Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
04-21-2012, 03:52 PM
~ Nevermind (Moderator, delete this please)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
04-21-2012, 07:16 PM
Well you hate this game, I love it! Lockboxes are annoying I agree, but don't get mad when other MMO's start going F2P. Companies follow the money, and that money is in microtransactions now. I myself am waiting for TOR to go F2P.

Also, for fun...

OP: "KHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNN!!!"
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
04-21-2012, 07:44 PM
While I share your frustration with some of the way crptic has implemented thins in this game, I am going to stick it out.

P.S. CAN I HAZ UR STUF?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
04-21-2012, 07:47 PM
Dear OP,

You know what, games go F2P because it's the better model and they make more money that way. I see no issue with F2P players unless you are just some rich, right-wing, country club snob that wants to attack people who are easy targets as few of them have posting privileges and can't defend themselves here.

Most of my fleet is made up of F2P folk (including my bad self) and I like them all just fine. Its whining jerks I detest and you, Mr. Lifer, seem to be one of them.

As to the "stock market" feel: A) I would think you'd like that part of it as you seem to loath people without tons of disposable income for games and B) EVERY MMO works that way without exception.

Also, for all its faults, Cryptic is far more open to player input than any other game company I have yet encountered. They at least tell you what they are working on and get feedback on it. Every other MMO says "Take this and like it" from what I have seen. The best way to get them to give up on that is to throw tantrums and give them the impression it's not worth bothering with, but whatever...

By the by, just how do you fly your ship in a "Star Trek fashion" anyway? Let me know and I promise to shape up to your high standards. Would having a stick up my *** like you be a good start?

In any event, farewell. I am sure you will be missed and the game will be doomed without you.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
04-21-2012, 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaFox
Well you hate this game, I love it! Lockboxes are annoying I agree, but don't get mad when other MMO's start going F2P. Companies follow the money, and that money is in microtransactions now. I myself am waiting for TOR to go F2P.

Also, for fun...

OP: "KHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNN!!!"


I seriously doubt TOR will ever go to a full F2P model. EA just does not do it with big MMOs.


I'll give you an example. Warhammer Online, probably the biggest flop in MMO history. Some 300 million in development and the game rolled over and died within 1 year. Its been buried so long that mold has grown on its tombstone and its only free for the first 2 tiers. For tier 3 and 4...you have to subscribe still. Again with Dark Age of Camelot. One of the most fun PvP centric games I've ever played. But its age is telling. The UI is still stuck in its early 2000's format, no major updates/upgrades since its last expansion in 2007 and the game will be 11 years old come Oct with about 2k players left globally. It still is not F2P. EA would rather shut down the severs and trash bin the game entirely than go to a full F2P model. TOR will be the same way. Bioware made and produced it, but EA owns it and calls the shots. TOR will follow the same path all other MMOs that EA has absorbed over the years has done...subscribe till the plug gets pulled.


F2P doesnt always save a game from certain death either......look at Wolfpack Studios and their game Shadowbane. They went fully F2P and still they pulled the plug. Which proves if you push out crap, the game will die regardless. Crytpic/PWE is really getting close to that edge as well with the ********** garbage they been putting out lately.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
04-21-2012, 09:20 PM
Good one on the movie substitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajstoner
just how do you fly your ship in a "Star Trek fashion" anyway?
Well, one example is the "need/greed" system. Starfleet captains are not supposed to be greedy, so the idea that they would choose "greed" is antithetical to "Star Trek fashion".

Another is the excess of admirals, and admiral activities that don't even befit junior captains.

Another is the buying and selling of people (duty officers in a store, for instance) which doesn't fit with Starfleet ideas of human rights.

Another is the heavy emphasis on space combat. Now, from a purely arcade game standpoint it can be enjoyable, but from the "Star Trek fashion" point of view it's not so adherent. Fighting the Borg is as close as one gets in "Star Trek fashion" to repetitive "guns as the solution to the problem" behavior. Remember that Picard and his crew didn't even want to destroy the Crystalline Entity.

That is Starfleet. Instead of saying "You evil thing, you just sucked up another planet full of colonists and now I'm going to shoot you with all my cool gear" you say "I can communicate with it? That's so cool. Maybe we can work out a peaceful agreement?"

The utopian idealism of Roddenberry's Star Trek vision has been sullied by excessive violence and commercialism from the beginning, when his female first officer was put into a blonde wig and a miniskirt and turned into a nurse, when his "too cerebral" captain and first episode was gussied up with fist fights with Klingons in the mess hall, and so forth. The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek VI were both fashioned to be miltaristic "macho" films and Roddenberry was not at all pleased with the racist backwardness of what Kirk's character, for instance, was turned into. We have gone from a Starfleet without money to how many different currencies? The crowning moment of the destruction of Trek's idealism, its philosophical core of exploration, responsibility/seriousness, and the accumulation of knowledge and insight (rather than conquest/imperialism/violence/egotism) is the Abram's film. As I've said before, it would not surprise me in the least if young developers are confused about what "Star Trek fashion" (Star Trek's core philosophy/vision) is, given the way the franchise has been mutilated into a centerless twitching mass of clichés. There is also the fact that some of the fanbase prefer the fist fights in the mess hall, the blonde women in short skirts, and the train wreck of a film that Abrams made. The Wrath of Khan is still considered by many to be the best Star Trek film, even though it focused much more on fighting than on exploration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajstoner
Let me know and I promise to shape up to your high standards. Would having a stick up my *** like you be a good start?

In any event, farewell. I am sure you will be missed and the game will be doomed without you.
Is that constructive feedback? Attacking ranters personally isn't taking the high road.

I don't think saying "I hate this game" is very productive, but there is a little content in the opening post, like the definition of the imprecisely stated, but certainly relevant, "Star Trek fashion".
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
04-22-2012, 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajstoner
Dear OP,

You know what, games go F2P because it's the better model and they make more money that way. I see no issue with F2P players unless you are just some rich, right-wing, country club snob that wants to attack people who are easy targets as few of them have posting privileges and can't defend themselves here.

Most of my fleet is made up of F2P folk (including my bad self) and I like them all just fine. Its whining jerks I detest and you, Mr. Lifer, seem to be one of them.

As to the "stock market" feel: A) I would think you'd like that part of it as you seem to loath people without tons of disposable income for games and B) EVERY MMO works that way without exception.

Also, for all its faults, Cryptic is far more open to player input than any other game company I have yet encountered. They at least tell you what they are working on and get feedback on it. Every other MMO says "Take this and like it" from what I have seen. The best way to get them to give up on that is to throw tantrums and give them the impression it's not worth bothering with, but whatever...

By the by, just how do you fly your ship in a "Star Trek fashion" anyway? Let me know and I promise to shape up to your high standards. Would having a stick up my *** like you be a good start?

In any event, farewell. I am sure you will be missed and the game will be doomed without you.
whoa! who says he's right wing? we deny him if he is
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
04-22-2012, 09:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vetteguy904
whoa! who says he's right wing? we deny him if he is
I infer it from his bashing of the vile F2P crowd who dare stink up his beautiful game.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
04-22-2012, 08:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercuriciodide
Another is the heavy emphasis on space combat. Now, from a purely arcade game standpoint it can be enjoyable, but from the "Star Trek fashion" point of view it's not so adherent. Fighting the Borg is as close as one gets in "Star Trek fashion" to repetitive "guns as the solution to the problem" behavior. Remember that Picard and his crew didn't even want to destroy the Crystalline Entity.

That is Starfleet. Instead of saying "You evil thing, you just sucked up another planet full of colonists and now I'm going to shoot you with all my cool gear" you say "I can communicate with it? That's so cool. Maybe we can work out a peaceful agreement?"

The utopian idealism of Roddenberry's Star Trek vision has been sullied by excessive violence and commercialism from the beginning, when his female first officer was put into a blonde wig and a miniskirt and turned into a nurse, when his "too cerebral" captain and first episode was gussied up with fist fights with Klingons in the mess hall, and so forth. The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek VI were both fashioned to be miltaristic "macho" films and Roddenberry was not at all pleased with the racist backwardness of what Kirk's character, for instance, was turned into. We have gone from a Starfleet without money to how many different currencies? The crowning moment of the destruction of Trek's idealism, its philosophical core of exploration, responsibility/seriousness, and the accumulation of knowledge and insight (rather than conquest/imperialism/violence/egotism) is the Abram's film. As I've said before, it would not surprise me in the least if young developers are confused about what "Star Trek fashion" (Star Trek's core philosophy/vision) is, given the way the franchise has been mutilated into a centerless twitching mass of clichés. There is also the fact that some of the fanbase prefer the fist fights in the mess hall, the blonde women in short skirts, and the train wreck of a film that Abrams made. The Wrath of Khan is still considered by many to be the best Star Trek film, even though it focused much more on fighting than on exploration.
I agree with what you're saying. But I have to argue it. Realistically. If a ST game fully followed Gene's wishes in the franchise. You'd all quit the game. Let's be honest here for one minute. How many of you hate it when you get a mission, you scan, text help, and beam back up. You get ****ed off. Don't you.

Imagine if every mission required, or gave you the option to talk yourself out of the issue. Either by text puzzle. Or long text boxes. You'd level up in a few days. Not weeks. And would get bored. That's why a lot of the writers would butt heads with Roddenberry. When he would shoot down some good stories. There's no TV show without conflict. You watch the shows, because you fall in love with the cast. You fall in love with a game that you can play. Not one that is filled with text. Or that can be cleared with ease. A Star Trek game primarily has to have ship battles.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
04-22-2012, 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by archer9234 View Post
I agree with what you're saying. But I have to argue it. Realistically. If a ST game fully followed Gene's wishes in the franchise. You'd all quit the game. Let's be honest here for one minute. How many of you hate it when you get a mission, you scan, text help, and beam back up. You get ****ed off. Don't you.

Imagine if every mission required, or gave you the option to talk yourself out of the issue. Either by text puzzle. Or long text boxes. You'd level up in a few days. Not weeks. And would get bored. That's why a lot of the writers would butt heads with Roddenberry. When he would shoot down some good stories. There's no TV show without conflict. You watch the shows, because you fall in love with the cast. You fall in love with a game that you can play. Not one that is filled with text. Or that can be cleared with ease. A Star Trek game primarily has to have ship battles.
I think it's incorrect to assert that Roddenberry's vision is more boring. The devil is in the details (implementation). There was plenty of conflict in his vision. The difference is that Starfleet was idealistic not craven. It's not like Riker had a picnic on the planet the Crystalline Entity devoured and yet what did Picard's crew want to do? They got angry because a Starfleet member destroyed it instead of letting them talk to it.

Deeper diplomacy may be boring for some, but I find it more interesting than "Hey... look at those automatons standing around waiting for us to shoot them". I'll take the "too cerebral" TOS pilot over "exciting" fights over the ship's honor with Klingons in the mess hall any day. Copying the clichéd violence of the original Batman TV show is not the path to increased interest, in my book. But, as I mentioned, some people don't like Roddenberry's vision of Trek. That was apparent from the beginning when his cast was changed, women were tarted up, and even Spock nearly got canned.

Besides, diplomacy isn't the only thing required to conform to the idealistic philosophy of Trek. There can be tons of conflict, but the goal isn't conflict. The goal is peaceful exploration/scientific innovation/accumulation of knowledge. The Voyager episode in which metallic Janeway and her crew were willing to sacrifice themselves rather than destroy an irritating vessel blocking them from sustenance is a good example of conflict, struggle, diplomacy, and the Star Trek philosophy.

Rather than do what we would expect to do in this game, which would be "blow up the ship to reach our objective" Janeway and her crew literally allowed themselves to disintegrate rather than violate the Prime Directive. Arguably she should have disabled that ship -- that destroying it or not was a false dilemma (the needs of the many—her crew—being more pressing). But, the point I'm making is that what she did is far more Starfleet/Trek than barging into a species' space and making demands at the point of a gun.

For me, contending with morality while trying to fight the many pitfalls of a treacherous universe is at least as interesting as (if not more so than) wandering around as a barbarian with "might makes right" as the philosophy. There is more conflict at the ready when one is restricted by idealism than there is when one simply says "look how big my guns are, you dead".

If people want to play KDF, then they should do so. The paradigm the game has created for KDF is more compatible with the desires of marauders than the Starfleet side should be. Starfleet captains should never be marauders, in any respect. However, I do wonder how much coherence there is when it comes to honor. It seems like "might makes right" is substituted for honor pretty often in the game's KDF paradigm. I am not a Klingon expert when it comes to canon Trek, but I do remember Sarek's response to the Klingons at Kirk's trial in ST IV: "You have the right to commit murder?" It seems to me that honor is a convenient buzzword at times in canon Trek for Klingons. Another example is when Worf refuses to kill the Duras boy, saying that although it's the Klingon way it's not his way. In that circumstance, his refusal is arguably the more honorable choice.
Closed Thread

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 12:19 AM.