Q: (justin2384) Could we see a way where two or maybe even more smaller fleets could for an alliance and build a star base together?
Dstahl: This is an interesting option ? or similarly, the ability for Fleets to merge ? that we are considering as a way for smaller fleets to handle some of the challenges to building a Starbase. Nothing has been decided but it is definitely an interesting option. It would be useful to know if other fleets feel this would be worthwhile or if there are concerns over something like this.
I have been concerned about the number of small fleets in the game and the experience a handful of very active players in each small fleet are going to have.
Do we need more new fleets which pull new players to STO into them and possibly waste that players time plus resources because new players don't know the full details?
Does anyone agree that new fleets right now, go nowhere?
If so, can we possibly get a discussion going on how serious an effect it has on players experiences to find they have been wasting months and a lot of dil trying to build a Starbase that can't possibly be complete?
I feel we need more information. Official or fan made but even if fan made I think someone at Cryptic needs to provide some advice, maybe some statistics to help us build a clear picture of what a fleet now means from its creation to 6 months down the line, 1 year, 2 years.
- I suggest optional merge where smaller fleets progress is simply added to the larger fleet
- Cryptic adds a feature to display the estimated completion date of Starbase based on number of players in roster and maybe use some existing progress. With the purpose of being open and pushing players into being realistic about their goals in a fleet
- Possibly get a group of players to publish such statistics, a graph but only if Cryptic are going to promote it on the Starbase screen. There is no point otherwise, most players I know hardly visit web pages related to the game its astonishing.
I just feel information needs to be in-game warning new fleet members what they are getting into and players with dreams of building/controlling their own fleet should not be allowed to pull players in with promises of being a great fleet. Especially new STO players.
Comments
This isn't even the problem, it's a fringe scenario that already exists in some form.
The problem with simply adding progression is that the exp:cost ratio isn't constant. Even a medium sized fleet would be able to create multiple dummy fleets, get them to tier 1, and then merge them back in and start again, effectively allowing them to reach tier 5 for tier 1 project costs.
This, absolutely this. The problem is requirements being universally the same across the board no matter what your Fleet size. Scalable requirements could be a viable option.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
The o3 - Killed you good
The alliance setup would allow two fleets to share the same starbase and resources. The problem would be the division of those resources on this one.
That's not really a bad thing, because it would make sense that either system I suggested, could have more then one fleet in alliance with it. if you have 5 or 6 fleets of 4-10 people, the load wouldn't be so bad; about the equivilent to a medium sized fleet. The real problem, is I would think that this sort of system would imply that the leader of each respective fleet would need to be roughly equal so that one fleet doesn't dominate the workings. That is where a problem will be.
Heck, I still think if you have diplomatic immunity or marauding they should allow cross faction fleeting, you just can only buy items from your side of the game (same provisioning though)
I hear you, but you can't expect a Fleet of 6 to carry the same clout/funding/resources that a Fleet of 300 has. I had a small Fleet of RL buddies who all started the game when it launched with me, we played for a while and then stopped. Coming back after seeing STO was F2P, I quickly realized that even if all my friends returned with me there was NO WAY in Hell we were ever going to realize the ability to buy any Fleet goodies amongst ourselves. I'd have to, and did for a while, dump all my available resources into the projects, basically spitting in a bucket to put out a fire.
I don't really think this game needs 40 man raids either, but having a really big Fleet vs. another really big Fleet is a dream of mine for Star Trek. I was able to participate in Fleet warfare in EVE and it is amazingly fun, albeit on a PVP level. Don't really see that ever happening here unfortunately. I also hope there is content that will allow us to take advantage of Fleet ships, and Fleet Starbase systems or something with events maybe.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
The o3 - Killed you good
Go to Earth Spacedock and you'll see people continuously trying to make new fleets -- some because they want more bank space and haven't utilized the mail system, but mostly because they are all about wanting to "own" a fleet. From what I've seen, they have little to no idea of the costs (the millions of fleet marks, 25+ million dilithium, tens of thousands of duty officers, or billions of energy credits it'd take to get the starbase finished in even a year) involved or the sheer number of people it'd take to do it. Most people are either already in a fleet or have no interest in joining so the pool of active, contributing, but fleet-less people is a lot smaller than these fleet leader hopefuls believe. Since all they want to do is own their own corner of the galaxy, they'd also have no interest in merging together with another fleet and have to share the leadership.
There's also the problem when merging fleets of what would happen to the starbase -- losing all XP from the smaller fleet would be in practice the same thing now as the small fleet disbanding and its membership being absorbed into the larger fleet (which really isn't that bad of an idea -- I've been encouraging that for many months. If implemented this would basically just make the transition process that much smoother and easier for everyone). A very, very bad implementation would be to just add up all the XP together -- this would give some fleets Tier 5 instantly -- (10 tiny fleets that just hit Tier 2, 25k XP in each category, summed together are suddenly more advanced than the top mega-fleets!). Not to mention lower tier projects give the same XP at substantially smaller costs.
I have no problem with small fleets for RL friends or tight-knit groups. But all these new fleets ("need 4 to form fleet, you can leave immediately after") that are only setting themselves up for disappointment later are not going to be those that are merging with people and we'll still have thousands of fleets. The prices for projects is still high, even for large fleets, and I would support additional tweaks to make it more friendly to fleets that number around a dozen or two active members.
My STOwiki page | Reachable in-game @PhyrexianHero
Fed Armada: Section 31 (level 730, 2700+ members)
KDF Armada: Klingon Intelligence (level 699, 2100+ members)
There would be problems with this suggestion has well.
At some point there would be an optimal number of resources required based off the size of the fleet so once that information became common knowledge Fleets would Cap their memberships at the exact number of members needed to get the best return on their resource investment.
The above would lead to larger Fleets dropping members like crazy to hit the optimal number of members needed.
I do not believe that scaling the amount of resources required based of Fleet size will be a good system to implement with Fleet System in STO.
What I think would help out somewhat would be a 25% cost reduction of all tiers on all projects across the board.
There really should not be any benefits or special incentives attached to the Fleet System based on the size of the Fleet because that would punish whatever Fleet that number of members was not optimal to hit said benefit.
Sorry to all the small fleets out there (this includes the Fleet that I am in has well) but larger Fleets have more members which equals more resources which equals advantage and that is how it should be.
The best that we in smaller Fleets can hope for is a happy medium.
This would not work either, as there's already pretty much no point to having XP as part of the requirements(80k? WTF is the point, anyone who is 50 makes that in no time flat and since we can't skill into anything it just pools up), not to mention large Fleet's don't have a problem filling up those projects since everyone is chomping at the bit waiting for them to come off CD and throw all their Fleet Marks/XP/DIL at it as fast as their mouse will click. You've got 2 opposite ends of the spectrum as a result;
1. Small Fleets can't complete projects because there is not enough people/resources
2. Large Fleets can't keep projects open long enough for everyone to get a chance to contribute, because there is an overabundance of people/resources.
Therefore the 25% reduction would only benefit small Fleet's and make it even more difficult for less active members of large Fleet's to contribute.
I absolutely agree there should not be any benefit or disadvantage to having a larger or smaller Fleet, period.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
The o3 - Killed you good
Look, it was a terrible idea when the best endgame gear was available through running STFs for rare drops.
IMO, the ideal is multiple paths to good endgame gear, allowing for different playstyles, tastes, and limitations to pursue their own paths.
Right now, Very Rare MK XII weapons are available from a few sources -- Romulan reputation, drops/exchange, Starbases. IMO, Crafting, dilithium store, and other sources should offer it, too (even though I, personally, have no interest in crafting)
But now we have Fleet ships, Embassy consoles, and other stuff. Putting all of that behind 'big Fleet' undermines a lot of the game.
Look, the advantage of a Fleet should be social. Afterall, we're ALL part of Starfleet or KDF. We're already part of a massive organization with resources and opportunity.
Or to put it another way, what beneficial result, in terms of money, gameplay, or resources, does the current system of 'abandon your friends and join a massive Fleet' serve?
Wicks and Things: NW-DI4FMZRR4 : The Fenwick merchant family has lost a caravan! Can you help?
Beggar's Hollow: NW-DR6YG4J2L : Someone, or something, has stolen away many of the Fenwicks' children! Can you find out what happened to them?
Into the Fen Wood: NW-DL89DRG7B : Enter the heart of the forest. Can you discover the secret of the Fen Wood?
1. Dual prices, a price in Fleet Credits or a price in Dilithium/EC/GPL
2. A Personal Fleet Rep where you can run projects to get Fleet Credits.
3. DOff missions to get Fleet Credits.
4. A converter in Fleet Starbases where you put in Dilithium, EC or GPL and get Fleet Credits.
or allow only a Bigger fleet to be absorbed
There's also a maximum cap on how quickly a fleet can advance, due to the length of projects. After that they have to switch to special projects, which give a ridiculously low returns on investment (in terms of Starbase XP), and really is just for helping members earn Fleet Credits.
The fact that the system encourages larger groups of players is probably related to retaining players. They don't want people isolating themselves because you'd have less incentive to stay. Human beings are social animals, when you're a member of a larger social group you're more likely to stick around.
Hopefully, Cryptic gives us an option to absorb or ally. Because I could see Large Fleets benefiting since they have trouble earning Fleet Credits, while Small Fleets have an abundance of Fleet Credits, but little progression.
Of course to discourage Large Fleets from making small fleets to act as Fleet Credit farm sites and ignore small fleets in general, there should be limits like a Fleet has to be around for a period of time (6 months?) and has at least gotten to Tier 2.
Also, to note that the small fleets should have control over what projects an ally could undertake. That way the Large Fleets wouldn't take all the projects and leave the small one projectless.
Another possiblity is the Co-Op, where multiple small fleets could link together and work towards a common goal. So each fleet remains independent, but they work together and level up.
what can a tier 1 fleet give to a tier 5 fleet that would make a difference...and how is the leadership from old fleet going to go?? is it going to be a buyout?
Certainly this could result in micro-Fleets formed by larger Fleets purely to farm Fleet Credits, but that's not the most productive or efficient use of a Fleet's resources.
Statically people who are members of a guild/fleet/whatever stay with a given game longer then those who are not members.
There also seems to be a fairly equally common misconception that small guilds/fleets are somehow better. I've seen a lot of posts here by people saying that their small fleet is higher quality then the big fleets are. With a whole host of reasons why this is true.
But the fact is, that a guild is pretty much what you make of it. Getting involved in a large fleet can be just as rewarding as being part of a small fleet. But the larger the fleet the more options you have and the more stuff that's going on.
Just because you have quantity, does not mean you lack in quality.
While this is true, people who are in good fleets/guilds do tend to stick around longer than those in poor fleets/guilds, regardless of size. Camaraderie does have a large impact on whether people stay or not, so Cryptic isn't wrong to try and boost it.
How they're going about it.... might not be the best though.
I'm not so sure those kind of statistics will hold up, given that this is a Star Trek game...
As far as Large Vs Small Fleets...
They purposely developed the system for Fleets of 25 or more...
Anybody who wants to buck that particular 'given', does so at their own behest and should endure the consequences of that decision.
I have my own fleet of One plus my alts, I realize that I can never compete with a larger fleet and have no desire to do so.
This particular IP, tends to blow all previous 'givens' out of the water.
The fact that it went for almost a whole year without any large advancements in the game and yet managed to bring in a profit, is telling in and of itself.
Any assumptions made based on other MMO's or statistics, could be well off the bell-curve, when it comes to Trek.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Regardless of the type of game, MMO players tend to stay longer if they're part of a guild then if they aren't. I don't have a link to this, but I've seen it mentioned by many different game companies. That's why they will put so much effort into guild type content.
Human nature is the same no matter what MMO you're playing.
People involved in close nit social groups are more likely to stay as part of those groups. I hardly feel that I should need to provide proof for something that is so readily apparent in every aspect of every day life.
In any case:
From Sanya Weathers for GamerDNA, a statistical analysis of players and guilds relating to playtime and subscription length:
http://massively.joystiq.com/2009/03/25/how-much-do-guilds-matter/
Conclusion: Members of Guilds play more, for longer.
The Daedalus Project, Player Life-Cycle:
http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001588.php?page=4
http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001588.php?page=9
Conclusion: In the central part of the player life-cycle, people see the value of groups (*cough eSTF PUGs cough*). They develop social connections to a guild. Casual guilds/players end up staying in the game as a result of those social connections, which offsets the factors that would otherwise indicate the burn out phase.
The Daedalus Project, Data on Player Life-Cycles:
http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001646.php?page=5
Conclusion: Casual members of a guild stay subscribed to games longer. ?People start for the game, but they stay for other players?.
Not limited to MMOs/Guilds, this joint paper from Stanford University and the University of Waterloo is a very interesting read:
http://www.stanford.edu/~gwalton/home/Welcome_files/WaltonCohenCwirSpencer2012.pdf
Finally, check out the K?hler motivation gain effect.