Your millions of fleet credits don't back up your position at all, and your statement only serves to highlight the fact that you speak from a very obviously subjective perspective of "I want.""
Not really, fleet credits are a direct reflection of how many resources are put into projects by each person. People in smaller fleets are having to put way more in then people on average in bigger fleets per project, this is simple please give up trying to twist it unless you can tell me another way of getting millions of fleet credits that don't require me to put resources in to a project.
I have a slightly more objective perspective since I've already finished acquiring everything related to Fleet and Rep - there's literally nothing left that I am interested in attaining.?
Eh, wait a minute, weren't you banging a drum about big fleets getting favour because they stay around longer and spend more? Yet people in small fleets were telling you that they want to spend too and you shouldn't get any advantages and now you admit that you don't even want to buy anything.
So you are actually agreeing that the wrong targets are being helped after all, what a contradictory person you are. It looks like you just try to twist around debates with stats that don't even apply to you or this game and you call people from smaller fleets asking for fairness self serving when it can only on the face of it be the other way around.
Your primary motivator here is "I want this easier", my two motivators is "fairness" and "try to convince Cryptic to listen".
Any scaling to Fleet size fails both tests.
Ok you seem to be trying to mind read again instead of looking at what's been getting posted, I blame myself partly for your failure. After your other attempts to read minds I made a paper magneto helmet to wear for fun and I didn't expect it to work this well.
In all the posts I have made as far as I can remember I have only used words like 'fairness' and 'equality' and the ideas I have tried to put forward reflect that. Nowhere have I said that I want things cheaper then someone else but you keep insinuating that. Please be kind enough to quote where I said that I think smaller fleets should get things cheaper per person then bigger fleets or why I want that for myself.
As for your two motivators, saying that bigger fleets should get things cheaper per person is not 'fairness' and no amount of bad analogies will make it fair. Your second point makes little sense as according to you and your stats only bigger fleets need to be concentrated on and listened to although you admit that it doesn't even apply to you, even that is moot anyway because if enough people make their voices heard (as with the likes of the FM debacle and others) Cryptic will change things.
If you want a $10 cake but only have $5, you can buy the cake if someone else gives you $5. If that cake suddenly costs $20 dollars because someone else gave you money, it's blatantly unfair. That's called "getting ripped off". It's not a fair proposal by any measure.
Another bad analogy, I would either...
Buy that slightly smaller cream cake next to the $10 cake plus a nice beef sandwich (that's probably horse) and get $2 change and feel chuffed with myself.
or...
Wait for you to hand your $5 over too and then proceed to lick the cream around the cake while I smile and then ask you if you want some of it.
Your $20 sentence is the interesting part. It shows that you are actually worried that the price per person will go up for larger fleets to bring their contributions in line with what smaller fleets are having to pay per person. So while you say you are preaching about fairness, while I keep seeing people making out as if small fleets are trying to get things cheaper then people are paying in larger fleets, accused of wanting hand outs, being self serving or communistic (lmao) you are actually the one being self serving.
The tragic thing is that no one is actually saying that you should pay more they are saying at most (my idea in mind) that you should pay the same. Meanwhile you in a panic seem to have jumped to the conclusion that the only way to achieve that is to scale upwards when that doesn't have to be the case at all.
The basic premise of my suggestion is for Cryptic to come up with a per person cost for any given project and then scale that to fleet size. While trying to explain how that works I might have scaled that up from a fleet of 1 to a size 500 fleet as an example but it doesn't mean that is the only way it can be scaled.
Cryptic could instead divide the current project costs by 500 if they wanted to. The end result would be the same base cost that applies to everyone the same which is then scaled to fleet size. Again this would allow EVERYONE to pay the same on average just to be able to get to the stage were they can then buy the same equipment for the same price as everyone else regardless of big or small with no advantage to anyone.
Then the only debate remaining is a silly argument about bigger fleets should get things cheaper because they are simply bigger when there is no logic to explain why that should be the case.
Instead of bad analogies why not look at the actual game and how it works.....
If we both sell the same item to the same vendor does fleetsize affect the value? NO
If we both buy the same item from the same vendor does fleetsize affect the price? NO
If we both rank up do we get offered different free ships because of fleetsize? NO
If we both complete the same mission and achieve the same objectives as solo players does fleetsize affect the reward? NO
If we both do the same mission and meet the same objectives while both in 5 man premade squads does fleetsize affect the rewards? NO
Would it make a difference if we were both in PUG's or one team in a PUG while the other was premade, would that affect the rewards? NO
What about me and you both going to buy the same ship or pack from the C Store, would one of us get things cheaper because of fleetsize? NO
So without having to try and bend bad analogies from real life and only looking at the game since launch fleetsize has never given an advantage to big over small or vice versa until a flawed SB system came.
Now as access is being gained to higher tiers we are starting to see just how stacked the deck is that we are all expected to play with and when people are saying rightly that this is unfair we are being told that we are whiners, usually by people in bigger fleets.
What they should have done is taken the time to come up with a fair system, the same basic fairness that applies to the rest of the game. They would have been better having a system more like the rep system were anyone can unlock what they want for the same price and not bother with things they are not interested with. That would have been fair as everyone would pay the same resources to get access to the same equipment at the same cost.
Further, such proposals will likely be rightfully dismissed as whining. It is identical to someone saying they should be able to complete a 20-man Fleet action in the same time it takes a 20-player group to do so. It is against the intention of the design, so it won't be seriously considered.
Rightfully dismissed as whining in your opinion but as I have pointed out you seem intent on wanting what's best for bigger fleets not what's fair. Then we have yet another bad analogy as it's nothing like a solo player asking to complete a 20 man mission in the same time as a 20 man team. This is looking at how the game works in all other areas since its launch and asking for the same rules to be applied with SB development and not stack the deck to favour any group or individual over another.
Nowhere have I said that I want things cheaper then someone else but you keep insinuating that.
<...snip...>
As for your two motivators, saying that bigger fleets should get things cheaper per person is not 'fairness' and no amount of bad analogies will make it fair.
<...snip...>
The basic premise of my suggestion is for Cryptic to come up with a per person cost for any given project and then scale that to fleet size.
The above three statements are contradictory and disingenuous, which is easily shown with an apt analogy.
Let's say you live with your best friend in a giant house. Next door is an identical house, with ten friends living together. Both houses are ancient, and are not wired for cable internet. It costs $1000 to rewire each house. This means you and your buddy need to spend $500 each. The ten guys next door just need to pay $100 each. Let's say everybody earns $10/hour. It'll take you and your buddy 50 hours of work each, and it'll take those guys next door just 10 hours of work each.
You want the costs to scale per person. You want your house to be rewired for $200, and the house next door to be rewired for $1000. This is what you consider "fair".
(Replace "house" with "fleet", and "rewiring" with "reach the next tier". Hey look, it's exactly what's happening in STO!)
Scaling costs to number of people is equivalent to devaluing other those people contributions just because they are working together.
You constantly try to make a point about "individual costs" and "individual contributions" when those are completely and utterly irrelevant with regards to "fairness" on the part of the supplier. They don't care how you're paying, they're charging everyone the same.
If you have the same income as your friends, it will take you twice as long to buy something compared to if two of your friends are splitting the cost. This is not "unfair". You chose to not share the cost, but now you're complaining that the supplier should be giving you a discount.
With a small fleet, the issue becomes feeling more like having to decide between advancing the Fleet or advancing myself.
Sure once I cap out a character, the choice becomes academic since I can't improve myself anymore, but until then, it's a really bleh choice. I want to advance my Fleet, but I also want to advance myself .
It's not really fun, sure I could join a larger fleet, or attempt to recruit more people in our small fleet, but seriously would anyone actually suggest new players join a small fleet instead of a larger established fleet that is rocking nice fleet accouterments?
I'm not going to address your entire post, because it continues to be based on a utterly flawed, completely self-centred premise.
Which is utterly irrelevant with regards to "fairness".
The above three statements are contradictory and disingenuous, which is easily shown with an apt analogy.
Let's say you live with your best friend in a giant house. Next door is an identical house, with ten friends living together. Both houses are ancient, and are not wired for cable internet. It costs $1000 to rewire each house. This means you and your buddy need to spend $500 each. The ten guys next door just need to pay $100 each. Let's say everybody earns $10/hour. It'll take you and your buddy 50 hours of work each, and it'll take those guys next door just 10 hours of work each.
You want the costs to scale per person. You want your house to be rewired for $200, and the house next door to be rewired for $1000. This is what you consider "fair".
(Replace "house" with "fleet", and "rewiring" with "reach the next tier". Hey look, it's exactly what's happening in STO!)
Scaling costs to number of people is equivalent to devaluing other those people contributions just because they are working together.
You constantly try to make a point about "individual costs" and "individual contributions" when those are completely and utterly irrelevant with regards to "fairness" on the part of the supplier. They don't care how you're paying, they're charging everyone the same.
If you have the same income as your friends, it will take you twice as long to buy something compared to if two of your friends are splitting the cost. This is not "unfair". You chose to not share the cost, but now you're complaining that the supplier should be giving you a discount.
Yet another bad analogy, let's not looks at real life things and then try to bend them to fit, let's look at the game instead like I did with plenty of examples that you are yet again ignoring.
Until the fleet system came along did you get things cheaper then other people from the c store? Did your fleetsize give better rewards when achieving the same mission objectives as other people?
What about me and you both going to buy the same ship or pack from the C Store, would one of us get things cheaper because of fleetsize? NO
So why should fleet size affect fleet projects? In the spirit of "fairness" everything should take the exact same amount of time and resources for everyone regardless of size.
While it may be more fair to you as the sole contributor to your fleet, it's not fair to everyone else that pools together to get things done.
The whole point of the Starbase is that a group pools their resources together to make something.
You failed to understand Jeff's cake analogy:
You both buy a cake for $10 having donated $5 each and divide it in half. This is fair.
Neither of you has enough to make the cost of the (one and only, fixed price) cake. Neither of you gets anything. That is fair.
Cryptic designed fleets with this mentality in mind. Given the choice between the first and second scenarios, they opted for the first as it meant more people could have access to the fleet gear.
A scaling system would result in you getting the cake that cost $10 for $5 because you weren't sharing it with your friend. How is that fair?
Did your fleetsize give better rewards when achieving the same mission objectives as other people?
Well yes it did actually. A group of 5 of us running a fleet alert meant not only were we more likely to succeed but also 5 times more marks available for upgrading the base. As the fleet got bigger, more teams of 5 were formed, geometrically increasing the success rates and number of marks available for the base.
So why should fleet size affect fleet projects? In the spirit of "fairness" everything should take the exact same amount of time and resources for everyone regardless of size.
While it may be more fair to you as the sole contributor to your fleet, it's not fair to everyone else that pools together to get things done.
The whole point of the Starbase is that a group pools their resources together to make something.
Yes I know how the current system works and it's flawed because it doesn't scale, that's what this whole thread is about. On the face of it everyone has the same project costs and same timers we know all this but the problem for small fleets is meeting the resource requirements to hit those timers and how the deck is stacked against them for no logical gameplay reason.
Costs should have been scaled from the start but Cryptic chose between 2 systems that might work well in other more team based MMO's but is totally against the mechanics that have been in this game since launch.
If they had not of tied end game kit to SB's then none of this would even of been an issue.
You both buy a cake for $10 having donated $5 each and divide it in half. This is fair.
Neither of you has enough to make the cost of the (one and only, fixed price) cake. Neither of you gets anything. That is fair.
Cryptic designed fleets with this mentality in mind. Given the choice between the first and second scenarios, they opted for the first as it meant more people could have access to the fleet gear.
A scaling system would result in you getting the cake that cost $10 for $5 because you weren't sharing it with your friend. How is that fair?
I didn't fail to get his analogy, I said it was stupid to try and bend real life analogies to fit a game in the way he was doing. Then I pointed out game mechanisms that have been in the game since its launch and said you should be looking at those instead of trying to bend irrelevant things from real life.
Well yes it did actually. A group of 5 of us running a fleet alert meant not only were we more likely to succeed but also 5 times more marks available for upgrading the base. As the fleet got bigger, more teams of 5 were formed, geometrically increasing the success rates and number of marks available for the base.
Someone else that doesn't take the time to read, I said if we were both in a team of 5 and both those teams did the same mission and met the same objectives would his fleetsize give him better rewards then me. Where did I mention the total for his/your full team? I said him and me in the same size squad of 5 meeting the same mission objectives not me on my own and your full team totting their total to compare.
Yes I know how the current system works and it's flawed because it doesn't scale, that's what this whole thread is about. On the face of it everyone has the same project costs and same timers we know all this but the problem for small fleets is meeting the resource requirements to hit those timers and how the deck is stacked against them for no logical gameplay reason.
Costs should have been scaled from the start but Cryptic chose between 2 systems that might work well in other more team based MMO's but is totally against the mechanics that have been in this game since launch.
If they had not of tied end game kit to SB's then none of this would even of been an issue.
Had Cryptic scaled the costs as you so suggest, their method of balancing it would have been to ensure that small fleets got nothing. Instead they made a glass ceiling to try to encourage fleet expansion and not just the fleets of 1 which are floating around.
Scaling doesn't and wouldn't work. What is the benefit to me as a leader of a fleet bigger than yours? If your fleet gets a discount for being small, then you end up giving the advantages to small cliques or individuals who run small fleets. Which is counter productive to the idea of people staying in the game in the long term and forming a sense of community.
In game example: You divide the fleet resources by 500 in order to scale them. Ignoring the fact that it would produce non integers for the sake of argument. Then the fleet with the fewest members get fleet tiers fastest. Even the largest requirements become miniscule by comparison (1 million Dilithium becomes 2000) when divided like that which is extremely easy to obtain for an individual alone.
Reductio ad absurdum: Fleets would boot people to 1 to build a personal base. By doing that, you defeat the concept of community which was the whole point of the fleet base progression to begin with.
Advanced and Elite Fleet Kit is not the be and end all of everything, some consider it worse than current gear available from the reputation system.
I didn't fail to get his analogy, I said it was stupid to try and bend real life analogies to fit a game in the way he was doing. Then I pointed out game mechanisms that have been in the game since its launch and said you should be looking at those instead of trying to bend irrelevant things from real life.
Allegorical knowledge has been a mainstay of human communication and art for thousands of years; It allows clearer transmission of thoughts and ideas by providing reference points easily understandable by the audience. It's why it exists and is far from irrelevant.
Just because it doesn't agree with you doesn't make it wrong.
Fleets are supposed to be communities of people and you gain certain advantages/disadvantages by being in part of a community, as you would in real life. That is irrefutable.
This is the design on the part of the development team. They don't like small or solo fleets. They want more people to band together and continue playing for the community aspect. Learn to live with it, or be a small king of a small hill.
Someone else that doesn't take the time to read, I said if we were both in a team of 5 and both those teams did the same mission and met the same objectives would his fleetsize give him better rewards then me. Where did I mention the total for his/your full team? I said him and me in the same size squad of 5 meeting the same mission objectives not me on my own and your full team totting their total to compare.
I took plenty of time to read, I've read this entire thread thank you very much. If I have failed to understand it is because you have failed to elucidate your points beyond that which myself and others have taken it to mean.
All rewards and prices are and should be the same for each player irrespective of fleet size. Correct? Therefore nothing should change. Q.E.D
You are specifically asking for some advantage to be given to you on the basis of fleet size and that is not considered fair by a large majority.
This whole concept as started in this thread is in actuality a quite literal attempt to reinvent the wheel, and a square one at that based on some suggestions.
There is no logical reason to force people to expand, nor is it fair to ask them, the point of guild systems is to get friends who play the game to have an reward for playing together. This is how "guilding" has worked since before computer games existed, back in Pen and Paper this is what happened.
Most people want to be part of a community but most communities (that share personal connections and friendship) are no more than 200 hundred people in size so 500 strong mega fleets are not truly functioning communities and usually in reality are made of small cliques. The truth is we should be encouraging small fleets of players who know each-other like each-other and want to work together not mega fleets that are in reality poor at delivering true community camaraderie and are usually filled with intrigue, back-biting, politics and forms of griefing like reaching Teir 5 and fleet owners dismissing 1/3rd or more of their fleet.
Mega fleets should not be pandered to or given an advantage by design (as Cryptic has admitted to doing) and smaller fleets should have equity in the possibility of achievement on the same timescale as larger fleets.
It makes no sense not to and no one has yet given me an valid reason as to why such a system would break the game.
Let's say you live with your best friend in a giant house. Next door is an identical house, with ten friends living together. Both houses are ancient, and are not wired for cable internet. It costs $1000 to rewire each house. This means you and your buddy need to spend $500 each. The ten guys next door just need to pay $100 each. Let's say everybody earns $10/hour. It'll take you and your buddy 50 hours of work each, and it'll take those guys next door just 10 hours of work each.
You want the costs to scale per person. You want your house to be rewired for $200, and the house next door to be rewired for $1000.
This is what you consider "fair".
Lol once again what is the problem with this? Lets actually try to think clearly here lets say you have 30 players in one fleet and 5 in another fleet what is the problem if all 35 players can access a tier 5 fleet at the end of 10 months?
Why shouldn't say 30 fleet members contributing to a fleet 1 hour each in a day be equal to 5 players contributing one hour each in a day?
The matter of "fairness" irrelevant, it's a subjective opinion, equality however can be measured.
Once again, what harm would that state of affairs bring to the game.
Answer: None.
::This is the last call for people to PM me about next weeks discussions and how we as a community wish to move on with our ideas for improvements and analysis of problems::
Lol once again what is the problem with this? Lets actually try to think clearly here lets say you have 30 players in one fleet and 5 in another fleet what is the problem if all 35 players can access a tier 5 fleet at the end of 10 months?
Why shouldn't say 30 fleet members contributing to a fleet 1 hour each in a day be equality to 5 players contributing one our each in a day?
The matter of "fairness" irrelevant, it's a subjective opinion, equality however can be measured.
Once again, what harm would that state of affairs bring to the game.
Answer: None.
Actually Cryptic's profits would suffer and instead of having an annoying sink, we'd possibly end up with more pay to win consoles. Perhaps the game would even shut down if they lost too much money. Think of that? I thought not.
In case you weren't aware, this system is actually already available in game. Provided you and your group (however small) can amass the required resources during the cooldown periods. Why change it to something infinitely more complex? (Reinventing the square wheel)
I get it, you hate large fleets. You want fleets to be small groups or the cliques you so despise.
Conversely sir, what harm does it bring to the state of the game to maintain the staus quo? Answer: This thread....
I for one prefer my game to be running for a few more years without everyone needing hopelessly overpowered/gimmicky consoles and ships.
Actually Cryptic's profits would suffer and instead of having an annoying sink, we'd possibly end up with more pay to win consoles. Perhaps the game would even shut down if they lost too much money. Think of that? I thought not.
In case you weren't aware, this system is actually already available in game. Provided you and your group can amass the required resources during the cooldown periods. Why change it to something infinitely more complex? (Reinventing the square wheel)
Conversely sir, what harm does it bring to the state of the game to maintain the staus quo? Answer: This thread....
I for one prefer my game to be running for a few more years without everyone needing hopelessly overpowered/gimmicky consoles and ships.
Consoles and Cryptics profit are irrelevant.
There are plenty of annoying sinks as it is (and there will more personal rep systems in the future not less), the point here is that you make more money out of 35 players with 5 in a small fleet all reaching Teir 5 in same space of time than 30 players because the other 5 have given up altogether with fleet progression, which will lead a proportion of those 5 to leave the game and spend no money at all as Fleet advancement is one of the few end-game areas that actually feels endgame.
Cryptic make way more than enough money from Lockbox sales and because of the captive market and monopoly they have they will continual to make a tidy profit.
All of these issues come down to the same root problem Cryptic failed in the initial design stage to balance the system. They admitted this publicly. They basically said either we go with option A and give the advantage to big fleets or we go with option B and give the advantage to small fleets. The result was a broken system which give an unequal advantage to large fleets.
I do find all the rhetoric about small fleets getting an "unfair" advantage to be quite funny when the reality is this entire issues stems from the fact that large fleets were given the advantage in the first place.
Remember that the idea of the fleet base and whatever was specifically designed to be a sink in order to gain Cryptic more money. That was the point of it. They needed a cash injection for whatever content that is now coming out in May.
Their profit margin is far from irrelevant, it's the main thing that keeps you and your small fleet able to play this game in the first place and play new content. (however poor it may be)
The point of Dan Stahl's post was not Give the advantage to one or the other. It was give the advantage to one and a glass ceiling to the other or forcibly limit the progression of small fleets. Those were their options on the table and they went with the former to stop people getting too upset and maximise their profits, it is also conveniently, easier to implement.
I understand, you don't like large fleets. You want to be a small fleet. Fine, that's understandable.
It was designed to take fleets time to complete, and no one has yet fully completed their base. Not even the large fleets and it's nearly 2 seasons later.
Err.. OK. What equality would that be exactly? The pay to win consoles? The OP new ships and their subsequent fleet versions? The adaptive elite fleet shields? The escorts that can tank and do mega dps?
The tac captain that can do better in a sci ship than a sci?
Oh yes, equality and balance. This game has it in spades.
Err.. OK. What equality would that be exactly? The pay to win consoles? The OP new ships and their subsequent fleet versions? The adaptive elite fleet shields? The escorts that can tank and do mega dps?
The tac captain that can do better in a sci ship than a sci?
Oh yes, equality and balance. This game has it in spades.
Well I was thinking more along the lines of people get the same rewards when they do the same missions as each other, pay the same prices for the same engine battery etc, sell for the same prices, have the same chance formula applied for a critical hit, have the same base stats on their ships, I could go on but I don't need to and wont bother.
I have a fleet of one (me). and I like it this way, most of the time. Now I know a "fleet project" is for a Fleet of people. I managed to get my starbase up to T2, and I continue to work at it (very long term project).. it's the Dilithium requirements that are killing me, Special projects are right out.. ok I can live with that I guess. The Romulan consulate is right out (as all those projects require dil) and I'm streached to the limit as is. It's the MKXII ships and weapons that really get me, it seems like a shaft to people who prefer solo/casual play and don't want to get involved in the politics and child like drama of a large fleet, or simply want to retain control of their own. perhaps some kind of energy credit solution or even larger projects involving 1000's of mundane items and no dil or an expensive project that takes 2 weeks to complete but awards a single mkXii item. (oh yeah if your going to require 100's of MK I torpedo launchers or fighters, please let me buy more then one at a time!)
With thousands of Fleet marks and hundreds of thousands of fleet credits, and very little use for them. I'll probably end up doing something a little dishonorable.. join a fleet with mkxii gear. buy everything I need, and then drop out and rejoin my own fleet. I would rather earn them myself but it could be years before I reach a t4 complete starbase. (by then the stuff will probably be outdated anyhow).
Regards to Cryptics profits, the details are freely available you can look at Perfect Worlds financial summary.
Regards to not wanting to pay, already have paid, I've poured in a lot of money. So no my views in this matter are not biased
Regards to not grinding hard enough, irrelevant why should an individual in a small fleet be required to grind more than a large one
Regards to wanting rewards nao nao nao, no you miss the point this about wanting the rewards in the same space of time with the same effort per individual regardless of fleet size, fleet size is a data value that should be irrelevant. I.e. having scaling.
Regards design decisions they couldn't come up with a scaling solution so therefore they gave advantage to big fleets, they admitted that small fleets are at a disadvantage.
In closing, though I am commenting on this debate it is largely irrelevant to my fleet as it is inactive and has been since Season 7 when I lost the majority of my fleet members roughly 2/3rd moving to big fleets and 1/3rd leaving the game outright, this was down to the new personal rep grinds in Season 7.
I have since tried to recruit but the truth is no-one has any interest in joining a Tier 2 fleet because there are no rewards for some randoms to join when they can go elsewhere and get instant rewards.
This post has been edited to remove content which violates the [URL="http://sto-
forum.perfectworld.com/announcement.php?&a=51"]Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules
and Policies [/URL]. ~Bluegeek
Let's keep the conversation civil. There's no need for further hostility here.
Please show some respect for other people's opinions, even if you don't agree with them.
Stick with the facts -- Please don't speculate about other people's motivations.
When referring to other forum users, please leave off any personal references to beliefs, feelings, behavior, intelligence, character, skills, etc.
Any post that's been crafted to provoke an angry reaction is trolling and is subject to moderation, warnings, and infractions. PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO TROLL POSTS! Report them.
If you are responsible for a post that breaks the rules, please take responsibility to go back and take out the inflammatory language. Otherwise, the Mods will have to exercise their responsibilities.
Read the rules (see above)
Thanks in advance for your cooperation!
Live Long and Prosper,
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Any post that's been crafted to provoke an angry reaction is trolling and is subject to moderation, warnings, and infractions. PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO TROLL POSTS! Report them.
As I have shown repeatedly, Fleets beyond the optimal size for a particular tier will not achieve unlocks appreciably faster, and members will end up competing with each other for FC and provisions.
If everyone is equal and earns the same amount, two people will make double what you make. 100 people will make ten times what 10 people make.
They basically said either we go with option A and give the advantage to big fleets or we go with option B and give the advantage to small fleets. The result was a broken system which give an unequal advantage to large fleets.
Option A was "like other MMOs" and have a hard cap on Fleet holdings vs Fleet size - if you don't have X amount of members, you can't hit Tier Y at all.
Option B was "if you don't have X amount of members, it'll take a lot more work to hit Tier Y".
Guild systems have always been about "more people = more perks". Always.
It's an "apt" analogy because just by changing the terms involved, it's exactly the same situation in STO.
Let's say you play with your best friend in a Fleet. Nearby is another Fleet, with ten friends playing together. Both Fleets are T1. It costs 1000 units of resources to attain T2. This means you and your buddy need to contribute 500 units each. The ten guys nearby just need to contribute 100 units each. Let's say everybody earns 10 units/hour. It'll take you and your buddy 50 hours of work each, and it'll take those guys nearby just 10 hours of work each.
You want the costs to scale per person. You want your Fleet to be upgraded for 200 units, and the Fleet nearby to be upgraded for 1000 units. This is what you consider "fair" - because it's in game units as opposed to money?
It's an "apt" analogy because just by changing the terms involved, it's exactly the same situation in STO.
Let's say you play with your best friend in a Fleet. Nearby is another Fleet, with ten friends playing together. Both Fleets are T1. It costs 1000 units of resources to attain T2. This means you and your buddy need to contribute 500 units each. The ten guys nearby just need to contribute 100 units each. Let's say everybody earns 10 units/hour. It'll take you and your buddy 50 hours of work each, and it'll take those guys nearby just 10 hours of work each.
You want the costs to scale per person. You want your Fleet to be upgraded for 200 units, and the Fleet nearby to be upgraded for 1000 units. This is what you consider "fair" - because it's in game units as opposed to money?
No it's not, you can't make an analogy between a real life situation and a game mechanic in that way, to begin with they do not share the same physical parameters. A day in STO does not equate to 24 hours in real time for example, in fact if one goes by Starfleet Academy there is never a night at all.
Scaling is the way to go, though I think it should only occur if you have a minimum of 5 players. You are right in saying that Solo fleets should not get any benefits, the aim was not for a personal base.
Your talk of "fairness" is irrelevant as it there is no need for fairness because it causes no damage to the bigger fleet for the smaller fleet to get things done in the same period of time, I don't know how I can make this anymore clearer for you but small fleets being able to complete things at the same rate as larger ones does not take away resources or anything else from larger fleets. Simply put the do not inhabit the same axis.
However I would argue that solo players should be able to visit Fleet bases and buy goods from them in exchange for resources. This already happens on an informal basis but I would like to see it formally implemented without someone having to join a fleet to do it. I would like to see an invite function and a Fleet Marks to Fleet Provisions exchange mechanism. If not this then there should be a provision for Solo players to access fleet rewards at their homeworld/HQ by converting FM's.
If we want to talk about balance or fairness we need to ensure that end rewards like Fleet weapons are accessible to anyone whether they wish to be in a fleet or not.
In games like DDO players who are not in a guild will be routinely offered to be invited to a guild airship for buffs before a quest starts, the current fleet system in STO doesn't encourage anywhere near that kind of friendliness to outsiders.
Scaling is the way to go, though I think it should only occur if you have a minimum of 5 players. You are right in saying that Solo fleets should not get any benefits, the aim was not for a personal base.
I think you have some good ideas, but let me set my tricorder to scan for Unintended Consequences Related To Scaling... there we go.
I'm in a fleet right now that stands at nearly 60 members, yet I'd say maybe a fifth of that are still active. We carry a lot of old members that haven't been around for months because hey maybe they'll come back someday. Do we get penalized and set to 60 member fleet scales because we're not attentively cleaning out the roster?
OK, so we set scaling to active fleet members. So now those of us with alts get penalized if we ever bring them out to play, and there's a greater onus on those of us who are active to do more in fleet activity.
OK, so let's go with active fleet member accounts. Now you've tilted it the other way with regards to alts and put even more pressure on the active members to do fleet activity.
And I haven't even touched what happens with regards to adding new members. How many fleets will hesitate to recruit or start adding members before they complete Tier V? There's no incentive to add new members with regards to fleet advancement, in fact if they're not as active in fleet advancement you're actually penalizing those working on advancement.
Small fleets should be given a better shake at advancement, but I remain skeptical that scaling is the way to go.
Let me say that I am not in favor of scaling project requirements on the basis that:
1) It introduces complexity that requires significant dev resources to implement and also possibly runs counter to Cryptic's design intentions for the system.
2) It introduces a new mechanic that could break or require further balancing.
3) It could be perceived as unfair, and the solution might still be sufficiently unsatisfactory that it's not worth the cost to implement it.
4) It further complicates STO's economic model
Otherwise, I feel there is no harm in addressing ways to help smaller fleets to complete projects that they will otherwise not complete. Other than possible monetization issues on Cryptic's end, large fleets don't necessarily lose out if small fleets get some kind of assistance.
Project non-completion and stalled fleet progression is not in anyone's best interests. If people lose interest in fleet advancement entirely, that ultimately hurts the game.
And let's not forget that fleets don't start out big and that there is a limit as to how big a fleet can get. It's not feasible for everyone to join the biggest fleets, even if we wanted to. There are factors working against the growth of small fleets, including recruitment issues, that should be considered.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I think you have some good ideas, but let me set my tricorder to scan for Unintended Consequences Related To Scaling... there we go.
I'm in a fleet right now that stands at nearly 60 members, yet I'd say maybe a fifth of that are still active. We carry a lot of old members that haven't been around for months because hey maybe they'll come back someday. Do we get penalized and set to 60 member fleet scales because we're not attentively cleaning out the roster?
OK, so we set scaling to active fleet members. So now those of us with alts get penalized if we ever bring them out to play, and there's a greater onus on those of us who are active to do more in fleet activity.
OK, so let's go with active fleet member accounts. Now you've tilted it the other way with regards to alts and put even more pressure on the active members to do fleet activity.
And I haven't even touched what happens with regards to adding new members. How many fleets will hesitate to recruit or start adding members before they complete Tier V? There's no incentive to add new members with regards to fleet advancement, in fact if they're not as active in fleet advancement you're actually penalizing those working on advancement.
Small fleets should be given a better shake at advancement, but I remain skeptical that scaling is the way to go.
These are all valid concerns, but I see no other way to offer all players equality.
With regards to basing it on active players, whether you use alts or not is irrelevant it would be account / faction based not character based.
The other option is for players to flag themselves as inactive or on sabbatical as it were.
There is no need for incentivization in recruiting fleet members and it's largely irrelevant as no matter the fleet size you will always achieve the tiers with the same number of hours accrued per individual in fleet. The whole point here is the size of the fleet is meaningless.
I think there are solutions for most of the issues around scaling however the big question is whether Cryptic can find an implement them and whether in terms of financial gain it's worthwhile to do so.
Otherwise, I feel there is no harm in addressing ways to help smaller fleets to complete projects that they will otherwise not complete. Other than possible monetization issues on Cryptic's end, large fleets don't necessarily lose out if small fleets get some kind of assistance.
Project non-completion and stalled fleet progression is not in anyone's best interests. If people lose interest in fleet advancement entirely, that ultimately hurts the game.
And let's not forget that fleets don't start out big and that there is a limit as to how big a fleet can get. It's not feasible for everyone to join the biggest fleets, even if we wanted to. There are factors working against the growth of small fleets, including recruitment issues, that should be considered.
I'm not so sure there are any issues of monetization. I do however agree scaling would take up dev time and as I said in the previous reply of the other post it comes down whether it's worth doing for Cryptic.
I cannot stress more the importance of the two points you make here though, firstly that people losing interest in such an important end-game content module is hurting the game, it is in fact one of the main reason why I don't play much anymore.
Secondly that recruitment issue for small fleets is seriously adding to the hamstringing of their development which is also another reason for people like myself giving up hope with the Fleet system.
I think we need to find a way to address this whether it be through scaling or not we have to make it worthwhile to start a fleet and rewarding to pursue progression in small fleets.
Another thing we need to do is to give Solo players the chance to access fleet rewards, I think it's a really bad business model and gaming model to have end-game rewards that are totally unobtainable for a whole section of the playing population. Either offering Fleet Mark trade in for provisions at Fed/Klingon homeworld or offering Fleets the chance to invite solo players to the shop is important to keep that sizable demographic with something else to look forward to in a game starved of endgame content. Whilst this does occur in an informal way open to abuse at the moment, it would be best to have this formalized and in fact should cost little development time to do so.
These are all valid concerns, but I see no other way to offer all players equality.
Equality's a noble goal, but something about the road to hell and good intentions comes to mind.
With regards to basing it on active players, whether you use alts or not is irrelevant it would be account / faction based not character based.
The other option is for players to flag themselves as inactive or on sabbatical as it were.
There is no need for incentivization in recruiting fleet members and it's largely irrelevant as no matter the fleet size you will always achieve the tiers with the same number of hours accrued per individual in fleet. The whole point here is the size of the fleet is meaningless.
It has less to do with incentives and more to do with disincentives. Every member added has to pull an equal amount of the fleet advancement work. Maybe you're lucky and you get a guy with a zillion fleet marks to spend, on the other hand you could wind up with someone who doesn't care much for advancement and now that's more work for everyone else in the fleet. Now you start having to weigh adding new members versus how much more work they're willing to do and how much more work you're willing to do.
As for inactive flags, what if someone just walks away from the fleet for a while? Maybe you could give the fleet leader power to set those flags, but that's another can of worms there.
EDIT: The big thing is to minimize the potential politics involved in fleet advancement. The current system isn't that great, but scaling would have its own dangers as well.
Equality's a noble goal, but something about the road to hell and good intentions comes to mind.
It has less to do with incentives and more to do with disincentives. Every member added has to pull an equal amount of the fleet advancement work. Maybe you're lucky and you get a guy with a zillion fleet marks to spend, on the other hand you could wind up with someone who doesn't care much for advancement and now that's more work for everyone else in the fleet. Now you start having to weigh adding new members versus how much more work they're willing to do and how much more work you're willing to do.
As for inactive flags, what if someone just walks away from the fleet for a while? Maybe you could give the fleet leader power to set those flags, but that's another can of worms there.
EDIT: The big thing is to minimize the potential politics involved in fleet advancement. The current system isn't that great, but scaling would have its own dangers as well.
Well the disincentives should be mitigated by some kind of balancing algorithm that tots up time investment by individuals. But you are right there is no easy way of doing any of this. It is however possible in any mathematical system to achieve input parity it's just how complex one has to make it.
As I said before it all comes down to whether Cryptic wishes to expend development time and that is based really on the financial return and player retention anything they implement would generate. Even though I advocate a scaling system, even I am skeptical about the time investment / financial reward curve and therefore I deem it unlikely that they would institute such a byzantine structure at this time.
However as Bluegeek has said something has to be done, so if they don't go for the more complex over arching solution they must still come up with other solutions.
One possibility might be a special Recruitment channel.
Another possibility might be a way to alert Fleets that a given individual is looking for a fleet. Maybe allow players to set an "LFF" flag that's visible in sector space and/or social zones and to set a special message to tell prospective fleets about what kind of fleet they're interested in.
Or some other way, whatever will be fair to the majority.
They could just make the Fleet window work like "looking for fleet" if the player isn't a mamber already. Or even adding a "join fleet", "create fleet" options to the fleet creation npc would have sense.
It would list all the fleets in alphabetic order with some aditional info once you click one, a search function wouldnt hurt too. There should also be a big shiny button to send your aplication to join.
This may have changed, im not sure, im a member of same fleet for some time but from what i remember ther was no way to appy. You had to pm someone from the fleet and hope hes not afk or something and have rights to invite. It would be so much easier if you could just appy to join a fleet at any time.
They could just make the Fleet window work like "looking for fleet" if the player isn't a mamber already. Or even adding a "join fleet", "create fleet" options to the fleet creation npc would have sense.
It would list all the fleets in alphabetic order with some aditional info once you click one, a search function wouldnt hurt too. There should also be a big shiny button to send your aplication to join.
This may have changed, im not sure, im a member of same fleet for some time but from what i remember ther was no way to appy. You had to pm someone from the fleet and hope hes not afk or something and have rights to invite. It would be so much easier if you could just appy to join a fleet at any time.
This UI change would only be helpful if there was any good reason to join a new fleet or small fleet that is below T3.
This UI change would only be helpful if there was any good reason to join a new fleet or small fleet that is below T3.
Indeed, now that I think about it, this idea wouldn’t help much. But at least every fleet struggling because of low number of members or not would have that "chance" of getting randoms willing to join just because they like the fleet name. That’s the reason I joined feet I’m in. I had no clue if its big or small or even active. Seen someone recruiting, liked the fleet name, pm him.
The looking for fleet channel is probably the easiest thing to do. But could be hard to keep track of and annoying for readers and people that recruit.
Dunno maybe option to set a short recruit message in the fleet window and a check box next to it allowing the message to be turned on/off by every fleet member. It would just appear above player head and stay there all the time until you turn it off.
If its turned on anyone who right click the player would have an option to apply to the fleet.
Just noticed I gave same idea I quoted just in a bit different form, writing on forums after 12h shift isn’t a good idea I’ll just take my leave and get some sleep -.-
Scaling is the way to go, though I think it should only occur if you have a minimum of 5 players. You are right in saying that Solo fleets should not get any benefits, the aim was not for a personal base.
Scaling where only those of 5 players and above isn't going to solve anything.
For starters, what about legimate fleets of friends of 2, 3, or 4 players? Those players shouldn't be punished for having a small fleet.
Second, it's not going to deter soloists. Since it's now free to create accounts, it's not all that hard for a soloist to create 4 mule accounts and bring it to the minimum of five players. So creating a minimum isn't going to help, in fact, it's more of a negative since it's taking up valuable server space for accounts that aren't going to be played.
If anything Cryptic should collect Soloist / Very Small fleets (under 5 players), put them under an co-op umbrella, and have them work towards a community Starbase. That way, players who don't want to start a fleet or join a large one, could still see the same benefits.
Comments
Not really, fleet credits are a direct reflection of how many resources are put into projects by each person. People in smaller fleets are having to put way more in then people on average in bigger fleets per project, this is simple please give up trying to twist it unless you can tell me another way of getting millions of fleet credits that don't require me to put resources in to a project.
Eh, wait a minute, weren't you banging a drum about big fleets getting favour because they stay around longer and spend more? Yet people in small fleets were telling you that they want to spend too and you shouldn't get any advantages and now you admit that you don't even want to buy anything.
So you are actually agreeing that the wrong targets are being helped after all, what a contradictory person you are. It looks like you just try to twist around debates with stats that don't even apply to you or this game and you call people from smaller fleets asking for fairness self serving when it can only on the face of it be the other way around.
Ok you seem to be trying to mind read again instead of looking at what's been getting posted, I blame myself partly for your failure. After your other attempts to read minds I made a paper magneto helmet to wear for fun and I didn't expect it to work this well.
In all the posts I have made as far as I can remember I have only used words like 'fairness' and 'equality' and the ideas I have tried to put forward reflect that. Nowhere have I said that I want things cheaper then someone else but you keep insinuating that. Please be kind enough to quote where I said that I think smaller fleets should get things cheaper per person then bigger fleets or why I want that for myself.
As for your two motivators, saying that bigger fleets should get things cheaper per person is not 'fairness' and no amount of bad analogies will make it fair. Your second point makes little sense as according to you and your stats only bigger fleets need to be concentrated on and listened to although you admit that it doesn't even apply to you, even that is moot anyway because if enough people make their voices heard (as with the likes of the FM debacle and others) Cryptic will change things.
Another bad analogy, I would either...
Buy that slightly smaller cream cake next to the $10 cake plus a nice beef sandwich (that's probably horse) and get $2 change and feel chuffed with myself.
or...
Wait for you to hand your $5 over too and then proceed to lick the cream around the cake while I smile and then ask you if you want some of it.
Your $20 sentence is the interesting part. It shows that you are actually worried that the price per person will go up for larger fleets to bring their contributions in line with what smaller fleets are having to pay per person. So while you say you are preaching about fairness, while I keep seeing people making out as if small fleets are trying to get things cheaper then people are paying in larger fleets, accused of wanting hand outs, being self serving or communistic (lmao) you are actually the one being self serving.
The tragic thing is that no one is actually saying that you should pay more they are saying at most (my idea in mind) that you should pay the same. Meanwhile you in a panic seem to have jumped to the conclusion that the only way to achieve that is to scale upwards when that doesn't have to be the case at all.
The basic premise of my suggestion is for Cryptic to come up with a per person cost for any given project and then scale that to fleet size. While trying to explain how that works I might have scaled that up from a fleet of 1 to a size 500 fleet as an example but it doesn't mean that is the only way it can be scaled.
Cryptic could instead divide the current project costs by 500 if they wanted to. The end result would be the same base cost that applies to everyone the same which is then scaled to fleet size. Again this would allow EVERYONE to pay the same on average just to be able to get to the stage were they can then buy the same equipment for the same price as everyone else regardless of big or small with no advantage to anyone.
Then the only debate remaining is a silly argument about bigger fleets should get things cheaper because they are simply bigger when there is no logic to explain why that should be the case.
Instead of bad analogies why not look at the actual game and how it works.....
If we both sell the same item to the same vendor does fleetsize affect the value? NO
If we both buy the same item from the same vendor does fleetsize affect the price? NO
If we both rank up do we get offered different free ships because of fleetsize? NO
If we both complete the same mission and achieve the same objectives as solo players does fleetsize affect the reward? NO
If we both do the same mission and meet the same objectives while both in 5 man premade squads does fleetsize affect the rewards? NO
Would it make a difference if we were both in PUG's or one team in a PUG while the other was premade, would that affect the rewards? NO
What about me and you both going to buy the same ship or pack from the C Store, would one of us get things cheaper because of fleetsize? NO
So without having to try and bend bad analogies from real life and only looking at the game since launch fleetsize has never given an advantage to big over small or vice versa until a flawed SB system came.
Now as access is being gained to higher tiers we are starting to see just how stacked the deck is that we are all expected to play with and when people are saying rightly that this is unfair we are being told that we are whiners, usually by people in bigger fleets.
What they should have done is taken the time to come up with a fair system, the same basic fairness that applies to the rest of the game. They would have been better having a system more like the rep system were anyone can unlock what they want for the same price and not bother with things they are not interested with. That would have been fair as everyone would pay the same resources to get access to the same equipment at the same cost.
Rightfully dismissed as whining in your opinion but as I have pointed out you seem intent on wanting what's best for bigger fleets not what's fair. Then we have yet another bad analogy as it's nothing like a solo player asking to complete a 20 man mission in the same time as a 20 man team. This is looking at how the game works in all other areas since its launch and asking for the same rules to be applied with SB development and not stack the deck to favour any group or individual over another.
Which is utterly irrelevant with regards to "fairness".
The above three statements are contradictory and disingenuous, which is easily shown with an apt analogy.
Let's say you live with your best friend in a giant house. Next door is an identical house, with ten friends living together. Both houses are ancient, and are not wired for cable internet. It costs $1000 to rewire each house. This means you and your buddy need to spend $500 each. The ten guys next door just need to pay $100 each. Let's say everybody earns $10/hour. It'll take you and your buddy 50 hours of work each, and it'll take those guys next door just 10 hours of work each.
You want the costs to scale per person. You want your house to be rewired for $200, and the house next door to be rewired for $1000. This is what you consider "fair".
(Replace "house" with "fleet", and "rewiring" with "reach the next tier". Hey look, it's exactly what's happening in STO!)
Scaling costs to number of people is equivalent to devaluing other those people contributions just because they are working together.
You constantly try to make a point about "individual costs" and "individual contributions" when those are completely and utterly irrelevant with regards to "fairness" on the part of the supplier. They don't care how you're paying, they're charging everyone the same.
If you have the same income as your friends, it will take you twice as long to buy something compared to if two of your friends are splitting the cost. This is not "unfair". You chose to not share the cost, but now you're complaining that the supplier should be giving you a discount.
Sure once I cap out a character, the choice becomes academic since I can't improve myself anymore, but until then, it's a really bleh choice. I want to advance my Fleet, but I also want to advance myself
It's not really fun, sure I could join a larger fleet, or attempt to recruit more people in our small fleet, but seriously would anyone actually suggest new players join a small fleet instead of a larger established fleet that is rocking nice fleet accouterments?
Yet another bad analogy, let's not looks at real life things and then try to bend them to fit, let's look at the game instead like I did with plenty of examples that you are yet again ignoring.
Until the fleet system came along did you get things cheaper then other people from the c store? Did your fleetsize give better rewards when achieving the same mission objectives as other people?
So why should fleet size affect fleet projects? In the spirit of "fairness" everything should take the exact same amount of time and resources for everyone regardless of size.
While it may be more fair to you as the sole contributor to your fleet, it's not fair to everyone else that pools together to get things done.
The whole point of the Starbase is that a group pools their resources together to make something.
You failed to understand Jeff's cake analogy:
You both buy a cake for $10 having donated $5 each and divide it in half. This is fair.
Neither of you has enough to make the cost of the (one and only, fixed price) cake. Neither of you gets anything. That is fair.
Cryptic designed fleets with this mentality in mind. Given the choice between the first and second scenarios, they opted for the first as it meant more people could have access to the fleet gear.
A scaling system would result in you getting the cake that cost $10 for $5 because you weren't sharing it with your friend. How is that fair?
Well yes it did actually. A group of 5 of us running a fleet alert meant not only were we more likely to succeed but also 5 times more marks available for upgrading the base. As the fleet got bigger, more teams of 5 were formed, geometrically increasing the success rates and number of marks available for the base.
Yes I know how the current system works and it's flawed because it doesn't scale, that's what this whole thread is about. On the face of it everyone has the same project costs and same timers we know all this but the problem for small fleets is meeting the resource requirements to hit those timers and how the deck is stacked against them for no logical gameplay reason.
Costs should have been scaled from the start but Cryptic chose between 2 systems that might work well in other more team based MMO's but is totally against the mechanics that have been in this game since launch.
If they had not of tied end game kit to SB's then none of this would even of been an issue.
I didn't fail to get his analogy, I said it was stupid to try and bend real life analogies to fit a game in the way he was doing. Then I pointed out game mechanisms that have been in the game since its launch and said you should be looking at those instead of trying to bend irrelevant things from real life.
Someone else that doesn't take the time to read, I said if we were both in a team of 5 and both those teams did the same mission and met the same objectives would his fleetsize give him better rewards then me. Where did I mention the total for his/your full team? I said him and me in the same size squad of 5 meeting the same mission objectives not me on my own and your full team totting their total to compare.
Had Cryptic scaled the costs as you so suggest, their method of balancing it would have been to ensure that small fleets got nothing. Instead they made a glass ceiling to try to encourage fleet expansion and not just the fleets of 1 which are floating around.
Scaling doesn't and wouldn't work. What is the benefit to me as a leader of a fleet bigger than yours? If your fleet gets a discount for being small, then you end up giving the advantages to small cliques or individuals who run small fleets. Which is counter productive to the idea of people staying in the game in the long term and forming a sense of community.
In game example: You divide the fleet resources by 500 in order to scale them. Ignoring the fact that it would produce non integers for the sake of argument. Then the fleet with the fewest members get fleet tiers fastest. Even the largest requirements become miniscule by comparison (1 million Dilithium becomes 2000) when divided like that which is extremely easy to obtain for an individual alone.
Reductio ad absurdum: Fleets would boot people to 1 to build a personal base. By doing that, you defeat the concept of community which was the whole point of the fleet base progression to begin with.
Advanced and Elite Fleet Kit is not the be and end all of everything, some consider it worse than current gear available from the reputation system.
Allegorical knowledge has been a mainstay of human communication and art for thousands of years; It allows clearer transmission of thoughts and ideas by providing reference points easily understandable by the audience. It's why it exists and is far from irrelevant.
Just because it doesn't agree with you doesn't make it wrong.
Fleets are supposed to be communities of people and you gain certain advantages/disadvantages by being in part of a community, as you would in real life. That is irrefutable.
This is the design on the part of the development team. They don't like small or solo fleets. They want more people to band together and continue playing for the community aspect. Learn to live with it, or be a small king of a small hill.
I took plenty of time to read, I've read this entire thread thank you very much. If I have failed to understand it is because you have failed to elucidate your points beyond that which myself and others have taken it to mean.
All rewards and prices are and should be the same for each player irrespective of fleet size. Correct? Therefore nothing should change. Q.E.D
You are specifically asking for some advantage to be given to you on the basis of fleet size and that is not considered fair by a large majority.
This whole concept as started in this thread is in actuality a quite literal attempt to reinvent the wheel, and a square one at that based on some suggestions.
The simple answer? Expand or die.
There is no logical reason to force people to expand, nor is it fair to ask them, the point of guild systems is to get friends who play the game to have an reward for playing together. This is how "guilding" has worked since before computer games existed, back in Pen and Paper this is what happened.
Most people want to be part of a community but most communities (that share personal connections and friendship) are no more than 200 hundred people in size so 500 strong mega fleets are not truly functioning communities and usually in reality are made of small cliques. The truth is we should be encouraging small fleets of players who know each-other like each-other and want to work together not mega fleets that are in reality poor at delivering true community camaraderie and are usually filled with intrigue, back-biting, politics and forms of griefing like reaching Teir 5 and fleet owners dismissing 1/3rd or more of their fleet.
Mega fleets should not be pandered to or given an advantage by design (as Cryptic has admitted to doing) and smaller fleets should have equity in the possibility of achievement on the same timescale as larger fleets.
It makes no sense not to and no one has yet given me an valid reason as to why such a system would break the game.
Lol once again what is the problem with this? Lets actually try to think clearly here lets say you have 30 players in one fleet and 5 in another fleet what is the problem if all 35 players can access a tier 5 fleet at the end of 10 months?
Why shouldn't say 30 fleet members contributing to a fleet 1 hour each in a day be equal to 5 players contributing one hour each in a day?
The matter of "fairness" irrelevant, it's a subjective opinion, equality however can be measured.
Once again, what harm would that state of affairs bring to the game.
Answer: None.
::This is the last call for people to PM me about next weeks discussions and how we as a community wish to move on with our ideas for improvements and analysis of problems::
#2311#2700#2316#2500
Actually Cryptic's profits would suffer and instead of having an annoying sink, we'd possibly end up with more pay to win consoles. Perhaps the game would even shut down if they lost too much money. Think of that? I thought not.
In case you weren't aware, this system is actually already available in game. Provided you and your group (however small) can amass the required resources during the cooldown periods. Why change it to something infinitely more complex? (Reinventing the square wheel)
I get it, you hate large fleets. You want fleets to be small groups or the cliques you so despise.
Conversely sir, what harm does it bring to the state of the game to maintain the staus quo? Answer: This thread....
I for one prefer my game to be running for a few more years without everyone needing hopelessly overpowered/gimmicky consoles and ships.
Consoles and Cryptics profit are irrelevant.
There are plenty of annoying sinks as it is (and there will more personal rep systems in the future not less), the point here is that you make more money out of 35 players with 5 in a small fleet all reaching Teir 5 in same space of time than 30 players because the other 5 have given up altogether with fleet progression, which will lead a proportion of those 5 to leave the game and spend no money at all as Fleet advancement is one of the few end-game areas that actually feels endgame.
Cryptic make way more than enough money from Lockbox sales and because of the captive market and monopoly they have they will continual to make a tidy profit.
All of these issues come down to the same root problem Cryptic failed in the initial design stage to balance the system. They admitted this publicly. They basically said either we go with option A and give the advantage to big fleets or we go with option B and give the advantage to small fleets. The result was a broken system which give an unequal advantage to large fleets.
I do find all the rhetoric about small fleets getting an "unfair" advantage to be quite funny when the reality is this entire issues stems from the fact that large fleets were given the advantage in the first place.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
Their profit margin is far from irrelevant, it's the main thing that keeps you and your small fleet able to play this game in the first place and play new content. (however poor it may be)
The point of Dan Stahl's post was not Give the advantage to one or the other. It was give the advantage to one and a glass ceiling to the other or forcibly limit the progression of small fleets. Those were their options on the table and they went with the former to stop people getting too upset and maximise their profits, it is also conveniently, easier to implement.
I understand, you don't like large fleets. You want to be a small fleet. Fine, that's understandable.
It was designed to take fleets time to complete, and no one has yet fully completed their base. Not even the large fleets and it's nearly 2 seasons later.
Why introduce a new level of complexity?
This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies . ~Bluegeek
This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies . ~Bluegeek
The tac captain that can do better in a sci ship than a sci?
Oh yes, equality and balance. This game has it in spades.
Well I was thinking more along the lines of people get the same rewards when they do the same missions as each other, pay the same prices for the same engine battery etc, sell for the same prices, have the same chance formula applied for a critical hit, have the same base stats on their ships, I could go on but I don't need to and wont bother.
This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies . ~Bluegeek
With thousands of Fleet marks and hundreds of thousands of fleet credits, and very little use for them. I'll probably end up doing something a little dishonorable.. join a fleet with mkxii gear. buy everything I need, and then drop out and rejoin my own fleet. I would rather earn them myself but it could be years before I reach a t4 complete starbase. (by then the stuff will probably be outdated anyhow).
Cheers
Regards to Cryptics profits, the details are freely available you can look at Perfect Worlds financial summary.
Regards to not wanting to pay, already have paid, I've poured in a lot of money. So no my views in this matter are not biased
Regards to not grinding hard enough, irrelevant why should an individual in a small fleet be required to grind more than a large one
Regards to wanting rewards nao nao nao, no you miss the point this about wanting the rewards in the same space of time with the same effort per individual regardless of fleet size, fleet size is a data value that should be irrelevant. I.e. having scaling.
Regards design decisions they couldn't come up with a scaling solution so therefore they gave advantage to big fleets, they admitted that small fleets are at a disadvantage.
In closing, though I am commenting on this debate it is largely irrelevant to my fleet as it is inactive and has been since Season 7 when I lost the majority of my fleet members roughly 2/3rd moving to big fleets and 1/3rd leaving the game outright, this was down to the new personal rep grinds in Season 7.
I have since tried to recruit but the truth is no-one has any interest in joining a Tier 2 fleet because there are no rewards for some randoms to join when they can go elsewhere and get instant rewards.
This post has been edited to remove content which violates the [URL="http://sto-
forum.perfectworld.com/announcement.php?&a=51"]Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules
and Policies [/URL]. ~Bluegeek
#2311#2700#2316#2500
I'm noticing some violations of PWE Community Rules and Policies in this thread.
Let's keep the conversation civil. There's no need for further hostility here.
Please show some respect for other people's opinions, even if you don't agree with them.
Stick with the facts -- Please don't speculate about other people's motivations.
When referring to other forum users, please leave off any personal references to beliefs, feelings, behavior, intelligence, character, skills, etc.
Any post that's been crafted to provoke an angry reaction is trolling and is subject to moderation, warnings, and infractions. PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO TROLL POSTS! Report them.
If you are responsible for a post that breaks the rules, please take responsibility to go back and take out the inflammatory language. Otherwise, the Mods will have to exercise their responsibilities.
Read the rules (see above)
Thanks in advance for your cooperation!
Live Long and Prosper,
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Hehe *Accolade Achievement* Impervious to Flames
#2311#2700#2316#2500
As I have shown repeatedly, Fleets beyond the optimal size for a particular tier will not achieve unlocks appreciably faster, and members will end up competing with each other for FC and provisions.
If everyone is equal and earns the same amount, two people will make double what you make. 100 people will make ten times what 10 people make.
Option A was "like other MMOs" and have a hard cap on Fleet holdings vs Fleet size - if you don't have X amount of members, you can't hit Tier Y at all.
Option B was "if you don't have X amount of members, it'll take a lot more work to hit Tier Y".
Guild systems have always been about "more people = more perks". Always.
This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies . ~Bluegeek
It's an "apt" analogy because just by changing the terms involved, it's exactly the same situation in STO.
Let's say you play with your best friend in a Fleet. Nearby is another Fleet, with ten friends playing together. Both Fleets are T1. It costs 1000 units of resources to attain T2. This means you and your buddy need to contribute 500 units each. The ten guys nearby just need to contribute 100 units each. Let's say everybody earns 10 units/hour. It'll take you and your buddy 50 hours of work each, and it'll take those guys nearby just 10 hours of work each.
You want the costs to scale per person. You want your Fleet to be upgraded for 200 units, and the Fleet nearby to be upgraded for 1000 units. This is what you consider "fair" - because it's in game units as opposed to money?
No it's not, you can't make an analogy between a real life situation and a game mechanic in that way, to begin with they do not share the same physical parameters. A day in STO does not equate to 24 hours in real time for example, in fact if one goes by Starfleet Academy there is never a night at all.
Scaling is the way to go, though I think it should only occur if you have a minimum of 5 players. You are right in saying that Solo fleets should not get any benefits, the aim was not for a personal base.
Your talk of "fairness" is irrelevant as it there is no need for fairness because it causes no damage to the bigger fleet for the smaller fleet to get things done in the same period of time, I don't know how I can make this anymore clearer for you but small fleets being able to complete things at the same rate as larger ones does not take away resources or anything else from larger fleets. Simply put the do not inhabit the same axis.
However I would argue that solo players should be able to visit Fleet bases and buy goods from them in exchange for resources. This already happens on an informal basis but I would like to see it formally implemented without someone having to join a fleet to do it. I would like to see an invite function and a Fleet Marks to Fleet Provisions exchange mechanism. If not this then there should be a provision for Solo players to access fleet rewards at their homeworld/HQ by converting FM's.
If we want to talk about balance or fairness we need to ensure that end rewards like Fleet weapons are accessible to anyone whether they wish to be in a fleet or not.
In games like DDO players who are not in a guild will be routinely offered to be invited to a guild airship for buffs before a quest starts, the current fleet system in STO doesn't encourage anywhere near that kind of friendliness to outsiders.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
I think you have some good ideas, but let me set my tricorder to scan for Unintended Consequences Related To Scaling... there we go.
I'm in a fleet right now that stands at nearly 60 members, yet I'd say maybe a fifth of that are still active. We carry a lot of old members that haven't been around for months because hey maybe they'll come back someday. Do we get penalized and set to 60 member fleet scales because we're not attentively cleaning out the roster?
OK, so we set scaling to active fleet members. So now those of us with alts get penalized if we ever bring them out to play, and there's a greater onus on those of us who are active to do more in fleet activity.
OK, so let's go with active fleet member accounts. Now you've tilted it the other way with regards to alts and put even more pressure on the active members to do fleet activity.
And I haven't even touched what happens with regards to adding new members. How many fleets will hesitate to recruit or start adding members before they complete Tier V? There's no incentive to add new members with regards to fleet advancement, in fact if they're not as active in fleet advancement you're actually penalizing those working on advancement.
Small fleets should be given a better shake at advancement, but I remain skeptical that scaling is the way to go.
1) It introduces complexity that requires significant dev resources to implement and also possibly runs counter to Cryptic's design intentions for the system.
2) It introduces a new mechanic that could break or require further balancing.
3) It could be perceived as unfair, and the solution might still be sufficiently unsatisfactory that it's not worth the cost to implement it.
4) It further complicates STO's economic model
Otherwise, I feel there is no harm in addressing ways to help smaller fleets to complete projects that they will otherwise not complete. Other than possible monetization issues on Cryptic's end, large fleets don't necessarily lose out if small fleets get some kind of assistance.
Project non-completion and stalled fleet progression is not in anyone's best interests. If people lose interest in fleet advancement entirely, that ultimately hurts the game.
And let's not forget that fleets don't start out big and that there is a limit as to how big a fleet can get. It's not feasible for everyone to join the biggest fleets, even if we wanted to. There are factors working against the growth of small fleets, including recruitment issues, that should be considered.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
These are all valid concerns, but I see no other way to offer all players equality.
With regards to basing it on active players, whether you use alts or not is irrelevant it would be account / faction based not character based.
The other option is for players to flag themselves as inactive or on sabbatical as it were.
There is no need for incentivization in recruiting fleet members and it's largely irrelevant as no matter the fleet size you will always achieve the tiers with the same number of hours accrued per individual in fleet. The whole point here is the size of the fleet is meaningless.
I think there are solutions for most of the issues around scaling however the big question is whether Cryptic can find an implement them and whether in terms of financial gain it's worthwhile to do so.
I'm not so sure there are any issues of monetization. I do however agree scaling would take up dev time and as I said in the previous reply of the other post it comes down whether it's worth doing for Cryptic.
I cannot stress more the importance of the two points you make here though, firstly that people losing interest in such an important end-game content module is hurting the game, it is in fact one of the main reason why I don't play much anymore.
Secondly that recruitment issue for small fleets is seriously adding to the hamstringing of their development which is also another reason for people like myself giving up hope with the Fleet system.
I think we need to find a way to address this whether it be through scaling or not we have to make it worthwhile to start a fleet and rewarding to pursue progression in small fleets.
Another thing we need to do is to give Solo players the chance to access fleet rewards, I think it's a really bad business model and gaming model to have end-game rewards that are totally unobtainable for a whole section of the playing population. Either offering Fleet Mark trade in for provisions at Fed/Klingon homeworld or offering Fleets the chance to invite solo players to the shop is important to keep that sizable demographic with something else to look forward to in a game starved of endgame content. Whilst this does occur in an informal way open to abuse at the moment, it would be best to have this formalized and in fact should cost little development time to do so.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
Equality's a noble goal, but something about the road to hell and good intentions comes to mind.
It has less to do with incentives and more to do with disincentives. Every member added has to pull an equal amount of the fleet advancement work. Maybe you're lucky and you get a guy with a zillion fleet marks to spend, on the other hand you could wind up with someone who doesn't care much for advancement and now that's more work for everyone else in the fleet. Now you start having to weigh adding new members versus how much more work they're willing to do and how much more work you're willing to do.
As for inactive flags, what if someone just walks away from the fleet for a while? Maybe you could give the fleet leader power to set those flags, but that's another can of worms there.
EDIT: The big thing is to minimize the potential politics involved in fleet advancement. The current system isn't that great, but scaling would have its own dangers as well.
Well the disincentives should be mitigated by some kind of balancing algorithm that tots up time investment by individuals. But you are right there is no easy way of doing any of this. It is however possible in any mathematical system to achieve input parity it's just how complex one has to make it.
As I said before it all comes down to whether Cryptic wishes to expend development time and that is based really on the financial return and player retention anything they implement would generate. Even though I advocate a scaling system, even I am skeptical about the time investment / financial reward curve and therefore I deem it unlikely that they would institute such a byzantine structure at this time.
However as Bluegeek has said something has to be done, so if they don't go for the more complex over arching solution they must still come up with other solutions.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
They could just make the Fleet window work like "looking for fleet" if the player isn't a mamber already. Or even adding a "join fleet", "create fleet" options to the fleet creation npc would have sense.
It would list all the fleets in alphabetic order with some aditional info once you click one, a search function wouldnt hurt too. There should also be a big shiny button to send your aplication to join.
This may have changed, im not sure, im a member of same fleet for some time but from what i remember ther was no way to appy. You had to pm someone from the fleet and hope hes not afk or something and have rights to invite. It would be so much easier if you could just appy to join a fleet at any time.
This UI change would only be helpful if there was any good reason to join a new fleet or small fleet that is below T3.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
Indeed, now that I think about it, this idea wouldn’t help much. But at least every fleet struggling because of low number of members or not would have that "chance" of getting randoms willing to join just because they like the fleet name. That’s the reason I joined feet I’m in. I had no clue if its big or small or even active. Seen someone recruiting, liked the fleet name, pm him.
The looking for fleet channel is probably the easiest thing to do. But could be hard to keep track of and annoying for readers and people that recruit.
Dunno maybe option to set a short recruit message in the fleet window and a check box next to it allowing the message to be turned on/off by every fleet member. It would just appear above player head and stay there all the time until you turn it off.
If its turned on anyone who right click the player would have an option to apply to the fleet.
Just noticed I gave same idea I quoted just in a bit different form, writing on forums after 12h shift isn’t a good idea I’ll just take my leave and get some sleep -.-
Scaling where only those of 5 players and above isn't going to solve anything.
For starters, what about legimate fleets of friends of 2, 3, or 4 players? Those players shouldn't be punished for having a small fleet.
Second, it's not going to deter soloists. Since it's now free to create accounts, it's not all that hard for a soloist to create 4 mule accounts and bring it to the minimum of five players. So creating a minimum isn't going to help, in fact, it's more of a negative since it's taking up valuable server space for accounts that aren't going to be played.
If anything Cryptic should collect Soloist / Very Small fleets (under 5 players), put them under an co-op umbrella, and have them work towards a community Starbase. That way, players who don't want to start a fleet or join a large one, could still see the same benefits.