The main changes I can see in this thread that reviewers want is making it more universal.

For example, the Defiant only has 4 decks, the Nova has 8 decks, so perhaps using a more generic term like "lower" or "last" deck, or perhaps with your experience on a Carrier you know of an appropriate colloq.

The Uniforms, like Axterix said, you won't be able to please everyone with the choice. However, and idea may be to use the current standard ones seen by crews on interiors of a ship. While not the best, at this point it would fit in the best.

Also you mention that you have added a Command Duty Officer, you need to find a way to explain why they are there and not your first/second officer like seen in the TV series which went down the chain of command out of the Senior officers. One thing I had thought of, which may suit, is an Emergency Command Hologram type of thing from Voyager, where you have a generic looking officer acting like a hologram?

You have to remember that the roleplayers that you are making these stories for would already have most of their notable crew members worked out, know how their ship is laid out etc so detracting this choice from them is what is rubbing them the wrong way.

One last thing I would like to add, and this is mainly for your reference, people do not liked to be openly analysed or stereotyped no matter if its true or not. Everyone see's themselves as being mature, so saying anyone under the age of 25 (which I am) can not appreciate some things can irritate people. Also analysing people from their posts, without getting to know them personally is also not a wise thing to do on a public forum such as this, it gets people riled up for no reason. This comes from experience, as I have seen people playing "guess who" with those their debating with which just makes the situation worse regardless of your own intentions.

We all make assumptions of the other players based on what they type, which is fine, but it is for the best that you keep it to yourself. As you can plainly see, it is quite easy to mistake peoples intentions and underlying emotions from just the text in the page, especially when not everyone uses emotes

I hope that sort of thing is in before it goes live. Along with the ability to write dialogue trees for characters that aren't mission goals. And a huge variety of other things.

Part of why I consider the current foundry to be at most at alpha level. It provides a lot of basic functionality, proof of concept, and you can make a mission that plays from start to finish, though with some issues along the way. But it is lacking a lot of functionality that should be there before it goes live. And if it isn't feature complete, it isn't beta.

I reckon it'll be frustrating for quite a while, to want to make these great stories but lack the ability to do things we see in Cryptic missions.

...I will consider about the use of number decks. On a ship, decks are any levels below the main deck. An aircraft carrier has 14 decks. A level is any level above the main deck. An Aircraft carrier has 13 to 14 levels above the main deck. Also on a ship they use frame numbers to determine locations.

For example 03-108-3-1. this means that the compartment is located on level 3 along frame 108 and is located on the port side. It also indicates the compartment is the fist compartment on the port side.

In Star Trek, Federation ships have a primary hull and secondary hall. I remember them saying when Star Trek III came out they said levels were in the primary hull and decks were in the secondary hull. Since the deck has a shuttle craft, I went out on a limb and said it was on Deck 23.

I figured that most people will understand that no one can possibly know what actual ship every player in the game uses. However,I think more people will say 'WoW, a shuttle hanger bay, cool.' To me that is just nit picking. The important thing is does it fit the story? Yes or No. Likewise, no on can possibly know what uniform a player has decided for their crew. I picked the TOS uniforms for the male characters because they are cool. I chose the counselor uniforms for the female doctors. I chose the TNG uniforms for the other female because they go great with the 7 of 9 boots.

My rationale for them is they are in the TV Show and Movies and they are in the game.

I would like to not analyze people, however, that is impossible. I stated before I am a Sun in Leo/Virgo with a Moon in Virgo. The Leo side is arrogant, pompous and intuitive. The Virgo is is analytical and intellectual. When people leave a comment about a story I write, I presume I am the one who is wrong. Then I go and review the story and read the comment while I am correcting the story.

I get very good information out of these forum discussions. Often the information is indirect. I may disagree with an individual, but I still consider their idea.

Until there is more information on deck layouts for all the ships, I have free license to say how many decks there are. It is like when you go to Staples and ask the employee where the paper clips are, and he or she tells you it is on aisle three. Aisle three is the answer for all questions.

I like the idea about lower and higher deck. I have already tried this before the posted the newest version. I feel stating the number actually establishes it as a real place for the captain. The captain is usually the one who knows most about the ship in Star Trek.

Stating that a person under 25 tends to have under developed frontal lobes is a real world description. It is not an opinion. Stating it does not insult or diminish anyone. It is not a stereotype. Stereotypes involves creating a bias for a group of people based on one person you dislike. A young adult (ages 18 to 25) is a category. It is also a developmental cycle of human development.

Stating the a person 25 years or younger tends to have underdeveloped frontal lobe is not a stereotype. It is no more a stereotype than saying females after 45 tend to experience menopause. Or that woman experience Menarche, the onset of menstruation, typically occurs about age 13.

The Command Duty Officer is a position and not a person. When the captain tells an officer to take the CONN, that officer becomes the command duty officer. Everyday on a command, the duty shift turns over. A different officer will be the Command Duty Officer.

In the story, it has been explained already that the Captain left the ship in the previous episode. The Command Duty Officer makes a log report to signal to the player that this is not the Captain. I generated a actor using the random generator. The computer made it a black guy. This makes sense, since the Command Duty officer will change every duty shift.

Also, not knowing who other peoples executive officers makes it impossible for me to assign the actual first officer. There is a system coming out that will allow us to state what the actual jobs are on the ship at some point. However, at this time, that is not a selectable option. My only options are bridge officer science, tactical, engineer, and actor. I chose actor.I chose this because the game by default sends four people with the player to the ground. Since the story is split with the captain;s landing party on the ground and the rest of the ship in space hiding out, it is a higher probability that an actor would work for most people.

Do not get me wrong, I take all this in great humor. I find this whole process constructive and fun. I wish at some point the game would take into consideration the concept of subject variables.

So you are trying to let me play another character then my Captain? I can see how this would bother some people- but most that would prefer to play only their character might still accept it if it's communicated well. Maybe there is something you need to make it more clear. Maybe have the Captain say "I wonder what's going on the ship?" and then comes the map transition.

Since we don't really have branching storylines (and even if we had, there is still only a finite number of branches possible.), we don't actually have full control. But it can be faked. Cryptic itself isn't always good at that, admittedly - too often it appears I am just following orders from my own bridge officers instead of making the decisions after they have presented me the options. Outright moving to a different character can break even this illusion, and thus has to be considered careful.

Another danger is that you are too much thinking of it as something like a novel or movie. Both mediums are already different, but they are also different to the medium of a videogame. What works well in one medium doesn't necessarily work well in the other. An important difference between a game and books or movies is that the player is in charge, or least he has the illusion of being in charge. (Tools like branching storylines improve this feeling - and in combat, we are very much in charge, since we can decide how we fight freel.y)
Try to avoid anything that makes him feel he is no longer in charge.

This is a good question.

In my story, the show opens with the player on Earth Space Dock. Then they go back to the ship via the transporter room. Then they go from the transporter room to the briefing room to meet the support cast of actors. They learn what the mission is about and get a brief Star Trek history lesson about the Orions. Then they go to the bridge and undock from the space dock. This takes the player from a interior map to an exterior map. The player then has to travel to a safe distance to leave the sector. Then the player warps to the Cestus III planetary system. There is a brief battle and then they land on the planet. There is a minor melee on the surface and then they meet their mission contact. The episode ends here.

Why is it important for the character to pilot away from Earth?

I feel it is essential. Especially for a Federation starship. A starship is not a car where you put a key in the ignition and drive off to somewhere. There is a procedure that has to happen when a starship leaves port. A ship does not come into or leave port on freewill. They have a flight plan they must obey for the dock master.

A space port is busy and dangerous. A starship is expensive. It is also to dangerous for the starship to enter warp speed to close to the planet. In a movie they speed up this fact for the purpose of speeding the story up. In a game like this, we have plenty of time.

A ship leaving port will follow navigational buoys or beacons which are predesignated lanes created to prevent accidents in a busy spaceport.

From a story stand point, it makes sense for the plot. You have to get the player from Spacedock to Cestus III. SO rather then doing it the press a button and mission is over. The author needs to create tension.

I am considering creating a scene here where the ship breaks down. That would be funny and frustrating at the same time for the player. Here they are flying along ready to get going and 'pow' the ship breaks down. And they have to fix the boat.

i iz remuving myslef frum dis convosashun bcuz i is 5yrsold an dont now wut fruntol lobez is or wut sort uv riting stilez i is rite er rong.

Parting thoughts: When all is said and done, I didn't enjoy the content that was presented to me. It wasn't a playstyle I enjoy, and it wasn't a writing style that I was particularly fond of. No where did I every say that it was wrong (because there's no such thing). All that I said was that I didn't like it and why. Just because we have opposing viewpoints on these matters, doesn't mean that I don't understand or accept them. I just don't appreciate them the same way that you do. Alternatively, the way that I write and construct the content may not be your bag of chips either. But at the end of the day, I don't play the game for you, I play it for my enjoyment. So if I don't enjoy something, I'll let you know why. I don't agree with comment-less ratings. It doesn't mean I think the work was done wrong, it simply means I didn't like it (and why).

I see no further point of arguing semantics back and forth with you about this, so am I going to remove myself from the conversation. Feel free to shoot me an in-game mail if you want to insult me further.

Boglejam gets it exactly. You say that you are writing a story with high concepts, but those are detracted from by the suspension of belief the players feel when you don't accommodate their own preconceptions about "their ship" and "their crew" and what they're wearing, etc. Saying that you can't know what ship people are using and that you have free reign is an arrogant and inflexible position.

With some flexibility, you could simply say that the NPCs from the Briefing Room are visiting consultants provided by Starfleet and hence avoid any conflict with the player's belief systems altogether. That's how they can be wearing something else, without conflicting with the player.

But still I think the TOS uniforms were a poor choice. It's OK for a player to choose them for their own ship because most of the time it's just for role play and other people won't see it, but Cryptic has set a default look for it's NPCs and this creates a sort of game "canon" which you shouldn't ignore totally. It's the 25th Century, Startfleet has it's NPCs wearing 25th era clothing. The only time they've used the TOS uniforms is in time travel episodes set in the past, despite them being "cool". They shouldn't be used just for the sake of being "cool".

And here again, Axterix raises the point about the "suspension of disbelief". That's why I also said more "Cryptic Style". None of their missions take place in a player's ship in a location that can be different between people - they created a neutral Observation Lounge which is universal for any such purposes. Cryptic avoided the issues by going around them, and we're saying that you can too without compromising your "style" or artistic vision. You can acheive all of your "tension" and "catharsis" moments, by taking these comments into your mind and reciprocating.

Things like the "Go to next map" thing are bothering people because they break the illusion. I'm not wanting to go to a "map" I want to be going to my ship. Simply integrating those transitions into the story world isn't hard to change. Don't refer to the player as a "player" and the next location in your story world as a "map". Don't draw attenttion to these things - they should be invisible. Comparing it to a movie, they don't draw attention that people are walking to another "set" and that the characters are "actors". They present everything as real.

I feel you should use the astrology sign defense less and consider other people's responses and how they might improve your story rather than holding up a shield of a starsign and how it lets you be "arrogant" without any consequences.

Also, boasting about your 5 star rating is dubious, as the rating system isn't 100% working accurate at the moment. Only 8 people have rated your story as being above 4 stars (excellent) but an equal 8 other people have given you a 3 star and below rating. So 50% of the players of your mission consider it to be less than stellar. Are you going to ignore their reasons for not liking the mission because you've achieved your 5 stars?

Another excellent example of the same things I mentioned above. You mission can be more universal in it's dialogue and terms. You don't have to create a duty officer character when the game allows you to set an NPC response from the next highest ranking officer still left aboard your ship- in the Foundry it's the Bridge Officer (ship) designations in the assets panel. The game will choose for you.

You don't have to specify a "deck 23" you could just say "we're going to the briefing room" and let the player imagine where it is on their ship - you don't have to assume that they need spoonfeeding of technical stuff which they might not know. They probably do know or can guess your intentions if you write appropriately. I'm glad you decided to change it based on our suggestions.

Again, excellent points. You can avoid making players feel that they aren't in control of their own ship's crew NPCs and deck layouts. I've mentioned it all above already. The briefing room guys can be "guests" on your ship. You don't have to set an NPC duty officer, use a player's own bridge officer (the game can choose it for you - it's in the Foundry tools.), just small changes and things to the presentation of your dialogue, can make a big difference to the creation of an immersive, illusionary, and more "real" feeling than we currently get when playing your mission without messing with your "style".

I don't really know...

I have read through the thread Dstahl wrote about 5 curious questions where he asked people if they liked the weekly episodes with combat or non-combat. Every letter I read said they liked that the weekly stories were more non-combat based.

I too would like these stories I write to be more story and science driven. I also want the story to have a purpose for the combat. When a person is writing a story for other people to play, the player has to already come with some sort of concept that they will not be 100 percent in control of their actions. If you could pick any infinite amount of possible story threads, then no author could write that.

An author has to limit the number of choices, or the player will be confounded. The player is never in charge of any game. The player is only a participant. By agreeing to play a story someone else wrote you have already agreed to leave the story-telling to the author. The only question is to what extent you will suspend your sense of disbelief.

The whole show is fake. In the story or game, the player has three choice at any one moment 1) do I interact with a button to manipulate and object 2) do I interact with a button to talk to a fake person, 3) do I interact with a button to kill another person.

Even in a non-linear set-up there is only so many possible outcomes a player will be able to choose from. The goal for the writer is to make the event entertaining. The whole purpose of the event is to cause tension. It is like a competition between creator and player. The player wants to get to the action and the creator uses the story elements to slow the players ability to get to the action.

It is the wanting of action that keeps people wanting more. The author must carefully craft the story in the way that the player does not really know what will happen next. Then after six month to a year later, the player can revisit the story to see what they remember.

I am quite aware that a players choice's are limited for now. But that is the nature of a linear tool. No matter what words or objects you put in the story you have to do step A, then step B, then step C, then step D and so forth.

Right now, in this development cycle the nature of the tools only allow a player to Step A push a button, step B push another button, step C push another button, step D push another button, and so forth.

There is no moment in this game where a player is only given one choice 'push a button'. From space game to sports game, all video games is just an activity in which people push buttons. And the game provides a false sense of 'I am in total control'. This is why it requires the player to have a suspension of disbelief.

If a person is so rigid in their ideology that when they play a story and a button has words they find is beneath their level of intelligence, that person has more problems then a role playing game.

In my first story the basic plot went like this:
1. dialog scene>dialog scene>dialog scene> action scene with dialog>action scene with dialog>battle>dialog scene>battle>dialog scene.

My second story change in that it currently goes:
2. dialog scene with battle>dialog scene>dialog scene with action>dialog scene with action>dialog scene with action>dialog with action>battle>dialog scene with action>battle>dialog scene with action>battle>dialog scene with action

Number one the stories have to be Star Trek like to me. Star Trek is about science. I think my story is the first that actually put a criminologist, a tactician, a anthropologist, and a psychologist in the story. All of these folks are scientist. They are also Starfleet military officers.

Let me address this question:

That is a fundamental problem with a computer game played by millions of people. You want me to design a story customized to your character and only your character. That is not possible with a computer. In my fleets roleplay sessions, the stories we write for roleplay can be tailored to a specific character because we have gamemasters.

We also have a method of dice rolling in the game via the emote 'rolldice' to determine situations.

A customized story designed by a game editor on a system where millions of people play is not possible of adapting to a specific character/player in the game. Your choices are dog, battleship, thimble, wheel-barrel.

The only way you will ever have a story written specifically for you is one written by you. If you only desire is to only play the missions you write then that is kind of sad.

You can learn so much more from other people by stepping out of that box. It is funny because you desire to not be put into a box, but at the same time your actions put you in a box.

You only have two choices here; play a story written by you or play a story written by another player.

The Foundry her has some wonderful assets and functionality built into it right now. If you limit yourself to only what you desire in a game for your particular character then you defeat the purpose for having an extensive tool. The game already provides for a vanilla story. I want my stories to resemble Rockie Road ice cream.

Just a thought, if I had time I might try to make my own version of "Enter the Orion Syndicate" just to illustrate my ideas for changes. This wouldn't be an attempt a plagiarism, but I am just wondering if I can emulate the "Klytemnestra style" and see what I would do if I was in your position.

What are your thoughts on such a thing? Would you let me? This is not the sort of thing I'd ever do on the live server, but since this is all a test server, it will all be deleted anyway. It's hard to try to explain what we mean about changes you can make here on a forum and I feel that making a real mission example might give you some real thing to look at and compare.

I do not see why...

We disagree on style, but I played your story and gave it 4 stars. This was before you replied the second time. There were grammatical errors and the overall story was simple 'go here and shoot a ship and then land on planet kill more people'. I do not favor that style of story, however, I did not feel my bias should sway my opinion for your story. The story you wrote was solid and entertaining. That is why I gave it 4 stars.

I was not really into the long speeches the characters gave in the story, however, I could gather that is what you liked. I think it fit the story, which is why I gave it 4 stars. Long speeches are fine here on the thread, but in Star Trek only Shakespearean actors are allowed long speeches.