Credit should be given where credit is earned. We saw some real strides at the beginning of the year but the last 2/3rds have been too ho-hum for me. I hope that STO can win back my enthusiasm over this next year. Some KDF and PvP love would go a long way toward that. Then I will be happy to vote them up.
I'm sorry nynik, but you're way out there on that limb, and you're sawing through it pretty quick.
Companies get good PR from providing good service and creating happy customers.
Cryptic has utterly failed in this over the last 3/4ths of this year, and the unhappiness of their loyal customerbase has only eroded further due to the drastic change in attitude, development and business priorities for Star Trek Online since their acquisition by PWI and the push to F2P.
If we were to reward them with our votes anyway, it could serve as a false reinforcement that they have popular support currently.
Conversely, if they see a dropoff in voting from last year, the message will be clear; its not just the angry forum crowd who doesn't like the "new" Cryptic, and perhaps it will be the wakeup call that puts an end to this madness.
What can I say, I can still dream. I'm not that jaded, yet.
I voted for them last year out of pride, I became a lifetime member last year, I've bought just about everything in the C store, I've been loyal through this content drought, I participated in the free to play testing and leveled a character on there to VA, (and it took a bit longer than a day, or a weekend and a six pack of Red Bull too BTW - YUCK ) I've even taken the time from actually playing the game, to give them my heartfelt feedback.
I've done everything humanly possible this "vocal minority" could do over the past year to help make STO a success. I'm not going to start doing the morally objectionable too. That 400 dollar stipend, while oh so generous.........., doesn't buy my soul, you'd have to increase it just a tad for that.
You could throw in say, a year's worth of dilithium, just to make up for this year, then maybe....... I'd consider .
But seeing as that's got a snowball's chance in hell, so does the possibility of a vote from this particular player. I mean I guess I could promise you the world here on the forums, but .....
Besides, just because they can't please everybody, doesn't mean they haven't pleased SOME, right?
I'm sure they've kept SOMEONE happy enough to vote for em, RIGHT?
“Right now, we have almost 2 million players in LEGO Universe, and we get extremely positive feedback from players. Unfortunately, we have not been able to build a satisfactory revenue model in our target group, and therefore, have decided to close the game.”
"The game will be turned off on January 31, 2012 at midnight (EST)."
Sorry, I am trying to keep my replies brief (if you want a reply).
Not to nitpick, but.. it wasn't "something they don't do" until it was made a rule in the early '70s and posthumous prizes were awarded '31 and '61 before exceptions like Vickrey & recently Steinman.
Just because its no longer permitted, doesn't mean it didn't happen and doesn't invalidate my point that its of little use awarding such a prize posthumously, when the Laureate (devs) can't continue to fix the world (game, as its offline). The Nobel Foundation seem to agree, for the most part.
I agree, but the poll doesn't seek judges that are knowledgeable about other game's achievements. Your at least knowledgeable about STO, and surely its had merits in a year or why would you still be playing.
The poll seeks not to compare, but to question perception. Furthermore, there is no oath to be taken that you are prevented from making an impartial or ill-informed decision. So labelling people reprehensible (not that you did per se) for voting how they may wish to vote, for whatever motivations encouraged them, is surely ignoring these points.
It is precisely because of trying to be objective that I am making the point that STO has had worthy improvements within 2011 which should equally be commended as much as faults are being rightfully deplored.
So, you essentially find nothing worth promoting a positive image about the following things of 2011 because of various fiasco in spite of added features like:
- Episode Replay
- Borg Appearance Loot
- Better Sector Space
- Crafting update, with new items and crafting for Klingons
- What few new missions there were from sorties to Red alerts
- Ground combat shooter mode
- Item stats reblance
- SFA, First City, ESD, KA
- Fleet action and STF queuing system (cross groups for fed/kdf)
- All CStore available through dilithium conversion (still in testing, but full-fills Cryptic's goal of access to cstore through game currency)
- CStore ships in general
- Other F2P changes (didn't list too much as many are still very subjective at this point)
These are things you interact with everyday now. Its the game you play. And you continue to pay to play because of these points.
If you have not noticed, they are not the subject of the majority of topics about this game on other sites. Things like launch issues, instanced play, tech issues, Cstore p2w, easy leveling, optional storyline, bugs, no new content etc take up far more discussion (and rightly so ofc), but directed at keeping STO down. Its harder for positive additions to be spread in this manner, because people are motivated by what they dislike or critique rather than perform a job and spread what they like about the game in proportion to what people don't like.
Even the most prolific and content rich game in the mmo industry finds it harder to spread the additions which grew the game (without the spin - like the list above).
Its not your requirement to spread the good you believe in, but you can surely see how it doesn't help that you don't. Earning that recognition for doing a good job is harder to show when people are still talking about launch issues nearly two years down the road.
Sweeping changes like those I've listed? Blizzard grew their mmo when the industry had little competition. They, like Trion, utilized many positive aspects of that emerging mmo genre in their game. And are still adapting to that genre by adding in features that modern day mmo gamers expect to be there. Superior is subjective, which is exactly what that poll is looking for, perception of those polled not fact.
Is it that bad to ask that we promote STO based on that list? Or are we denying it a chance, when needed, because we'd rather punish Cryptic on their failings rather than support what have been additions we use daily?
Indeed, I agree, except for you leaving out the point that it was clearly a good enough game for us to continue playing all this time - isn't that what matters most? Your perception of what was the BEST use of your time? And isn't that what the poll is asking for? Your perceived BEST game. If another game meets that point, then why could your STO time be larger in proportion (an example for those I am aiming this at who play STO as their primary game, or who like it enough to spend more time in it than others). I'm only asking that those who think their time playing STO is well spent to vote to improve its image.
To use an example, Star Trek Enterprise wasn't good enough to survive, and its been nearly 7 years now, and still no sign of a revival on the horizon. Like I said before, Is it spiting oneself to hold back on supporting what you LOVE in this game, the only ST mmo, during this pivotal time in determining if it will be around until's next year's awards... were you can vote on its merits on merit alone and not just my question on whether you will deny your feelings against Cryptic and vote for the the game.
Perhaps you'll have grand kids before Star Trek returns to the small screen - and theres no guarantee it will have half the quality of what some would argue were the good points about ST:Enterprise.
Thanks for giving your opinion on this. Not to be blunt, but your not the demographic I'm trying to ask. You have decided that your not enjoying this game. I'm not trying to make you vote for something and ask you to do it based on feigned enjoyment. And I've clarified that one person won't have the impact needed, nor has the responsibility to 'carry the flag' as you say. I've repeatedly made that point of 'what a person enjoys'.
I'm asking those who still find enjoyment in the game they play, to vote not on the literal meaning but the impact of such a vote and how it would translate in benefiting the game's future. Sorry to make you feel like I'm doing otherwise.
I hope they're slipping you some SERIOUS dilithium under the table, I really do
And if you don't think STO deserves the positive attention (I'm not saying vote best when its been a terrible year - but to vote best to encourage a better year in lifting STO's image) then why continue to play a game you want to fail?
Because I am not going to lie.
I, too, want STO to succeed. But I want it to succeed on its own merits. I want it to BE a great game rather than for me to WISH it were a good game. I'll be pleased as peaches to have a reason to vote STO best in 2012, and if it's up to snuff then, sure. But earning an award is just that: Earned. And right now I couldn't name STO as the best game of 2011. I can't bring myself to skew a poll like that.
Besides, as I said in Stormy's thread, I haven't played some of the games on those lists. It wouldn't be proper for me to vote for or against games I've not played, so I won't be voting in that poll anyway. So you don't have to be concerned that I'm going to write-in STO as 'Worst Game of 2011 (And They Eat Kittens, Too!)' I don't think it deserves THAT award, either, actually.
As a lot of people have said, STO has a great game inside it. And I'm reasonably sure F2P is going to be a shot in the arm for the game for at least the short term and maybe even middle term, too. (Long term? Too cloudy, I'm a poster, not a prognosticator, Jim!) But right now, I keep thinking about every other member of my fleet who LEFT this game -- mostly because of lack of content -- and I can't bring myself to skew a poll. Sorry.