. I don't need promises like "yes, we will try to do better"; what I want is clear answers to specific questions......we should prepare a list of serious questions and ask Erin to answer them.
I don't object to this approach. But given that Erin told us that there would be a "slight" reduction in chrons in voyages in future and an increased chance of getting crew, who is going to trust any answers she gives? It will take more than words to get me spending on this game again.
Youve got my vote...adding it to my forum name and player avatar now. Even though i got to ff my mirror picard with db's 'gift'...this was a very wrong move!
Count me in!
I have to say that at first glance when I saw 1/5 Picard in my mail I was happy to immortalize my first legendary, without thinking it through what the same mail meant for other players who spent honor for a citation or money for the DYC "offer".
This happened very fast after the end of the event and I'm inclined to believe that DB just rushed a gift to apologize without thinking it through as well.
As a ftp I can only show support for the paying players and say once more that there should be a cap at spending, that the DYC "offer" looks always like a steal, way too expensive (and a pain as a pop up everytime I open the app), and that when there's money involved there should be full disclosure of the mechanics and chances.
I was probably incidentally advantaged by the last minute server error and got in the top 1000, others in my fleet weren't so lucky. In an event where timing is part of the strategy there should be proper compensation for not being able to implement a chosen strategy.
I welcome the downtime for the server push and would welcome it as a normal practice from now on. We experienced serious bugs in the past during events and everytime we asked to postpone or shutdown an ongoing event it was never done, see the failing shuttle mega bug and the starbase core stats that were inflating on their own. Bugs can happen but can also be flushed out with proper testing away from events where people spend a lot of money and expect in return a performance that reflects the money spent.
While I'm at it at ranting... we are a collaborative community, can you please reintroduce some good old fashioned beta testing?
and in the meantime, for all the paying players, gaming as a ftp is very competitive and fun: join us and stop spending!
As a ftp I can only show support for the paying players ...
Do you currently run ads? Because even FTP players do contribute if they run ads as DB get paid for them. And you can stop running them if sufficiently annoyed with DB!
As a ftp I can only show support for the paying players ...
Do you currently run ads? Because even FTP players do contribute if they run ads as DB get paid for them. And you can stop running them if sufficiently annoyed with DB!
about that... I forgot to mention it, since the change of adwarps, they kept acting fuzzy... sometimes I give up trying to run them, other times the ad is skipped with some random error but I do receive the items, I don't know if in those cases DB is being paid. So I could just stop trying to run them, yes...
I think the Bev event might be my point of departure from DB. I just got the response (the nothing response) back from my ticket. This game is supposed to be a bright spot in my day, not the source of frustration and, for the lack of a better phrase, callous betrayal.
The acceptance of responsibility and the recognition of the problem will eventually clear up the Picard fiasco. The "we fixed it already" response to the Bev event (when the 'fix' was the main problem) demonstrates a obtuse digging in of the heels which is doing nothing but continuing to harm the DB/player relationship. I feel sorry for the CS workers who I'm sure have been told to send a standard response. They must know, and shudder.
Other than the general terms of wanting DB to own up and want real measures taken, what concrete things does DB need to do to meet the needs of Do Better II?
@Pallidine is right. Either we want specific change, or we're just venting. I think most of us are in the first group. Several people in this thread addressed specific changes. Some of the ideas, edited:
... 1. Changing the event reward structure to percentage based,...
2. Recalibrating the honor exchange rates and/or duplicates problem, ...
3. Standardized apology compensation in the form of dilithium, ...
... [4.] take the time to properly test everything.
... [5.] full mea culpa and ownership of the [recent errors]
... [6.] better, more open communication.
... [3a.] re-engineer their system to effectively and efficiently compensate people when mistakes do crop up. ...
... [6a.] better communication, both internally and externally,
...[4a.] improved accuracy in the game and reduction in the frequency of errors.
... [7.] DB [have] a finger on the pulse of the playerbase
... [8.] [DB] care [about players] ...
... [9.] postpone this week's event
... [10.] clear answers to specific questions..we should prepare a [well-organized, voted on] list of serious questions and ask Erin to answer them... not a selection of what she thinks or wants to answer
...[11.] [not run] events during this time [holidays]...
If you haven't yet, please read the full posts. I cut out a lot of good stuff to get a single list.
Other than the general terms of wanting DB to own up and want real measures taken, what concrete things does DB need to do to meet the needs of Do Better II?
@Pallidine is right. Either we want specific change, or we're just venting. I think most of us are in the first group. Several people in this thread addressed specific changes. Some of the ideas, edited:
... 1. Changing the event reward structure to percentage based,...
2. Recalibrating the honor exchange rates and/or duplicates problem, ...
3. Standardized apology compensation in the form of dilithium, ...
... [4.] take the time to properly test everything.
... [5.] full mea culpa and ownership of the [recent errors]
... [6.] better, more open communication.
... [3a.] re-engineer their system to effectively and efficiently compensate people when mistakes do crop up. ...
... [6a.] better communication, both internally and externally,
...[4a.] improved accuracy in the game and reduction in the frequency of errors.
... [7.] DB [have] a finger on the pulse of the playerbase
... [8.] [DB] care [about players] ...
... [9.] postpone this week's event
... [10.] clear answers to specific questions..we should prepare a [well-organized, voted on] list of serious questions and ask Erin to answer them... not a selection of what she thinks or wants to answer
...[11.] [not run] events during this time [holidays]...
If you haven't yet, please read the full posts. I cut out a lot of good stuff to get a single list.
Thoughts?
My personal feeling is that there is a significant difference between asking DB to be a "better" company and asking them to make specific changes to gameplay mechanics.
The first Do Better campaign really had nothing to do with gameplay but was altogether about what was fair to players with regard to how DB operates and communicates.
As a playerbase, we could argue about whether we have a right to demand specific changes to the game but I think there are plenty of changes that DB should make as a company that nobody would have any argument over. Those seem to be the most important things for us to rally behind at this time.
This is silly. If they want to do better they need to fire EVERYONE and find a staff that can navigate a trip to the bathroom with a flashlight and a map. This is a well-conceived game built around an epic IP and run by people who clearly have no idea what they're doing. I play or have played a great deal of phone games, and I've never seen such incompetence, such a consistent lack of vision and consideration for the players. These blunders are a weekly thing, as typically are the blunders trying to fix the blunders.
I play another game that I've been playing for 2 years and I can't remember a single instance of of a fault so egregious that it needed global compensation. Asking DB to do better is like asking a orangutan to be a better chef. The capacity clearly just isn't there.
Maybe the irony is that we play because we’re Star Trek fans, those hopeful idealists that like to think things will get better when we raise valid concerns about fairness and balance, etc and we forget that DB’s greed openly mocks the values espoused by the franchise they have a license for.
-Lord Wizzlestix I
Other than the general terms of wanting DB to own up and want real measures taken, what concrete things does DB need to do to meet the needs of Do Better II?
@Pallidine is right. Either we want specific change, or we're just venting. I think most of us are in the first group. Several people in this thread addressed specific changes. Some of the ideas, edited:
... 1. Changing the event reward structure to percentage based,...
2. Recalibrating the honor exchange rates and/or duplicates problem, ...
3. Standardized apology compensation in the form of dilithium, ...
... [4.] take the time to properly test everything.
... [5.] full mea culpa and ownership of the [recent errors]
... [6.] better, more open communication.
... [3a.] re-engineer their system to effectively and efficiently compensate people when mistakes do crop up. ...
... [6a.] better communication, both internally and externally,
...[4a.] improved accuracy in the game and reduction in the frequency of errors.
... [7.] DB [have] a finger on the pulse of the playerbase
... [8.] [DB] care [about players] ...
... [9.] postpone this week's event
... [10.] clear answers to specific questions..we should prepare a [well-organized, voted on] list of serious questions and ask Erin to answer them... not a selection of what she thinks or wants to answer
...[11.] [not run] events during this time [holidays]...
If you haven't yet, please read the full posts. I cut out a lot of good stuff to get a single list.
Thoughts?
My personal feeling is that there is a significant difference between asking DB to be a "better" company and asking them to make specific changes to gameplay mechanics.
The first Do Better campaign really had nothing to do with gameplay but was altogether about what was fair to players with regard to how DB operates and communicates.
As a playerbase, we could argue about whether we have a right to demand specific changes to the game but I think there are plenty of changes that DB should make as a company that nobody would have any argument over. Those seem to be the most important things for us to rally behind at this time.
Agreed. There are many changes that I would certainly welcome. But the thing that stopped me spending before, and again now, is a lack of basic decency, honesty and fairness in dealing with their customers.
I think we don't have a right to ask for changes in gameplay mechanisms. I think we have every right to ask DB to improve accuracy, consistency, and accountability.
I think we don't have a right to ask for changes in gameplay mechanisms. I think we have every right to ask DB to improve accuracy, consistency, and accountability.
Exactly.
Gameplay changes are for Make It So, etc and are not the catalyst of this cataclysm.
In fact... here's a post from a year ago where Erin outlined her vision for the future, which included a commitment to improving Q&A and communication.
"On the back end we have improved our quality assurance processes, including developing new automation in a number of areas that can introduce certain kinds of bugs. We also committed to communicating key event details earlier in advance, and began keeping that promise ahead of schedule.
So where do we go from here?
Our work is not done on bug fixing and quality-of-life improvements: We continue to work hard to fix what’s not working and improve what is."
I think we don't have a right to ask for changes in gameplay mechanisms. I think we have every right to ask DB to improve accuracy, consistency, and accountability.
I don't agree with you on this one. I think we have the right to ask for anything we want. If we ask for 10 new crew a week, we should get 10 new crew a week. If we ask for dilithium compensations for every screw up, they should give us dilithium. If we ask for redesign for existing crew, we should get new art. And... if we ask for Erin's resignation, I think this would be possible. Let me explain.
I know that DB is a private company, but the fact that it is in control of everything is only an illusion. The only thing that DB can really control is whether they continue developing the game or they quit. They might have been in control when the project started, when they stated that STT was not a collecting game, when game was indeed dynamic. Since then STT became a collecting game, a niche app with a limited player base (Star Trek fans) interested in collecting crew they know. I noticed that even trekkies don't really care for non-canon crew or even for the new Discovery crew. I might be wrong, but I really think that in STT's case it's very hard to find new players (yeah, I know, Discovery series opened some new opportunities but it won't last long) just because the game is not dynamic and appealing enough for those who are not fans. Some of my trekkie friends quit the game because it became boring (their words, not mine) and their point of view is understandable: you get an event every week where you need to spend money and/or lots of hours just to collect some pixels, you have to endure countless errors, we lose more time for opening tickets and then we get crappy replies. As for game development what did we get: the gauntlet a year ago which bacame pure gambling in front of Locutie, Guinans and Kahlesses walls, the voyages which were fun for a month before DB nerfed it (they promised an increased chance of getting crew but decreased it instead), Episode 8 and many postponed promises.
Yes, we are crazy to do this and DB should be thankful that our craziness offers them the opportunity to earn money, but don't mistake an opportunity for control. We are in control as long as we are united.
A niche app is a risky business where customer satisfaction is the key factor, that's why I think we are entitled to ask for anything we want and DB can have 3 possible answers:
1. Yes, we will do this.
2. We can do this but we need new personnel to accomplish it and that means we have to increase the pack prices by x%.
3. We can't do this because... (followed by a satisfactory reason).
It's one of those cases when "Expand or die" refers to app development and not the player base, I think it's very hard to return a player who decided to quit and I see more and more people who decided to stop spending. This is not expansion, so it must be a sign of death.
It's not we who need to adapt to DB's mediocrity, it's DB who needs to adapt to our requests because without us the app makes no sense. Resistance is fertile.
In fact... here's a post from a year ago where Erin outlined her vision for the future, which included a commitment to improving Q&A and communication.
"On the back end we have improved our quality assurance processes, including developing new automation in a number of areas that can introduce certain kinds of bugs. We also committed to communicating key event details earlier in advance, and began keeping that promise ahead of schedule.
So where do we go from here?
Our work is not done on bug fixing and quality-of-life improvements: We continue to work hard to fix what’s not working and improve what is."
Well part of the advanced notification of events was backed off of, which is what made me question the whole commitment to communication thing.
I think we don't have a right to ask for changes in gameplay mechanisms. I think we have every right to ask DB to improve accuracy, consistency, and accountability.
I don't agree with you on this one. I think we have the right to ask for anything we want. If we ask for 10 new crew a week, we should get 10 new crew a week. If we ask for dilithium compensations for every screw up, they should give us dilithium. If we ask for redesign for existing crew, we should get new art. And... if we ask for Erin's resignation, I think this would be possible. Let me explain.
I know that DB is a private company, but the fact that it is in control of everything is only an illusion. The only thing that DB can really control is whether they continue developing the game or they quit. They might have been in control when the project started, when they stated that STT was not a collecting game, when game was indeed dynamic. Since then STT became a collecting game, a niche app with a limited player base (Star Trek fans) interested in collecting crew they know. I noticed that even trekkies don't really care for non-canon crew or even for the new Discovery crew. I might be wrong, but I really think that in STT's case it's very hard to find new players (yeah, I know, Discovery series opened some new opportunities but it won't last long) just because the game is not dynamic and appealing enough for those who are not fans. Some of my trekkie friends quit the game because it became boring (their words, not mine) and their point of view is understandable: you get an event every week where you need to spend money and/or lots of hours just to collect some pixels, you have to endure countless errors, we lose more time for opening tickets and then we get crappy replies. As for game development what did we get: the gauntlet a year ago which bacame pure gambling in front of Locutie, Guinans and Kahlesses walls, the voyages which were fun for a month before DB nerfed it (they promised an increased chance of getting crew but decreased it instead), Episode 8 and many postponed promises.
Yes, we are crazy to do this and DB should be thankful that our craziness offers them the opportunity to earn money, but don't mistake an opportunity for control. We are in control as long as we are united.
A niche app is a risky business where customer satisfaction is the key factor, that's why I think we are entitled to ask for anything we want and DB can have 3 possible answers:
1. Yes, we will do this.
2. We can do this but we need new personnel to accomplish it and that means we have to increase the pack prices by x%.
3. We can't do this because... (followed by a satisfactory reason).
It's one of those cases when "Expand or die" refers to app development and not the player base, I think it's very hard to return a player who decided to quit and I see more and more people who decided to stop spending. This is not expansion, so it must be a sign of death.
It's not we who need to adapt to DB's mediocrity, it's DB who needs to adapt to our requests because without us the app makes no sense. Resistance is fertile.
Yes we have the right to ask for just about anything.
We also know that programmatic changes take DB a good deal of time, even at times when they may not need to in other hands. And when it takes longer, it might just be that they are doing actual good QA, as there have been times that things have been introduced with minimal difficulty.
However, process and policy changes such as communication, quality assurance and other items are things that can begun to be addressed immediately, and are within the scope of something a boycott can be sustained for, if that is the direction of the movement.
I am not saying gameplay changes should not be advocated for. However, I am stating that I don't think they are what's fueling the dumpster fire right now, and should be dealt with separately.
There's some real process and policy issues particularly in communication that need to be dealt with --- and if they aren't, it doesn't matter if the gameplay stays the same or not.
And frankly gameplay pieces we also need to understand sometimes when they are not changed. Frankly, I'm still irritated at the art display change of 1.8, but I'm not going to sharpen the guillotine for it.
I recommend, coherent, specific, and easily explainable policy/process/human type changes being advocated of which examples both acceptable and needing improvement can be cited and explained.
I personally think, that giving DB additional feedback beyond what went wrong recently that includes, but is not limited to things they have done well in the past that can be helpful in making decisions that are better for the community and for their business at large would be ideal.
Now, frankly, I'm just me. I speak for me, I don't speak for my fleet or my squad, nor for anyone else. I usually have a distinct aversion to joining movements. (With Do Better I, I was an supporter but not really a member.) I give my thoughts as free advice, recommendations but not as a commandment for what must be done.
I challenge the notion that the first Do Better protest was successful at creating meaningful and lasting change. At very best it had limited and temporary success, so why would we all rally behind trying the same thing again? Why are the de facto leaders again encouraging everyone to ask for these vague "improvements" to "accuracy, consistency, and accountability" and "communication, quality assurance" with no specific metrics, rather than asking for specific, measurable, identifiable changes?
Doing the same thing twice and expecting different results is...
This is basically handing DB a golden ticket to smooth things over with talk and the temporary appearance of change without committing to anything, they way they did last time. This leaves game systems in place that lead to these kind of situations. This is also undermines any momentum we have for building consensus as a community to advocate for real and specific changes.
“The biggest risk is becoming spectators of our own protests"
Building consensus, collaborating, iterating and advocating for specific solutions is difficult. Telling everyone that all they have to do is wear some tags for awhile until their frustration subsides and they are cajoled back into to complacency is easy.
That said, best of luck to everyone who thinks this approach has merit and will produce results.
Time will tell, again.
We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy. Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
I'm not really sure what other means we have to look for change. But if someone has a better idea, please put it forward.
I am absolutely behind the idea that the community should unite, and what KM and you are doing is extremely useful to everyone. While I can't in good conscience accept the fact that we should be given all kinds of stuff for free by just whining and complaining, I do agree that capital mistakes, such as the one today must be immediately punished, and an apt recompense offered. We have been conditioned for months (and 3 megaevents) that you need to spend money or honor to FF a recurring Megaevent crewmember. Blatantly disregarding that fact is an insult to the entire community.
For the life of me I don't understand how it takes months to add a mega event crew to the portal or any crew for that matter.
Get a Behold oh great another dupe whooosh!!!
When an event ends And the packs are removed from the portal add the crew into premium packs. I get it you want us to use honor but look at the backlash for those who felt they'd no other option but to use a citation before the event ended. We can still use citations on those elusive crew we can't seem to get.
I'm not really sure what other means we have to look for change. But if someone has a better idea, please put it forward.
I didn't question the means, being protest, I questioned the lack of concrete objectives in terms of not advocating for specific, measurable changes. Without that specificity, what determines when the protest has accomplished anything? Also, without a specific request, what are you offering DB as a way to respond? How will they know if they are addressing the concerns of their players, if we don't clearly articulate what we want and give them a way to objectively demonstrate that they are listening and care?
I suggest that we as a community provide feedback to the developers, collaborate on identifying root causes of problems, and then identifying and advocating for potential directions solutions could take which could prevent these kinds of problems from happening again. Fortuitously enough, those conversations have been ongoing, and that is why I stated that this most recent problem with Mirror Picard, was foreseeable, inevitable and avoidable. I put forward a short list of suggestions, each of which are derived from hundreds of posts and thousands of hours of effort the community has put into discussing some of these ongoing problems.
I'd suggest at least three metrics:
1. Changing the event reward structure to percentage based, as discussed in this thread.
2. Recalibrating the honor exchange rates and/or duplicates problem, as discussed in this thread.
3. Standardized apology compensation in the form of dilithium, as discussed in this thread.
The linked threads for each of those items, are just the most recent. Anyone who is interested in diving into those topics will find many other relevant threads and posts strewn about the forums, particularly in the old forums. The idea here, isn't necessarily that the communities suggestion will be implemented exactly as proposed. There are many things we simply don't have the data on to make completely informed suggestions. What we can do, is demonstrate that there is still a structural problem with some of these systems. So what we would be looking for is:
1. Acknowledgement of the ongoing, underlying and interdependent issues.
2. Implementation of some iteration of the proposed solution or implementation of something which at least attempts to address the ongoing issues and is a measurable departure from the status quo.
3. Rationale offered for that particular iteration or other solution being implemented.
For example, the second suggestion, "Recalibrating the honor exchange rates and/or duplicates problem". If, there was an equitable honor exchange rate, would a duplicate Mirror Picard have been as much of an issue? As it stands, there is a foundational inequality, and because of that a considerable portion of the player base got 1/90.909090th what everyone else did, and for those who had him FF, they had their investment of a citation and/or money substantially devalued.
For example, the third suggestion, "Standardized apology compensation in the form of dilithium (or citation)", if this was implemented, then everyone would have gotten something of equal value to begin with. This is particularly relevant, as the current solution to this Mirror Picard problem is basically giving everyone who had him fully fused already enough honor for a citation. Obvious to say, it would have been easier to simply give everyone a citation to begin with, and more importantly, if we advocate clearly that this is our preference "dilithium or citations" then we effectively prevent situations like this from happening again.
The first suggestion isn't directly relevant to the Mirror Picard issue, but it's interconnected, ongoing and worth addressing. I just am tired of writing about this, but blah blah blah systems level thinking, blah blah blah, oh that's a good point, thanks for taking the time to articulate that, blah blah blah, your welcome, I'm just trying to contribute, blah blah blah. World peace.
So, explaining that turned into a small essay. Sorry for the text wall, hopefully someone finds that useful. In summary, I suggest that we need clear, identifiable and measurable objective(s) for this protest.
We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy. Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
I would like to add to the specific list of requests: 12. A return to better artwork, crew that looks like the actor and fixes to the worst of these offenses, especially on 5* crew - Mirror Data as example. Let's face it I'm paying DB to entertain me. Part of that is game play and the other is the aesthetics. No different with any other game. I don't want some weak nice talk about how they might think about getting better artwork again in the future. I want the problem crews fixed. I know DB has never done this but that is the only show of addressing the issue they can do that should be taken seriously. Anything else is false promises they will never deliver on.
I'm not really sure what other means we have to look for change. But if someone has a better idea, please put it forward.
I didn't question the means, being protest, I questioned the lack of concrete objectives in terms of not advocating for specific, measurable changes. Without that specificity, what determines when the protest has accomplished anything? Also, with a specific request, what are you offering DB as a way to respond? How will they know if they are addressing the concerns of their players, if we don't clearly articulate what we want and give them a way to objectively demonstrate that they are listening and care?
I suggest that we as a community provide feedback to the developers, collaborate on identifying root causes of problems, and then identifying and advocating for potential directions solutions could take which could prevent these kinds of problems from happening again. Fortuitously enough, those conversations have been ongoing, and that is why I stated that this most recent problem with Mirror Picard, was foreseeable, inevitable and avoidable. I put forward a short list of suggestions, each of which are derived from hundreds of posts and thousands of hours of effort the community has put into discussing some of these ongoing problems.
I'd suggest at least three metrics:
1. Changing the event reward structure to percentage based, as discussed in this thread.
2. Recalibrating the honor exchange rates and/or duplicates problem, as discussed in this thread.
3. Standardized apology compensation in the form of dilithium, as discussed in this thread.
The linked threads for each of those items, are just the most recent. Anyone who is interested in diving into those topics will find many other relevant threads and posts strewn about the forums, particularly in the old forums. The idea here, isn't necessarily that the communities suggestion will be implemented exactly as proposed. There are many things we simply don't have the data on to make completely informed suggestions. What we can do, is demonstrate that there is still a structural problem with some of these systems. So what we would be looking for is:
1. Acknowledgement of the ongoing, underlying and interdependent issues.
2. Implementation of some iteration of the proposed solution or implementation of something which at least attempts to address the ongoing issues and is a measurable departure from the status quo.
3. Rationale offered for that particular iteration or other solution being implemented.
For example, the second suggestion, "Recalibrating the honor exchange rates and/or duplicates problem". If, there was an equitable honor exchange rate, would a duplicate Mirror Picard have been as much of an issue? As it stands, there is a foundational inequality, and because of that a considerable portion of the player base that got 1/90.909090th what everyone else did, and for those who had him FF, they had their investment of a citation and/or money substantially devalued.
For example, the third suggestion, "Standardized apology compensation in the form of dilithium (or citation)", if this was implemented, then everyone would have gotten something of equal value to begin with. This is particularly relevant, as the current solution to this Mirror Picard problem is basically giving everyone who had him fully fused already enough honor for a citation. Obvious to say, it would have been easier to simply give everyone a citation to begin with, and more importantly, if we advocate clearly that this is our preference "dilithium or citations" then we effectively prevent situations like this from happening again.
The first suggestion isn't directly relevant to the Mirror Picard issue, but it's interconnected, ongoing and worth addressing. I just am tired of writing about this, but blah blah blah systems level thinking, blah blah blah, oh that's a good point, thanks for taking the time to articulate that, blah blah blah, your welcome, I'm just trying to contribute, blah blah blah. World peace.
So, explaining that turned into a small essay. Sorry for the text wall, hopefully someone finds that useful. In summary, I suggest that we need clear, identifiable and measurable objective(s) for this protest.
Though I completely agree about the measurability is necessary, taking on the honor exchange rate I think it is an exercise in futility.
I also think the percentage based rewards would make sense if we knew what the participation rate is and with things like a basement to ensure they don't contract. 'Cause they could easily just put percentage based awards up that then give ~600 people the rewards sometimes.
In any case both of these would take longer to implement than I think momentum of a protest will really hold without people just quitting the game.
There are other items that can be just as measurable regarding communication--- and yes I agree standardization on planned compensation based on common sense reasoning would be good options to explore.
One thing that I feel would be incredibly helpful is a wrap up each event that not only included end of event information that included participation data -- that would demonstrate whether percentage based rewards would actually be beneficial.
That would be measurable, fit into communications and pull the curtain back some.
Before we can get measurable metrics, we need basic transparency. Before we can get there, we need official communication from DB and data on participation rates.
Before we can get measurable metrics, we need basic transparency. Before we can get there, we need official communication from DB and data on participation rates.
Companies can be reluctant to provide that data. If its less than what people expect, then it can give the impression the company is over valued or failing.
Of course, by NOT providing the data, the company can give the impression they ARE in that situation and trying to cover it up.
Before we can get measurable metrics, we need basic transparency. Before we can get there, we need official communication from DB and data on participation rates.
@Pallidyne + Navarch -
Since it's not likely DB would give up hidden data, I don't think it's fair to require this for making our asks. Catch-22 as Sushi pointed. I think there is enough that we can observe, to come up with reasonable solutions.
I'm open to other ideas, but so far the closest model to current which I like best, is a percentage-based reward scheme (though, I am me, so ideally I want something radically, fundamentally different). This automatically adjusts to player participation. While not ideal, it would be more fair and consistent. Unless DB really gets and stays on the ball about adjusting rank rewards regularly, which seems like more work for similar benefit.
Also a complete overhaul of reward distribution, to eliminate the top 15/25-1000 rank gap between rewards. A glaring and fixable longstanding issue, causing discouragement for players who invest significantly into the game, effort and otherwise.
Ranking 25-200 or so should net significantly more reward than rank 900, for example. Not in trainers or rations etc, but in crew, and maybe also (but not alternatively) significant amount of honour and/or crew slots or fractions of crew slots.
Before we can get measurable metrics, we need basic transparency. Before we can get there, we need official communication from DB and data on participation rates.
@Pallidyne + Navarch -
Since it's not likely DB would give up hidden data, I don't think it's fair to require this for making our asks. Catch-22 as Sushi pointed. I think there is enough that we can observe, to come up with reasonable solutions.
I'm open to other ideas, but so far the closest model to current which I like best, is a percentage-based reward scheme (though, I am me, so ideally I want something radically, fundamentally different). This automatically adjusts to player participation. While not ideal, it would be more fair and consistent. Unless DB really gets and stays on the ball about adjusting rank rewards regularly, which seems like more work for similar benefit.
Also a complete overhaul of reward distribution, to eliminate the top 15/25-1000 rank gap between rewards. A glaring and fixable longstanding issue, causing discouragement for players who invest significantly into the game, effort and otherwise.
Ranking 25-200 or so should net significantly more reward than rank 900, for example. Not in trainers or rations etc, but in crew, and maybe also (but not alternatively) significant amount of honour and/or crew slots or fractions of crew slots.
If the data would affect the ask, then it should be a requirement.
Otherwise the ask could then actually be detrimental as it is based on WAG (Wild **tsk tsk** Guess) or Somethings Its Reasonable Assumption.
That's why I am cautious and reluctant on some level for strictly percentage based rewards. I've seen them backfire unless other precautions are taken.
If the idea is simply to make 25-1000 have more variety and worth, no data is needed to make an educated recommendation for overhaul.
In essence, however, neither of these suggestions can be made in a short term period that something like a DB Boycott could sustain, and really, aren't dealing with the issues that led to the whole boiling over to begin with.
Not changing my tag, but limiting my spending just on my terms. Do what y'all want. Demand what y'all want.
I just want measurable improved communications, accountability for accuracy, with more frequent responses to issues and suggestions.
If I was able to alter reality to conform to my will, under 1 week response time for all tickets would be good as well.
Comments
Right now I'm thinking my next purchase is going to be a Mirror Troi double or nothing.
I don't object to this approach. But given that Erin told us that there would be a "slight" reduction in chrons in voyages in future and an increased chance of getting crew, who is going to trust any answers she gives? It will take more than words to get me spending on this game again.
But it does on the game
I have to say that at first glance when I saw 1/5 Picard in my mail I was happy to immortalize my first legendary, without thinking it through what the same mail meant for other players who spent honor for a citation or money for the DYC "offer".
This happened very fast after the end of the event and I'm inclined to believe that DB just rushed a gift to apologize without thinking it through as well.
As a ftp I can only show support for the paying players and say once more that there should be a cap at spending, that the DYC "offer" looks always like a steal, way too expensive (and a pain as a pop up everytime I open the app), and that when there's money involved there should be full disclosure of the mechanics and chances.
I was probably incidentally advantaged by the last minute server error and got in the top 1000, others in my fleet weren't so lucky. In an event where timing is part of the strategy there should be proper compensation for not being able to implement a chosen strategy.
I welcome the downtime for the server push and would welcome it as a normal practice from now on. We experienced serious bugs in the past during events and everytime we asked to postpone or shutdown an ongoing event it was never done, see the failing shuttle mega bug and the starbase core stats that were inflating on their own. Bugs can happen but can also be flushed out with proper testing away from events where people spend a lot of money and expect in return a performance that reflects the money spent.
While I'm at it at ranting... we are a collaborative community, can you please reintroduce some good old fashioned beta testing?
and in the meantime, for all the paying players, gaming as a ftp is very competitive and fun: join us and stop spending!
Do you currently run ads? Because even FTP players do contribute if they run ads as DB get paid for them. And you can stop running them if sufficiently annoyed with DB!
about that... I forgot to mention it, since the change of adwarps, they kept acting fuzzy... sometimes I give up trying to run them, other times the ad is skipped with some random error but I do receive the items, I don't know if in those cases DB is being paid. So I could just stop trying to run them, yes...
The acceptance of responsibility and the recognition of the problem will eventually clear up the Picard fiasco. The "we fixed it already" response to the Bev event (when the 'fix' was the main problem) demonstrates a obtuse digging in of the heels which is doing nothing but continuing to harm the DB/player relationship. I feel sorry for the CS workers who I'm sure have been told to send a standard response. They must know, and shudder.
@Pallidine is right. Either we want specific change, or we're just venting. I think most of us are in the first group. Several people in this thread addressed specific changes. Some of the ideas, edited:
If you haven't yet, please read the full posts. I cut out a lot of good stuff to get a single list.
Thoughts?
My personal feeling is that there is a significant difference between asking DB to be a "better" company and asking them to make specific changes to gameplay mechanics.
The first Do Better campaign really had nothing to do with gameplay but was altogether about what was fair to players with regard to how DB operates and communicates.
As a playerbase, we could argue about whether we have a right to demand specific changes to the game but I think there are plenty of changes that DB should make as a company that nobody would have any argument over. Those seem to be the most important things for us to rally behind at this time.
I play another game that I've been playing for 2 years and I can't remember a single instance of of a fault so egregious that it needed global compensation. Asking DB to do better is like asking a orangutan to be a better chef. The capacity clearly just isn't there.
-Lord Wizzlestix I
Agreed. There are many changes that I would certainly welcome. But the thing that stopped me spending before, and again now, is a lack of basic decency, honesty and fairness in dealing with their customers.
Proud Former Officer of The Gluten Empire
Retired 12-14-20. So long, and thanks for all the cat pics!
Exactly.
Gameplay changes are for Make It So, etc and are not the catalyst of this cataclysm.
Let's start there.
https://www.disruptorbeam.com/blog/2017/1/12/the-undiscovered-country-the-future-of-star-trek-timelines
"On the back end we have improved our quality assurance processes, including developing new automation in a number of areas that can introduce certain kinds of bugs. We also committed to communicating key event details earlier in advance, and began keeping that promise ahead of schedule.
So where do we go from here?
Our work is not done on bug fixing and quality-of-life improvements: We continue to work hard to fix what’s not working and improve what is."
Proud Former Officer of The Gluten Empire
Retired 12-14-20. So long, and thanks for all the cat pics!
I don't agree with you on this one. I think we have the right to ask for anything we want. If we ask for 10 new crew a week, we should get 10 new crew a week. If we ask for dilithium compensations for every screw up, they should give us dilithium. If we ask for redesign for existing crew, we should get new art. And... if we ask for Erin's resignation, I think this would be possible. Let me explain.
I know that DB is a private company, but the fact that it is in control of everything is only an illusion. The only thing that DB can really control is whether they continue developing the game or they quit. They might have been in control when the project started, when they stated that STT was not a collecting game, when game was indeed dynamic. Since then STT became a collecting game, a niche app with a limited player base (Star Trek fans) interested in collecting crew they know. I noticed that even trekkies don't really care for non-canon crew or even for the new Discovery crew. I might be wrong, but I really think that in STT's case it's very hard to find new players (yeah, I know, Discovery series opened some new opportunities but it won't last long) just because the game is not dynamic and appealing enough for those who are not fans. Some of my trekkie friends quit the game because it became boring (their words, not mine) and their point of view is understandable: you get an event every week where you need to spend money and/or lots of hours just to collect some pixels, you have to endure countless errors, we lose more time for opening tickets and then we get crappy replies. As for game development what did we get: the gauntlet a year ago which bacame pure gambling in front of Locutie, Guinans and Kahlesses walls, the voyages which were fun for a month before DB nerfed it (they promised an increased chance of getting crew but decreased it instead), Episode 8 and many postponed promises.
Yes, we are crazy to do this and DB should be thankful that our craziness offers them the opportunity to earn money, but don't mistake an opportunity for control. We are in control as long as we are united.
A niche app is a risky business where customer satisfaction is the key factor, that's why I think we are entitled to ask for anything we want and DB can have 3 possible answers:
1. Yes, we will do this.
2. We can do this but we need new personnel to accomplish it and that means we have to increase the pack prices by x%.
3. We can't do this because... (followed by a satisfactory reason).
It's one of those cases when "Expand or die" refers to app development and not the player base, I think it's very hard to return a player who decided to quit and I see more and more people who decided to stop spending. This is not expansion, so it must be a sign of death.
It's not we who need to adapt to DB's mediocrity, it's DB who needs to adapt to our requests because without us the app makes no sense. Resistance is fertile.
Well part of the advanced notification of events was backed off of, which is what made me question the whole commitment to communication thing.
Yes we have the right to ask for just about anything.
We also know that programmatic changes take DB a good deal of time, even at times when they may not need to in other hands. And when it takes longer, it might just be that they are doing actual good QA, as there have been times that things have been introduced with minimal difficulty.
However, process and policy changes such as communication, quality assurance and other items are things that can begun to be addressed immediately, and are within the scope of something a boycott can be sustained for, if that is the direction of the movement.
I am not saying gameplay changes should not be advocated for. However, I am stating that I don't think they are what's fueling the dumpster fire right now, and should be dealt with separately.
There's some real process and policy issues particularly in communication that need to be dealt with --- and if they aren't, it doesn't matter if the gameplay stays the same or not.
And frankly gameplay pieces we also need to understand sometimes when they are not changed. Frankly, I'm still irritated at the art display change of 1.8, but I'm not going to sharpen the guillotine for it.
I recommend, coherent, specific, and easily explainable policy/process/human type changes being advocated of which examples both acceptable and needing improvement can be cited and explained.
I personally think, that giving DB additional feedback beyond what went wrong recently that includes, but is not limited to things they have done well in the past that can be helpful in making decisions that are better for the community and for their business at large would be ideal.
Now, frankly, I'm just me. I speak for me, I don't speak for my fleet or my squad, nor for anyone else. I usually have a distinct aversion to joining movements. (With Do Better I, I was an supporter but not really a member.) I give my thoughts as free advice, recommendations but not as a commandment for what must be done.
Doing the same thing twice and expecting different results is...
This is basically handing DB a golden ticket to smooth things over with talk and the temporary appearance of change without committing to anything, they way they did last time. This leaves game systems in place that lead to these kind of situations. This is also undermines any momentum we have for building consensus as a community to advocate for real and specific changes.
Building consensus, collaborating, iterating and advocating for specific solutions is difficult. Telling everyone that all they have to do is wear some tags for awhile until their frustration subsides and they are cajoled back into to complacency is easy.
That said, best of luck to everyone who thinks this approach has merit and will produce results.
Time will tell, again.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
Proud Former Officer of The Gluten Empire
Retired 12-14-20. So long, and thanks for all the cat pics!
We could always storm DB HQ with torches and pitchforks like they did in the good ol' days.
DB: Do Better.
Member of Starship Trista.
I am absolutely behind the idea that the community should unite, and what KM and you are doing is extremely useful to everyone. While I can't in good conscience accept the fact that we should be given all kinds of stuff for free by just whining and complaining, I do agree that capital mistakes, such as the one today must be immediately punished, and an apt recompense offered. We have been conditioned for months (and 3 megaevents) that you need to spend money or honor to FF a recurring Megaevent crewmember. Blatantly disregarding that fact is an insult to the entire community.
Get a Behold oh great another dupe whooosh!!!
When an event ends And the packs are removed from the portal add the crew into premium packs. I get it you want us to use honor but look at the backlash for those who felt they'd no other option but to use a citation before the event ended. We can still use citations on those elusive crew we can't seem to get.
I didn't question the means, being protest, I questioned the lack of concrete objectives in terms of not advocating for specific, measurable changes. Without that specificity, what determines when the protest has accomplished anything? Also, without a specific request, what are you offering DB as a way to respond? How will they know if they are addressing the concerns of their players, if we don't clearly articulate what we want and give them a way to objectively demonstrate that they are listening and care?
I suggest that we as a community provide feedback to the developers, collaborate on identifying root causes of problems, and then identifying and advocating for potential directions solutions could take which could prevent these kinds of problems from happening again. Fortuitously enough, those conversations have been ongoing, and that is why I stated that this most recent problem with Mirror Picard, was foreseeable, inevitable and avoidable. I put forward a short list of suggestions, each of which are derived from hundreds of posts and thousands of hours of effort the community has put into discussing some of these ongoing problems.
The linked threads for each of those items, are just the most recent. Anyone who is interested in diving into those topics will find many other relevant threads and posts strewn about the forums, particularly in the old forums. The idea here, isn't necessarily that the communities suggestion will be implemented exactly as proposed. There are many things we simply don't have the data on to make completely informed suggestions. What we can do, is demonstrate that there is still a structural problem with some of these systems. So what we would be looking for is:
1. Acknowledgement of the ongoing, underlying and interdependent issues.
2. Implementation of some iteration of the proposed solution or implementation of something which at least attempts to address the ongoing issues and is a measurable departure from the status quo.
3. Rationale offered for that particular iteration or other solution being implemented.
For example, the second suggestion, "Recalibrating the honor exchange rates and/or duplicates problem". If, there was an equitable honor exchange rate, would a duplicate Mirror Picard have been as much of an issue? As it stands, there is a foundational inequality, and because of that a considerable portion of the player base got 1/90.909090th what everyone else did, and for those who had him FF, they had their investment of a citation and/or money substantially devalued.
For example, the third suggestion, "Standardized apology compensation in the form of dilithium (or citation)", if this was implemented, then everyone would have gotten something of equal value to begin with. This is particularly relevant, as the current solution to this Mirror Picard problem is basically giving everyone who had him fully fused already enough honor for a citation. Obvious to say, it would have been easier to simply give everyone a citation to begin with, and more importantly, if we advocate clearly that this is our preference "dilithium or citations" then we effectively prevent situations like this from happening again.
The first suggestion isn't directly relevant to the Mirror Picard issue, but it's interconnected, ongoing and worth addressing. I just am tired of writing about this, but blah blah blah systems level thinking, blah blah blah, oh that's a good point, thanks for taking the time to articulate that, blah blah blah, your welcome, I'm just trying to contribute, blah blah blah. World peace.
So, explaining that turned into a small essay. Sorry for the text wall, hopefully someone finds that useful. In summary, I suggest that we need clear, identifiable and measurable objective(s) for this protest.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
Though I completely agree about the measurability is necessary, taking on the honor exchange rate I think it is an exercise in futility.
I also think the percentage based rewards would make sense if we knew what the participation rate is and with things like a basement to ensure they don't contract. 'Cause they could easily just put percentage based awards up that then give ~600 people the rewards sometimes.
In any case both of these would take longer to implement than I think momentum of a protest will really hold without people just quitting the game.
There are other items that can be just as measurable regarding communication--- and yes I agree standardization on planned compensation based on common sense reasoning would be good options to explore.
One thing that I feel would be incredibly helpful is a wrap up each event that not only included end of event information that included participation data -- that would demonstrate whether percentage based rewards would actually be beneficial.
That would be measurable, fit into communications and pull the curtain back some.
This is just an off the cuff example.
Companies can be reluctant to provide that data. If its less than what people expect, then it can give the impression the company is over valued or failing.
Of course, by NOT providing the data, the company can give the impression they ARE in that situation and trying to cover it up.
Catch-22
@Pallidyne + Navarch -
Since it's not likely DB would give up hidden data, I don't think it's fair to require this for making our asks. Catch-22 as Sushi pointed. I think there is enough that we can observe, to come up with reasonable solutions.
I'm open to other ideas, but so far the closest model to current which I like best, is a percentage-based reward scheme (though, I am me, so ideally I want something radically, fundamentally different). This automatically adjusts to player participation. While not ideal, it would be more fair and consistent. Unless DB really gets and stays on the ball about adjusting rank rewards regularly, which seems like more work for similar benefit.
Also a complete overhaul of reward distribution, to eliminate the top 15/25-1000 rank gap between rewards. A glaring and fixable longstanding issue, causing discouragement for players who invest significantly into the game, effort and otherwise.
Ranking 25-200 or so should net significantly more reward than rank 900, for example. Not in trainers or rations etc, but in crew, and maybe also (but not alternatively) significant amount of honour and/or crew slots or fractions of crew slots.
~· Fly with the Subspace Eddies! ·~
If the data would affect the ask, then it should be a requirement.
Otherwise the ask could then actually be detrimental as it is based on WAG (Wild **tsk tsk** Guess) or Somethings Its Reasonable Assumption.
That's why I am cautious and reluctant on some level for strictly percentage based rewards. I've seen them backfire unless other precautions are taken.
If the idea is simply to make 25-1000 have more variety and worth, no data is needed to make an educated recommendation for overhaul.
In essence, however, neither of these suggestions can be made in a short term period that something like a DB Boycott could sustain, and really, aren't dealing with the issues that led to the whole boiling over to begin with.
Not changing my tag, but limiting my spending just on my terms. Do what y'all want. Demand what y'all want.
I just want measurable improved communications, accountability for accuracy, with more frequent responses to issues and suggestions.
If I was able to alter reality to conform to my will, under 1 week response time for all tickets would be good as well.