federation side and players currently on the Klingon side to jump to the other faction.

With that in mind, I specifcally set out to limit the 'homogenization aspects' of it in two ways. The first is obvious and definite, I built the proposal with a pretty steep cost. Under this proposal a Federation commander can bounce over to the KDF, buy himself a Bird of Prey, and then bounce back to Starfleet, but at a total cost of double the price of one of the C-Store ships, triple the cost if the ship itself has a C-Store cost, like the B'Rel-R. This should prevent it from becoming wide spread or prevalent and thus limit the damage to the 'feel' of the game and if this turns out to be insufficient we can add additional limitations such as a 30 day cool down between faction switches or a complete wiping of your character's emblems. The second is a little less obvious but, this is not a proposal that suggests the addition of duplicate ships that match aesthetically with the faction. For some that may be a draw, but I suspect the people who actually want to fly a ship in the wrong fleet are a very small portion of the total population. A man who wants to fly an "Akira Carrier" might accept the Voqov or Kafiri carriers as good enough for the moment, but I suspect he'd be as adamantly opposed to the compromise as Mister_Dee is against just giving the KDF a DSSV-R.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
06-09-2011, 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
I think, in this case, the gaping lack of leveling content causes more problems for the KDF population than exclusive access to what few things are still unique to us do good.
I completely agree that lack of leveling content is a problem. However, exclusive assets are beneficial, not problematic. Every exclusive feature, ship, trait, or mission the KDF has is one more thing weighing down the scale in the KDFs favor, adding the same things to both sides of the scale only preserves the current imbalance, doing nothing to encourage a Fed to come over to the KDF.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
The faction swapping proposal would alleviate this by allowing players to bypass the torturous KDF leveling experience.
I see this as an avoidance of a problem rather than a true solution. The faction swapping proposal (which admittedly has high costs) is more likely, I believe, to result in temporary KDF population jumps, not a significant rise in permanent (as permanent as anything is in a Video Game) KDF population.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
As far as your other question. There are a couple of definite benefits to the Federation having the unique assets. In a previous post I went on in detail about how bugs and failures with those specific assets would be corrected with a higher priority if they more severely effected the larger player base. The introduction of other play style combinations or options could be a draw to players currently not involved in the game, even if they were on the Federation side, which would be better for the game overall.
Herein lies a distinct difference in our viewpoint, KDF proposals which overtly benefit the Feds more than they will benefit the KDF worsens the current imbalance, something I do not and cannot accept. If I am to support any proposal related to the KDF in this game it must reduce the imbalance between the Factions, not worsen it.

It's my belief that prospective players are more likely to buy the game and remain subbed if they have two full Factions of content, Two distinct and different cultures to explore. Continuing a path of imbalance only hurts the games prospects with such players, who I believe are likely to outnumber prospective players with a Fed-only mentality.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
Now, from an exclusively Klingon point of view, it becomes a question of whether the benefit we see in terms of players ONLY playing on the KDF or new players choosing to play on the KDF because of these unique benefits is greater than the benefit we would see by having cloaking bugs, fighter AI, universal slot balance plus whatever future problems we have fixed sooner. I admit freely it's a question that I don't think anyone has the numbers to answer objectively, but subjectively, it feels like there are precious few who decide to play Klingon and stick with it through all the stuff we have to put up with for the sole reason of access to a few unique assets.
In all honesty, I would rather put up with the cloak bug and suicidal fighters for another two years if it meant exclusive leveling KDF PvE, which I believe is a bigger problem than any bug or fighter AI issues. Especially when one realizes that the bug-hunters at Cryptic are entirely different people then the content developers. In light of this, we could have both, if we raise the priority of the KDF itself in the eyes of the devs. Something which has been repeatedly shown to be tied to our population.

And I think you've hit on a salient point without realizing it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
..it feels like there are precious few who decide to play Klingon and stick with it through all the stuff we have to put up with for the sole reason of access to a few unique assets.
Quite true, which is why I am passionately in favor of more unique assets rather than fewer. It's sort of cost-benefit analysis. "Am I willing to put up with a leveling grind for 10 unique assets? 20? What about 30? 40?" The more unique assets the KDF has, the more the cost-benefit analysis comes out in the KDFs favor.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
06-09-2011, 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post

With that in mind, I specifcally set out to limit the 'homogenization aspects' of it in two ways. The first is obvious and definite, I built the proposal with a pretty steep cost. Under this proposal a Federation commander can bounce over to the KDF, buy himself a Bird of Prey, and then bounce back to Starfleet, but at a total cost of double the price of one of the C-Store ships, triple the cost if the ship itself has a C-Store cost, like the B'Rel-R. This should prevent it from becoming wide spread or prevalent and thus limit the damage to the 'feel' of the game and if this turns out to be insufficient we can add additional limitations such as a 30 day cool down between faction switches or a complete wiping of your character's emblems. The second is a little less obvious but, this is not a proposal that suggests the addition of duplicate ships that match aesthetically with the faction. For some that may be a draw, but I suspect the people who actually want to fly a ship in the wrong fleet are a very small portion of the total population. A man who wants to fly an "Akira Carrier" might accept the Voqov or Kafiri carriers as good enough for the moment, but I suspect he'd be as adamantly opposed to the compromise as Mister_Dee is against just giving the KDF a DSSV-R.
I applaud your attempts to try to think of solutions for the Klingon Empire content problem. However, I don't think your proposal really helps the Klingon Empire attain more Klingon content. That is what the Klingon faction needs (at least in my opinion). I don't foresee Federation Players volunteering to switch to a faction with less content. Sure, some might do it for the sake of something different, but given the option, I think many that were really interested would just roll a Klingon character and save themselves 500 emblems, especially if they planned on switching back.

You somewhat concede that this isn't something that most Klingons are going to do. If this is something that won't be beneficial to the majority of the faction, I can't see why it would be implemented as a measure to help the Klingons. I'd prefer the Devs spent the time that it'd take to implement this to work on other content for Klingons, or failing that, do something both factions can enjoy.

Allowing players to flip back and forth between the factions doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I realize there is a high cost associated with the proposal, but I can't see the Klingons allowing traitors to return to the Empire after defecting and engaging in war against them.

I don't know that I would quit over this proposal should it go live, but I don't care for it. You may be limiting the amount of actual defections with the associated cost, but you are still stripping the Klingons further of what little uniqueness they have left (yes, this is a homogenization argument). If it came up for a vote, I'd vote against it. If it was put into the game, I might stick around to see what the impact is, but if it became at all commonplace, I wouldn't hesitate to leave.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
06-09-2011, 06:43 PM
Well, you're not going to like this response but here goes. To start I'm going to point out that we're not dealing with an "either/or" situation where "either" one of my proposals go live "or" they add PVE content to the KDF. They will continue to add PVE content to the KDF at their current pace regardless so when you phrase your reply in the terms of 'this is no substitute for PVE content' you leave me to wonder if you've missed the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katic View Post
I completely agree that lack of leveling content is a problem. However, exclusive assets are beneficial, not problematic. Every exclusive feature, ship, trait, or mission the KDF has is one more thing weighing down the scale in the KDFs favor, adding the same things to both sides of the scale only preserves the current imbalance, doing nothing to encourage a Fed to come over to the KDF.
I think you missed my point. To phrase it another way. The gaping void that is KDF leveling content is a HUGE disadvantage to any new player, which makes it the HUGE draw back to our ability to grow a population. Exclusive assets are a benefit to our ability to grow a population. So far we are in agreement.

Here's the point I make. Our exclusive assets are not awesome enough to counter the burden of leveling without content. Maybe they were before the Defiant-R and Galaxy-X but now, today, no contest and you need only look at our population to realize this. This proposal allows us to trade the small benefit we receive from exclusive assets for a solution to the larger problem our faction faces while still keeping those exclusive benefits largely exclusive at end game.

Quote:
I see this as an avoidance of a problem rather than a true solution. The faction swapping proposal (which admittedly has high costs) is more likely, I believe, to result in temporary KDF population jumps, not a significant rise in permanent (as permanent as anything is in a Video Game) KDF population.
Good catch. Yes, this is an end run, or dodge, of a significant game problem while that significant game problem is straightened out. You don't believe it would lead to permanent population gains in the KDF, okay, since it's hypothetical you're welcome to believe what you want, but when I said I believed that it would I provided at least two and a half reasons why it would.

Quote:
Herein lies a distinct difference in our viewpoint, KDF proposals which overtly benefit the Feds more than they will benefit the KDF worsens the current imbalance, something I do not and cannot accept. If I am to support any proposal related to the KDF in this game it must reduce the imbalance between the Factions, not worsen it.
That's an odd point of view because, looking at the game as it is, I don't believe the current imbalance can be worsened. Again, look at the posters on my "scrap the faction" thread. There was only one person who had an overall positive view of a forced 'faction merge' and he appeared to play largely on the Federation side. Current Klingon players won't be leaving over this. Now consider new players, perhaps they'd never find a reason to experiment with the KDF if options were available on both sides, but as things are right now, most new players who 'experiment' with the KDF don't get past Lieutenant Commander.

This opens up a way for an end game player to experiment with the KDF without having to level a KDF character.

Quote:
It's my belief that prospective players are more likely to buy the game and remain subbed if they have two full Factions of content, Two distinct and different cultures to explore. Continuing a path of imbalance only hurts the games prospects with such players, who I believe are likely to outnumber prospective players with a Fed-only mentality.
I agree, but since we don't have a game with two full factions of content and, unfortunately, are not likely to have a game with two full factions of content any time soon what do you think about this proposal in the mean time? This goes back to how I opened, it's not an either/or situation.

Quote:
In all honesty, I would rather put up with the cloak bug and suicidal fighters for another two years if it meant exclusive leveling KDF PvE, which I believe is a bigger problem than any bug or fighter AI issues. Especially when one realizes that the bug-hunters at Cryptic are entirely different people then the content developers. In light of this, we could have both, if we raise the priority of the KDF itself in the eyes of the devs. Something which has been repeatedly shown to be tied to our population.
Again, this is not an either/or situation. The thing I'd prefer most in this game would be engaging end game content, but the second thing I'd be happy to see will be KDF PvE leveling content. But now what do you think of this proposal in the meantime?

Quote:
Quite true, which is why I am passionately in favor of more unique assets rather than fewer. It's sort of cost-benefit analysis. "Am I willing to put up with a leveling grind for 10 unique assets? 20? What about 30? 40?" The more unique assets the KDF has, the more the cost-benefit analysis comes out in the KDFs favor.
Looking at this pragmatically I don't think that's ever going to happen. Cost-benefit analysis on Cryptic's end never comes out in the KDFs favor and the time and effort cost in conceptualizing, balancing, and approval for truly unique ideas is such that our meager 12% of the population will never be enough of a benefit to justify.

In essence, a lot of your ideas are good and I like them. If this were a different game or a different time I might even be suggesting things to improve the game that you like. But while we are twelve percent of the population you can be sure the only major initiatives in game play that benefit us will be ones that benefit Starfleet too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MinosOne
I applaud your attempts to try to think of solutions for the Klingon Empire content problem. However, I don't think your proposal really helps the Klingon Empire attain more Klingon content. That is what the Klingon faction needs (at least in my opinion). I don't foresee Federation Players volunteering to switch to a faction with less content. Sure, some might do it for the sake of something different, but given the option, I think many that were really interested would just roll a Klingon character and save themselves 500 emblems, especially if they planned on switching back.
All right, first as explained above, any effect this proposal has on generating content will happen later and only by increasing the Klingon population. If the Klingon population was larger than 12% of the total, we would be receiving something closer to equal development time.

Now, for your other points, at end game the Klingon faction has MORE content, by a mission or two. At end game there's not really any disparity. So, again, any problems we face as a faction, at end game, are the results of population. In fact, as a faction, our problem has always been leveling content. The long grind to Lieutenant General is what's killing us and when someone complains about lack of Klingon content, they're pretty much complaining about having to run Breen and Romulan reruns over and over again because it's the best way to get experience without going insane from monotony.

I explain this so you can understand when I say I'm pretty sure you're wrong. I think there may be many who are really interested in Klingons who'd be happier spending 500 emblems, or cryptic points, on a max or near max character rather than engaging in the long grind up the Klingon ranks.

Quote:
You somewhat concede that this isn't something that most Klingons are going to do. If this is something that won't be beneficial to the majority of the faction, I can't see why it would be implemented as a measure to help the Klingons. I'd prefer the Devs spent the time that it'd take to implement this to work on other content for Klingons, or failing that, do something both factions can enjoy.
I don't recall conceding this, unless you mean where I pointed out that most of our remaining Klingons wouldn't leave for Starfleet. How you take that to mean it's not something that will benefit Klingon's I do not know. This proposal is to increase Klingon faction population by allowing immigration from the more populous and easy to level in UFP to the equally desirable but hard to reach Klingon end game. This is definitely beneficial to the faction and likely beneficial to the game as a whole.

Quote:
Allowing players to flip back and forth between the factions doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I realize there is a high cost associated with the proposal, but I can't see the Klingons allowing traitors to return to the Empire after defecting and engaging in war against them.
While I understand there may be a certain inability to suspend your disbelief I find myself not compelled by the 'it's not reasonable' argument and I will tell you why. While I was a Lieutenant, I blew up three fleets worth of Federation vessels sneaking through the Kahless Expanse. Now given the average resource investment and crew size of a Starfleet vessel, the UFP should be in a state of financial ruin and there should be entire planets devoid of population. It's an MMO, and you don't always get the luxury of deciding which unrealistic game play mechanics the game introduces to be successful in the medium.

Quote:
I don't know that I would quit over this proposal should it go live, but I don't care for it. You may be limiting the amount of actual defections with the associated cost, but you are still stripping the Klingons further of what little uniqueness they have left (yes, this is a homogenization argument). If it came up for a vote, I'd vote against it. If it was put into the game, I might stick around to see what the impact is, but if it became at all commonplace, I wouldn't hesitate to leave.
You've also only really mentioned the homogenization aspect of the proposal. Perhaps the fault is mine by not clearly pointing out that what highly expensive and limited 'homogenization' this allows is ancillary.



Okay, for both of you. Lets reconsider the proposal with this adjustment. When your character 'faction switches' you lose your ship, and uniform. Your quest completion ends you in the throne room of Jem'pok or the office of Admiral Whats-His-Face and they give you a 'ship token' that is level appropriate. What problems or benefits would you foresee from this version?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
06-09-2011, 08:07 PM
Forgive my post if it seems a bit disjointed. I started writing this before I got the kids ready for bed, and then finished after they went to bed. I'm not going to do a long quote, but here are some of my responses.

If one of the goals of this system is a solution to the level grind in the hopes of getting more players to play Klingons, why not just allow players to make a Klingon LG after reaching VA? After all, they are skipping the Klingon experience, such as it is, up until some point at Captain or RA. I'm not really in favor of that solution, but I'd rather keep the Klingon Empire dominated by Klingon, Orion, Nausican, etc. characters.

How many players do you really think would defect? If the Klingon Empire really only represents about 12% of the players in the game, how many Federation players would have to defect to inflate the size of the Empire to make it worth the Devs while to then create additional Klingon content down the line? It seems to me that a change of a percentage point or two wouldn't cut it. You'd need a lot larger numbers than that. I doubt it would happen, but supposed you doubled the size of the Empire with Federation players so that the Empire is now 24% of the player base, isn't that kind of counterproductive? Federation ships and characters would be just as common as Klingon characters. In that case, you've effectively turned the Klingon faction into something else.

Under this plan, why would the Devs ever be incentivized to make more Klingon leveling content if the new players are just those that defected from the Federation? It seems they wouldn't need to.

Even though it might not be level appropriate for a Klingon LG, I do enjoy new Klingon missions at lower levels for my Klingon LG. When they released those new 8 missions last summer, my main character was on a level that exceeded the play for nearly all of them, but I loved playing them regardless. New Klingon content at any level is new Klingon content and stories that flesh out the Klingon experience. I disagree that the Klingon content complaint is solely directed at leveling. It is not just a race to LG. I want missions that are from the Klingon perspective. I don't care what level they make them. The disparity of missions (50 something to 8 depending on how you count) means that a Federation player has a ton of Federation story episodes and can have a healthy Federation experience. Klingon players can't claim the same at this point.

My concerns about homogenization are legit. I don't like it. I don't see it as inevitable, as you seem to. I see the result of this proposal as either not doing enough to draw players to the Klingon faction or going to far the opposite way. You might as well just make two generic factions that have access to everything in my opinion if that is the route you are going to go instead of focusing on making the Klingon faction and a Federation faction.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
06-10-2011, 03:46 AM
To start, I notice by your response that you didn't actually see the last paragraph of my last post. Perfectly understandable given that it was a very lengthy response directly to two different people. So I'll reiterate it here. What would your opinion of this proposal be if the player was stripped of their ship, uniform and bridge crew after the faction jump? In the new version they would complete the 'jump quest' and start in the throne room of Jempok or office of Admiral Quinn and be given a ship token for something level appropriate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MinosOne
If one of the goals of this system is a solution to the level grind in the hopes of getting more players to play Klingons, why not just allow players to make a Klingon LG after reaching VA? After all, they are skipping the Klingon experience, such as it is, up until some point at Captain or RA. I'm not really in favor of that solution, but I'd rather keep the Klingon Empire dominated by Klingon, Orion, Nausican, etc. characters.
That's not a bad idea either. I don't think it's as likely as my outrageous proposal though because it's an obvious band-aid where, looked at under the right light, my band-aid can be sold as adding an innovative play element to the 88% of the population the developers cater too.

My response also hits a bigger market and would have a larger effect. Where your proposal would keep as the only 'nonfitting' races the host of strangely crafted aliens, the host of aliens crafted to look exactly like humans and given human back stories, and the host of conjoined Trills, my proposal would allow not just those interested in Klingon end game to try it out, but also those interested in having an 'off race' in the KDF like a Maquis deserter or sociopathic Andorian. And it caters to those interested in Klingon end game who don't have a free character slot.

Quote:
How many players do you really think would defect? If the Klingon Empire really only represents about 12% of the players in the game, how many Federation players would have to defect to inflate the size of the Empire to make it worth the Devs while to then create additional Klingon content down the line? It seems to me that a change of a percentage point or two wouldn't cut it. You'd need a lot larger numbers than that. I doubt it would happen, but supposed you doubled the size of the Empire with Federation players so that the Empire is now 24% of the player base, isn't that kind of counterproductive? Federation ships and characters would be just as common as Klingon characters. In that case, you've effectively turned the Klingon faction into something else.
Ah, how much good would it do. Math, I like math. First off the premise. I would count as an 'increase in population' any character that gets significant play time a week. I think it's reasonable to count the KDF population as anyone who would enjoy the content, and not just those who play on the KDF predominately or exclusively. I know it's weird because this means that people grinding up three characters, 2 on the Fed side and 1 on the KDF side get counted three times, but the alternative, only counting someone's main, gives an even less accurate look at the situation.

So, to double the population of the KDF just about over 13% of players on the Federation side who don't already have alts they play significantly on this side would have to make a Klingon character. That's just over 1 in 8. Would 24% of the population be enough to fix everything? Probably not, would it do a world of good? Yes. In the short term it would shorten PVP queue's for everybody and double our recruitment pool for STF's and other end game group content. All things that increase player loyalty and enjoyment. In the long term, it would give Cryptic twice as many reasons to ask what the Klingon population might want, and when that time comes, I expect they'll still be hearing the demand for more PVE content.

Quote:
Under this plan, why would the Devs ever be incentivized to make more Klingon leveling content if the new players are just those that defected from the Federation? It seems they wouldn't need to.
They still would, as I explained before, the social aspect of the game guarantees that when you reach a certain critical population size you start to get a culture and that will cause people to want to level on the KDF.

Quote:
Even though it might not be level appropriate for a Klingon LG, I do enjoy new Klingon missions at lower levels for my Klingon LG. When they released those new 8 missions last summer, my main character was on a level that exceeded the play for nearly all of them, but I loved playing them regardless. New Klingon content at any level is new Klingon content and stories that flesh out the Klingon experience. I disagree that the Klingon content complaint is solely directed at leveling. It is not just a race to LG. I want missions that are from the Klingon perspective. I don't care what level they make them. The disparity of missions (50 something to 8 depending on how you count) means that a Federation player has a ton of Federation story episodes and can have a healthy Federation experience. Klingon players can't claim the same at this point.
You seem to have missed my point there. Let me try again. Once you have gotten past leveling and done the leveling content for your faction, the game experience is pretty much the same in either faction. Yes, you can go back and replay those missions that you leveled on but most of them haven't been remastered so they don't scale and the rewards they give are not viable for end game. The problem with the Klingon empire IS leveling content because we don't have it. Because we don't have it people don't level and our population stays in the toilet.

Quote:
My concerns about homogenization are legit. I don't like it. I don't see it as inevitable, as you seem to. I see the result of this proposal as either not doing enough to draw players to the Klingon faction or going to far the opposite way. You might as well just make two generic factions that have access to everything in my opinion if that is the route you are going to go instead of focusing on making the Klingon faction and a Federation faction.
You don't think it's inevitable? Huh. No, stop. I'm not here to discuss homogenization and the long list of ways it has already occurred in this game. If having that discussion at length interests you I'd be happy to put together another thread, this time outlining the ways it has occurred already and the ways it likely will occur in the future.

But in this thread, I'm here to discuss population migration from the Federation side to the Klingon side. I'm sure by now you've read my opening paragraph to this response so, for the sake of brevity and sanity, lets agree to disagree on the long term effects of permitting the Federation to "steal" our unique ships at 3 times the cost of a c-store ship on their side and just discuss the 'naked character' variant.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
06-10-2011, 10:15 AM
*deposits 2 credits*
Deserters will be shot...
While I respect the freedom to express your opinon, I disagree...
Your idea of somehow merging the 2 factions, IMOHPO, is ridiculous.
If it were to ever be implemented I would never touch STO again.
When are folks gonna wake up and realize there are those that really want to fly and be Klingon, not part of the Federation.
Just like there are those that want to be Vulcan, Romulan, Andorian or even Borg.
I know I'm not the only one who feels that way.
Besides, to do what you are suggesting at this stage of the game would take a major revamp/rewrite of the game, which seems unlikely, considering how much they have invested now. They'd literally have to almsot completely scrap what they have and start again.
So...I'm kinda thinking this conversation is pointless...and unworthy of continuing for me...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
06-10-2011, 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KBFLordKrueg View Post
*deposits 2 credits*
Deserters will be shot...
While I respect the freedom to express your opinon, I disagree...
Your idea of somehow merging the 2 factions, IMOHPO, is ridiculous.
This is not a merging of the factions, though I can see how you might reach that conclusion given the possibilities it opens up. What is your opinion of the proposal modification mentioned in my last two posts?

Quote:
If it were to ever be implemented I would never touch STO again.
I'm sorry to hear that, though slightly confused.

[quote]
When are folks gonna wake up and realize there are those that really want to fly and be Klingon, not part of the Federation.[./quote]

I realize it, which is why my suggestion doesn't compell faction switching. You would be able to continue on without ever being a part of the Federation.

Quote:
Just like there are those that want to be Vulcan, Romulan, Andorian or even Borg.
I wonder if we're on the same page now. Considering prior sentence structure this leaves me to believe you're saying there are those that want to be Vulcan, Romulan, Andorian or even Borg that are not part of the Federation. Those people would love this proposal.

Quote:
I know I'm not the only one who feels that way.
Besides, to do what you are suggesting at this stage of the game would take a major revamp/rewrite of the game, which seems unlikely, considering how much they have invested now. They'd literally have to almsot completely scrap what they have and start again.
So...I'm kinda thinking this conversation is pointless...and unworthy of continuing for me...
Are you sure you're responding to the right argument? This seems out of place given the proposal you're replying to here... maybe you meant to post this on my 'scrapping the faction' thought exercise?
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:25 PM.