Go Back   Star Trek Online > Information and Discussion > Star Trek Online General Discussion
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 41
01-08-2012, 06:41 PM
Really, were we promised anything? If you look at the Engineering Reports, can you see the section that highlights "promises?" There are sections such as "In Testing", "In Development", "Under Consideration," etc. My intention is not to completely defend Cryptic, as I agree that we should be told what the status is of some of the stuff that has been listed in the Engineering Reports. I also believe that we were totally shafted in regards to the FE schedule. However, I can only think of rare exceptions where anything was promised.

I dunno, maybe I'm taking things to literally, but that's my opinion.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 42
01-08-2012, 06:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nagorak View Post
I don't agree that the problems are Stahl's making. I think if you had any MMO which had as little content as STO, and went as long as it did producing no new content, you'd have a result like this.

I actually think it's pretty unprecedented to see a company produce as little content for an MMO, as Cryptic has. If it's not unprecedented, then I highly doubt those other games are still around.

If the game had been designed to be an pseudo SP/MP like Guild Wars with no monthly fee, where the majority of money was made off the box sales, then it might be understandable. But this was billed as an MMO, and we were getting charged a monthly fee.
Maybe not the state of the game was entirely Stahl's fault and I do agree that most would have ended up with the same game after all that has happened. What I do hold him accountable for is a large part of the frustration present. It's bad enough that the game is in the state it is, far worse when we were told it would be so much better and paid money because we were told that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rswfire View Post
I feel bad for Leviathan, because his post is just getting buried and derailed. There's something he wants, that he was promised, and he went to great lengths to share why this was important to him. He did, in fact, "humanize" himself with this request.
I do a little too, I'm grateful for a lot of his posts because I often feel the same way but usually lack the inclination or ability to order the whizzing fragments of thoughts in such a way as he does.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 43
01-08-2012, 07:43 PM
August 10th, 2008 - At Gen Con Jack Emmert said: "Starfleet and Klingon. Yeah. So two factions, full PvE content."

August 25th, 2008 - ASK CRYPTIC - Zinc: "The universe of Star Trek Online is shaped and changed by the actions of the players. The Federation and the Klingon Empire will be competing for influence and resources throughout the galaxy and players can influence the results through PvP battles and a system we're calling Competitive PvE."
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 44
01-08-2012, 07:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trek17
Quote:
So now they run for cover and don't want to hear it, and "we're" to blame?
some of us, yeah

the devs have done what they can with what they had and have now, and all the forums have really done, is give them heck for it?

some of it's justified, that's true. but the way some people have spoken about it, ot gives the wrong impression to the devs (raging and haters, as opposed to constructive).

and as i repeat, only some of us have done that. not all
It's a funny thing, this.

First, to get this out of the way; the players are not to blame for the state of the game as a whole. This is a ludicrous thought*. The only people to blame for this are the dev or devs in charge of the feature that is being considered as lacking.

There is something players are to blame for, though; lack of candid back-and-forth communication. Not all of us, as Trek17 has said, but some. And its effects are particularly evident in the PvP department, where this phenomenon is most easily observable.

At its most basic, the act in question is simple; a post is made directly questioning a/the dev's competence and intelligence. But what separates it from common troll-talk is that normally it's long, drawn out, peppered in what would otherwise have been a decently constructive post, and most importantly, well-written. It's easy to brush off "ur dumb"; it's a lot harder to shrug off a six paragraph post about how you're a complete failure as a developer (but good job on that one thing!).

Seriously, take a look at this. For the first time in ages, a dev stepped up to try and *GASP* communicate with people. He even took the time to spell out plain as day the reason so few devs set foot in there is because somebody always comes along and bites their damn feet off.And that was one of the good threads. Nevermind the sheer number of examples I could dredge up from any one dev blog thread.

I said all that to say this. The state of the game isn't the players' fault. But with some of us doing our damnedest to alienate the devs and discourage communication, it's fair to say we aren't exactly helping.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 45
01-08-2012, 08:29 PM
To expand on my last post (I kinda rushed it as dinner was ready), I think one of Dan's biggest positive was also kind of a negative. The Engineering Reports gave us a list of pretty much everything the developers were testing and working on, as well as stuff that they were just discussing or ideas they where throwing around. While I think the transparency was great, it did lead to some outcry when some of the stuff that is mentioned doesn't get added or doesn't move up the development ladder.

Apparently (and IMO), Stephen prefers to keep stuff close to the chest until it is close to reaching the testing phase. This may be just his preference or out of necessity (I believe it was mentioned he was still performing the job functions of two people). Whatever the reason, it is not the transparency that we are used to.

I think if we could get at least an occasional State of the Game or Engineering Report, particularly to say, "yes we are still discussing/working on these things from Dan's last report, plus x..." I think that would go a long way.

Good or bad, we are used to being told what's going on.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 46
01-08-2012, 08:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyNY View Post
Unless you got her Pregnant. :p
Heh, been there, and still married to her

On topic:
1) Revamped Exploration
2) Expanded DOff system (fleet missions, ect)
3) Expanded Fleet purpose
4) Territory control
5) ...honestly, if the above 4 are done, I'd be quite happy
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 47
01-08-2012, 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rswfire View Post
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I don't think those statements were honest. To say "this is the first I'm hearing about it" is not truthful in my opinion, and that bothers me. For me, it's about integrity and good leadership. I think some of those statements were, shall we say, "misleading."

Yes, you're absolutely right, things don't always pan out. No doubt the corporate fallout changed a lot of plans. What's so wrong with admitting that rather than passing the blame onto someone else or claiming complete ignorance about something that is so blatant to all of us?

With that said, I do like D'Angelo's approach of actually putting forth what he deems to be realistic goals rather than pandering to our "hopes and dreams."
Dude, if they've hired more people, you bet your britches they can take a more accelerated approach to new ships and features. D'Angelo can be as happy slappy as he wants, but what Cryptic needs to demonstrate is results.

I agree on most of what was said:

we need:

territory control, revamped Fed missions for Klingons, Federation and Klingon Flagship, promised Andorian battlecruiser and Enterprise C, Fleet space stations, and revamped exploration.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 48
01-08-2012, 10:05 PM
Quote:
It's a funny thing, this.

First, to get this out of the way; the players are not to blame for the state of the game as a whole. This is a ludicrous thought*. The only people to blame for this are the dev or devs in charge of the feature that is being considered as lacking.

There is something players are to blame for, though; lack of candid back-and-forth communication. Not all of us, as Trek17 has said, but some. And its effects are particularly evident in the PvP department, where this phenomenon is most easily observable.

At its most basic, the act in question is simple; a post is made directly questioning a/the dev's competence and intelligence. But what separates it from common troll-talk is that normally it's long, drawn out, peppered in what would otherwise have been a decently constructive post, and most importantly, well-written. It's easy to brush off "ur dumb"; it's a lot harder to shrug off a six paragraph post about how you're a complete failure as a developer (but good job on that one thing!).

Seriously, take a look at this. For the first time in ages, a dev stepped up to try and *GASP* communicate with people. He even took the time to spell out plain as day the reason so few devs set foot in there is because somebody always comes along and bites their damn feet off.And that was one of the good threads. Nevermind the sheer number of examples I could dredge up from any one dev blog thread.

I said all that to say this. The state of the game isn't the players' fault. But with some of us doing our damnedest to alienate the devs and discourage communication, it's fair to say we aren't exactly helping.
all well thought and true

it's true i overdid what i said earlier. but while it's not as bad as i said, some fault is still there for some players, who just aren't helping, even if they think they are
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 49
01-09-2012, 01:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeslyn
I do not wish the Bridge Officers as Alts.

I ~would~ like the option to play as the First Officer on Away Missions.

I would also like the option to promote a Bridge Officer to Captain and give them one of the ships in your inventory. They would not be playable as such, but the 'Fleet Support' ability would summon them to aid you.
I could use both. As Leviathan mentioned - Bridge Officer turning into Captain characters could open up new, exotic races. That sounds like an interesting opportunity and taking "altitis" to a new level.

But the ability to actually send my First Officer on an away team is another thing I'd like to see happen. It should have been in the game from the start. In fact, I'd say it would be good if we could impersonate every member of the away team.

Imagine the "mini-game" this could be: Certain missions could have the right choice of BOs more meaningful! Instead of your Captain doing every interaction, the best suited away member would do them. Some missions may have unique requirements that require more than one Engineer (or at least lead to better results), and reading the mission briefing correctly or having tried before can help you to figure the right composition of team members. (Of course, the right member is usually just one beam away, but sometimes, it may not be.)

But anyway, that's a fine idea for Startrek Online 2. Not gonna happen.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 50
01-09-2012, 01:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirian_darkstar View Post
August 10th, 2008 - At Gen Con Jack Emmert said: "Starfleet and Klingon. Yeah. So two factions, full PvE content."

August 25th, 2008 - ASK CRYPTIC - Zinc: "The universe of Star Trek Online is shaped and changed by the actions of the players. The Federation and the Klingon Empire will be competing for influence and resources throughout the galaxy and players can influence the results through PvP battles and a system we're calling Competitive PvE."
They should have taken a page from Guild Wars: Faction - where their PvP system and the way it influenced the MAP (In this case: sector space).
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 09:24 PM.