test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Dstahl on Merging Fleets

ghqcommandghqcommand Member Posts: 0 Arc User
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.

  1. I suggest optional merge where smaller fleets progress is simply added to the larger fleet
  2. 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
  3. 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.
Post edited by ghqcommand on
«13

Comments

  • edited January 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • hevachhevach Member Posts: 2,777 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    New fleets go somewhere pretty quick, there's just a wall at tier 4 that older fleets are still climbing over. Progression in both holdings is almost trivial until tier 2, and manageable even for a small fleet until around tier 3.
    valoreah wrote: »
    IMO a fleet merge isn't a useful feature as it will be abused. Larger fleets will absorb smaller fleets, keep the resources and then boot the members of the smaller fleet.

    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.
  • trellabortrellabor Member Posts: 209 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    valoreah wrote: »
    Not sure I'd say they go "nowhere" as small fleets can progress with a lot of effort. However, I'd agree there will be many that disband or give up on the game once they realize the amount of time/resources needed to get to the higher tiers.

    IMO a fleet merge isn't a useful feature as it will be abused. Larger fleets will absorb smaller fleets, keep the resources and then boot the members of the smaller fleet. A similar feature was requested when supergroup bases were introduced to CoX. It ultimately went nowhere for this very reason.

    Just my own opinion here, but if many fleets are having difficulty advancing in Tiers then the cost in resources/time needs to be adjusted.

    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
  • blitzy4blitzy4 Member Posts: 839 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    I think what would be more needed is either a squadron setup, or an alliance setup. The squadron idea is that either fleet X gets to keep it's 'name' but falls under the fleet Y, as sort of a sub unit. that might also help larger fleets that fill up.

    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.
    jKixCmJ.jpg
    "..and like children playing after sunset, we were surrounded by darkness." -Ruri Hoshino



  • trenthowelltrenthowell Member Posts: 52 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    but then you come across the problem of fleets intentionally staying small just for the sake of progression
  • edited January 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • blitzy4blitzy4 Member Posts: 839 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    valoreah wrote: »
    Why do you see this as a problem? Some folks do want to keep their fleets small to just a close-knit group of friends. Not everyone wants to be in a large group and I don't players should be penalized whether they choose to be in small groups or large ones.

    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)
    jKixCmJ.jpg
    "..and like children playing after sunset, we were surrounded by darkness." -Ruri Hoshino



  • edited January 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • trellabortrellabor Member Posts: 209 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    valoreah wrote: »
    I don't think the problem is that requirements are universal. Just my opinion, the requirements are scaled too high. While I can understand why this was done, I don't see it as a necessity, even in the long term. There is no need for large groups in this game beyond the social aspect. There are no 40 man raids in STO nor is there any content that really calls for any of the fleet upgraded ships. Maybe this will change one day in the future, but I'll believe it when I see it.

    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
  • edited January 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • phyrexianherophyrexianhero Member Posts: 768 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    While merging small fleets may be useful for those who want the rewards but don't want to abandon their existing fleet and all the effort they put in (even though an objective outlook would show they're really only a fraction of the way to the 250,000 military, engineering, and science XP needed to max out the starbase -- remember, Tier 4 to 5 is a much longer climb than Tier 0 to Tier 4).

    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.
    Playing since January 2010. STOwiki administrator. Accolade hunter.
    My STOwiki page | Reachable in-game @PhyrexianHero
    Fed Armada: Section 31 (level 730, 2700+ members)
    KDF Armada: Klingon Intelligence (level 699, 2100+ members)
  • erraberrab Member Posts: 1,434 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    trellabor wrote: »
    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.

    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.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • trellabortrellabor Member Posts: 209 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    errab wrote: »
    What I think would help out somewhat would be a 25% cost reduction of all tiers on all projects across the board.

    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.
    errab wrote: »
    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.

    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
  • zahinderzahinder Member Posts: 2,382 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    The problem is that there's a critical mistake making Fleets a gating mechanism for gear and ships.

    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?
    Campaign: The Fenwick Cycle NWS-DKR9GB7KH

    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?
  • bluedarkybluedarky Member Posts: 548 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    I can see four solutions to people not being able to gain fleet credits.

    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.
  • edited January 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • sollvaxsollvax Member Posts: 4 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    Allow "dead" fleets to be absorbed (one active member only)

    or allow only a Bigger fleet to be absorbed
    Live long and Prosper
  • darkjeffdarkjeff Member Posts: 2,590 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    You cannot "scale" Fleet Starbase requirements without devaluing the contributions of individual players in larger Fleets. 100 people should be faster than 10 people, since they have 10 times the resources. If 10 people can have the same progress as 100 people, then each of those 100 people suddenly had 90% of their contributions negated.

    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.
  • azurianstarazurianstar Member Posts: 6,985 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    When it comes to Fleet Mergers, I could see it as a good thing. Like Large fleets with satelite / recruiting fleets, absorbing the later. But with someone above mentioning potential griefing, Cryptic should create a safety net that prevents that from happening.


    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.
  • neoakiraiineoakiraii Member Posts: 7,468 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    Depends on how you define merging and what's getting merge...what can Cryptic do that a fleet just can't simply disband it's fleet and join another fleet.

    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?
    GwaoHAD.png
  • darkjeffdarkjeff Member Posts: 2,590 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    What we need is for Fleets to be able to invite others onto their starbase, and have the guests be able to contribute to their host's projects. At that point, members of larger fleets who can't get enough Fleet Credits can contribute to projects belonging to smaller fleets who can't get enough contributions.

    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.
  • edited January 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • cptvanorcptvanor Member Posts: 274 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    valoreah wrote: »
    but if I'm enjoying a game, I'll stay with it, regardless if I belong to a guild or not.

    Statically people who are members of a guild/fleet/whatever stay with a given game longer then those who are not members.
    There seems to be a common misconception that bigger means better in terms of guilds/fleets. Quality is what counts, not quantity.

    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.
  • centersolacecentersolace Member Posts: 11,178 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    valoreah wrote: »
    I can't speak for everyone, but if I'm enjoying a game, I'll stay with it, regardless if I belong to a guild or not. In fact, being forced into joining a large group simply to experience content will get me to leave more than being "isolated". There seems to be a common misconception that bigger means better in terms of guilds/fleets. Quality is what counts, not quantity.

    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. :(
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    cptvanor wrote: »
    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.

    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.
    STO Member since February 2009.
    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
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
  • edited January 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • cptvanorcptvanor Member Posts: 274 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    daveyny wrote: »
    I'm not so sure those kind of statistics will hold up, given that this is a Star Trek game...

    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.
    Any assumptions made based on other MMO's or statistics, could be well off the bell-curve, when it comes to Trek.

    Human nature is the same no matter what MMO you're playing.
  • edited January 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • cptvanorcptvanor Member Posts: 274 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    valoreah wrote: »
    Otherwise, it's just an opinion based on a guess and shouldn't be presented as fact.

    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.
  • darkjeffdarkjeff Member Posts: 2,590 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    valoreah wrote: »
    Link please. I'll believe this when I see it.
    This is true for practically everything. A group of people getting together regularly for an activity is more likely to continue said activity then someone who goes with random people. I'd suspect you of being anti-social if this isn't intuitive for you. :P

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.