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" is the most ridiculously obvious way for large fleets to exploit in a way that would benefit them more than the current system. You could just kick everyone out/splinter the fleets into smaller sub-fleets when a progression project comes up to lower the upgrade requirements and once it's done, invite everyone back in to reap the rewards, until the next progression project comes up and rinse/repeat.
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.
I think you need to have all 5 in a team at the same time, so you'd need 5 pc's to do it.
Alsp the reason why I say 5 is because that is the minimum limit Cryptic set if Cryptic were happy to go lower I don't see a problem.
With regards to you later point I agree with this but it would just be easier have the facility available at Earth / Qo'Nos though the idea of a community starbase is a good one, especially if you can only access the shops after reaching personal FM thresholds or something along those lines.
As I said before having end game rewards that are unobtainable to soloists and the like is simply bad design.
"Scaling" is the most ridiculously obvious way for large fleets to exploit in a way that would benefit them more than the current system. You could just kick everyone out/splinter the fleets into smaller sub-fleets when a progression project comes up to lower the upgrade requirements and once it's done, invite everyone back in to reap the rewards, until the next progression project comes up and rinse/repeat.
This would make no difference as if you kick the players the fleet will still take the same 10 months to Teir 5, this "exploit" is irreverent as it wouldn't work. You scale based on player input not fleet size.
The point here is you can have a 5 man fleet, ah 50 man fleet a 500 man fleet you can't get to Teir 5 any quicker than 10 months.
However as we've already concluded scaling would likely not be introduced because of the development time required and potentially poor ROI.
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.
Not a terrible idea, but listing fleets in any non-customizable order at all is not fair.
People would simply name their fleets something like "A111111111111" to get to the top of the list and nobody would ever see "Zeta-Zero Fleet".
It would be better to give people the option to search for a fleet based on fleet size, whether they have a website, open membership, etc. It would benefit everybody.
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
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.
Wait, what? You quoted me when I was not using an analogy.
These are all valid concerns, but I see no other way to offer all players equality.
There are two kinds of equality. Equality of outcome, and equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome is inapplicable to a game - this would mean someone who plays for 5 minutes a day gets the same results as someone who grinds for 20 hours a day.
Equality of opportunity from a supplier would be a lack of bias towards any particular group of people.
If one person rents a video for $2.50, it costs $2.50 per person.
If ten people rent a video for $2.50, it costs $0.25 per person.
The supplier has set the same price for everyone. They have not given a bonus or penalty to anyone or shown any bias.
Scaling to size means that the sum total individual efforts will be worth more or less depending on how many people are working together, a strictly non-egalitarian penalty for cooperation. Scaling to time means a choice (less work and more waiting, or more work and less waiting) but not an advantage.
There are two kinds of equality. Equality of outcome, and equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome is inapplicable to a game - this would mean someone who plays for 5 minutes a day gets the same results as someone who grinds for 20 hours a day.
No the point here is 5 playing for one hour each is equal to 30 players playing for 1 hour each, the individuals all play for the same amount of time (equal) the fleet they contribute towards receives the same progress.
No the point here is 5 playing for one hour each is equal to 30 players playing for 1 hour each, the individuals all play for the same amount of time (equal) the fleet they contribute towards receives the same progress.
That is blatantly unfair and biased. The efforts of those 30 people is worth only 1/6th the efforts of those 5 people. One hour of their time only generates 1/6th the XP the latter group gets.
This is asking to be exempt from the consequences of your choices. You want to avoid whatever disadvantage you see from being in or creating a large Fleet, but want the innate advantage that comes from many people working towards a common cause.
One person working to buy something should take ten times as long as ten people working to buy that same something. (This factor is actually capped in STO - more people than necessary will not result in faster progression.)
Division of labor is the entire point of people working together. It is the basis of trade, our economy, and our civilization. Tasks insurmountable for one individual is made possible by the cooperation of many.
(The adage of "too many cooks" doesn't refer to collaboration, but what happens when people work at cross-purposes.)
I've been in small guilds in other MMOs, including WoW. This is actually the first large guild I've been a part of. I have heard people complain about it being too difficult or slow to advance, but until now I have never heard anyone suggest that our small guilds (usually <30) should be able to make progress on par with giant guilds (usually >300). That idea wouldn't fly anywhere else, why is it suddenly considered a valid idea here?
The problem right now is that it's too difficult to advance, but many people seem to be taking the opportunity to also request a bonus. The solution to the issue with difficulty is scaling costs to time. Scaling costs to size is just plain getting an advantage to progression.
"Scaling" is the most ridiculously obvious way for large fleets to exploit in a way that would benefit them more than the current system. You could just kick everyone out/splinter the fleets into smaller sub-fleets when a progression project comes up to lower the upgrade requirements and once it's done, invite everyone back in to reap the rewards, until the next progression project comes up and rinse/repeat.
Post #250. A scaling system that is not exploitable in this fashion.
That is blatantly unfair and biased. The efforts of those 30 people is worth only 1/6th the efforts of those 5 people. One hour of their time only generates 1/6th the XP the latter group gets.
Post #250. A scaling system that avoids this problem by giving the 30 people a base that can serve the needs of 30 people, while the 5 people get a base that can serve the needs of 5 people.
"Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
That is blatantly unfair and biased. The efforts of those 30 people is worth only 1/6th the efforts of those 5 people. One hour of their time only generates 1/6th the XP the latter group gets.
This is asking to be exempt from the consequences of your choices. You want to avoid whatever disadvantage you see from being in or creating a large Fleet, but want the innate advantage that comes from many people working towards a common cause.
One person working to buy something should take ten times as long as ten people working to buy that same something. (This factor is actually capped in STO - more people than necessary will not result in faster progression.)
Division of labor is the entire point of people working together. It is the basis of trade, our economy, and our civilization. Tasks insurmountable for one individual is made possible by the cooperation of many.
(The adage of "too many cooks" doesn't refer to collaboration, but what happens when people work at cross-purposes.)
I've been in small guilds in other MMOs, including WoW. This is actually the first large guild I've been a part of. I have heard people complain about it being too difficult or slow to advance, but until now I have never heard anyone suggest that our small guilds (usually <30) should be able to make progress on par with giant guilds (usually >300). That idea wouldn't fly anywhere else, why is it suddenly considered a valid idea here?
The problem right now is that it's too difficult to advance, but many people seem to be taking the opportunity to also request a bonus. The solution to the issue with difficulty is scaling costs to time. Scaling costs to size is just plain getting an advantage to progression.
You're still not getting it. It's not a bonus that 5 players can access the same fleet provision as 30 in the same amount of time. There is no bonus there, there is no advantage, the 5 aren't getting special powers and as individuals they are working just as hard as other individuals in the bigger fleet.
My point here is to reward the work of individuals not their collective work which is simply iniquitous.
Once again you are using real world analogies that have no place in the game.
hat I propose is to do away completely with resource costs for Fleet XP and only have costs for construction of assets and costs of buying things from the shop. The actual fleet XP would accrue for every minute you are in a fleet action, alongside this I would want greater variety in fleet actions, though of course you could simply accrue fleet XP for play time alone. Though that would go against Cryptics belief that you should do fleet events for fleet rewards. Having said that they broke their own rule on that so why not.
Even of you are a solo player you should be able to accrue XP which will allow you to access the community fleet holdings. this would be personal to you.
You still have to spend time in game you still have customers coming in and paying for things.
Post #250. A scaling system that is not exploitable in this fashion.
Post #250. A scaling system that avoids this problem by giving the 30 people a base that can serve the needs of 30 people, while the 5 people get a base that can serve the needs of 5 people.
You're still not getting it. It's not a bonus that 5 players can access the same fleet provision as 30 in the same amount of time. There is no bonus there, there is no advantage, the 5 aren't getting special powers and as individuals they are working just as hard as other individuals in the bigger fleet.
No, you don't seem to get it. By any frame of reference this is would be considered a bonus.
The 30 people are each individually earning 16.7% that those 5 individuals are earning for exactly the same amount of work. How is that not a massive bonus to the work of those 5 individuals? Each hour of their work is worth 6 times that of the others!
My point here is to reward the work of individuals not their collective work which is simply iniquitous.
Scaling cost by size is iniquitous. If one project generates 50 provisions, then the 5 people each get 10 provisions, but those 30 people each individually doing the same amount of work only get 1.67 provisions each. How is that in any way equitable or fair?
Once again you are using real world analogies that have no place in the game.
Oh, it's your turn to say "oh, that part of reality doesn't apply here" without any sort of justification?
30 should be six times more than 5. This applies for DPS, wealth, shield strength, hull strength, absolutely everything else in the game - but not for Fleet contributions?
Very Small: 20% resource cost, 200% time requirement, 20% provisions
Small: 40% resource cost, 150% time requirement, 40% provisions
Medium: 60% resource cost, 125% time requirement, 60% provisions
Large: 80% resource cost, 110% time requirement, 80% provisions
Very Large: 100% resource cost, 100% time requirement, 100% provisions
If not for the unnecessarily complicated "upgrade/downgrade" aspect, the above would just be cost/reward scaling. With the "upgrade/downgrade" aspect, it becomes a cost/reward scaling system with additional prerequisites and penalties for choosing projects.
Nobody would argue that this gives a particular benefit to anyone. It's only a straight scaling of costs to size that unfairly rewards the work of those in smaller Fleets.
No, you don't seem to get it. By any frame of reference this is would be considered a bonus.
The 30 people are each individually earning 16.7% that those 5 individuals are earning for exactly the same amount of work. How is that not a massive bonus to the work of those 5 individuals? Each hour of their work is worth 6 times that of the others!
Scaling cost by size is iniquitous. If one project generates 50 provisions, then the 5 people each get 10 provisions, but those 30 people each individually doing the same amount of work only get 1.67 provisions each. How is that in any way equitable or fair?
Oh, it's your turn to say "oh, that part of reality doesn't apply here" without any sort of justification?
30 should be six times more than 5. This applies for DPS, wealth, shield strength, hull strength, absolutely everything else in the game - but not for Fleet contributions?
You do realize that system does not scale by size?
If not for the unnecessarily complicated "upgrade/downgrade" aspect, the above would just be cost/reward scaling. With the "upgrade/downgrade" aspect, it becomes a cost/reward scaling system with additional prerequisites and penalties for choosing projects.
Nobody would argue that this gives a particular benefit to anyone. It's only a straight scaling of costs to size that unfairly rewards the work of those in smaller Fleets.
Oh dear, let me try this again for you...
why are you comparing the means when the only thing of value is the end product, each individual in the 30 man fleet is doing no more work than an individual in the 5 man fleet.
In the current system the individuals in the 5 man fleet have to as individuals do much more work than the individuals in the 30 man fleet to make the same progress. The larger fleet has the bonus, that is were the bonus lies, what I propose is to redress that bonus.
Therefore individuals in a small fleet put in just as much work as individuals in the large fleet for the same time scaled reward that unlike the current system would remove the bonus large fleets currently enjoy.
There is no justification for real world analogies in Star Trek Online, If this game was set to reflect real life then I could see it but we buy lockboxes with Zen that pop ships out of them... the idea that real world measurements have any relevance to this game is frankly nonsensical. It is entirely irrelevant that in the real world we have economies of scale and division of labour no such rules of economics need exist in this game and indeed if it was the case the game wouldn't be playable as we'd need 1000's of players working industrial fabricators just to build ships let alone fly them.
With regards to provisions this is simply wrong provisions would be generated by individuals through game-time so no they wont divide like that at all, 5 players get 1 provision each, 30 players get one provision each.
Just because the system in #250 does not scale by size does not mean it is not a good idea worth backing. I like the idea that no matter what size fleet your in your 1 hour is equal to someone else one hour in terms of contribution to progression. It damages no one and benefits all. That doesn't mean that alternatives like #250 is just as good if not better, I have no real bias towards the solution I offer, which is actually pretty exotic or alien to the way the current system works... probably not practical within Cryptics time / reward curve.
It is still worth debating. What I am not sure with regards to yourself is why you are so against small fleets having a perceived advantage, yet you have no problem with large fleets having an advantage which is the current system.
With regards to provisions this is simply wrong provisions would be generated by individuals through game-time so no they wont divide like that at all, 5 players get 1 provision each, 30 players get one provision each.
Provisions are generated by projects.
This alone means that you are not talking about costs scaling to Fleet size, but also scaling the rewards.
What I am sure with regards to yourself is why you are so against small fleets having a perceived advantage, yet you have no problem with large fleets having an advantage which is the current system.
The system as implemented gives no bonuses to larger Fleets, in fact it restricts larger Fleets by limiting the number of simultaneous projects that can be run. What gives larger numbers an advantage is the same bit of reality you appear to reject as being applicable to STO Fleets.
30 is six times more than 5.
30 ships will deal six times more DPS than 5 ships.
30 ships will deal six times more shields than 5 ships.
30 ships will deal six times more hull than 5 ships.
30 players will have six times more EC than 5 players.
30 players will have six times more Dilithium than 5 players.
30 players will have six times more time than 5 players.
30 man hours is six times more work completed than 5 man hours.
When every individual is equal, 30 will always have an advantage over 5 unless the 5 are given a bonus. This is simple math.
Scaling costs by size without scaling time and rewards means giving a bonus to smaller numbers, which is equivalent to penalizing larger groups. I have no problem with facing reality and accepting the concept of "numerical superiority", but I have a problem with any particular group being granted an advantage just because they keep complaining.
This alone means that you are not talking about costs scaling to Fleet size, but also scaling the rewards.
The system as implemented gives no bonuses to larger Fleets, in fact it restricts larger Fleets by limiting the number of simultaneous projects that can be run. What gives larger numbers an advantage is the same bit of reality you appear to reject as being applicable to STO Fleets.
30 is six times more than 5.
30 ships will deal six times more DPS than 5 ships.
30 ships will deal six times more shields than 5 ships.
30 ships will deal six times more hull than 5 ships.
30 players will have six times more EC than 5 players.
30 players will have six times more Dilithium than 5 players.
30 players will have six times more time than 5 players.
30 man hours is six times more work completed than 5 man hours.
When every individual is equal, 30 will always have an advantage over 5 unless the 5 are given a bonus. This is simple math.
Scaling costs by size without scaling time and rewards means giving a bonus to smaller numbers, which is equivalent to penalizing larger groups.
Yes what I am saying is provisions should be rewarded to individuals via time played I find the idea of provisioning projects to be flawed and a vector for potential abuse as they stand it causes problems with fleet politics. I would prefer to avoid that and instead give individuals provisions not pool them.
The reality you talk of is not relevant this is about time in game and reward not DPS. 5 Vs 10 in a PVP you both play for the same period of time and both receive the same rewards at the end regardless of the 5 man team getting their TRIBBLE handed to them. The irony of your example above is it proves my point. 15 players playing PVP regardless of what side you're on you play for the same amount of time and receive the same rewards. Indeed 14 Vs 1 would still yield the same individual rewards.
I understand you are in a mega-fleet and don't want anything to effect the position of large fleets but honestly I cannot see why giving small fleets a chance or indeed as you say giving them an advantage will have any effect at all on large fleets, because it will simply have no effect.
I think you need to have all 5 in a team at the same time, so you'd need 5 pc's to do it.
Also the reason why I say 5 is because that is the minimum limit Cryptic set if Cryptic were happy to go lower I don't see a problem.
Actually you don't. A decent computer actually can do up to 3 STO instances. And Second, you can easily hire people to start a Fleet, add the mules, and those who helped you start a fleet can go on their merry way. So such a system is easily subverted.
With regards to you later point I agree with this but it would just be easier have the facility available at Earth / Qo'Nos though the idea of a community starbase is a good one, especially if you can only access the shops after reaching personal FM thresholds or something along those lines.
As I said before having end game rewards that are unobtainable to soloists and the like is simply bad design.
I agree, I made posts where I suggested that fleets could have an option to have a HUB as their headquarters than a Starbase. Since most of the resources are already available, it would cut down on a fleet's resources. And really would've been optimal for small fleets.
And Starbase goods aren't really unobtainable, they can get it, at a high cost of somehow earning Fleet Marks to buy a Fleet ship and the Advanced / Elite gear. But yes, it would've been better to think about such people in that regards.
Actually you don't. A decent computer actually can do up to 3 STO instances. And Second, you can easily hire people to start a Fleet, add the mules, and those who helped you start a fleet can go on their merry way. So such a system is easily subverted.
I agree, I made posts where I suggested that fleets could have an option to have a HUB as their headquarters than a Starbase. Since most of the resources are already available, it would cut down on a fleet's resources. And really would've been optimal for small fleets.
And Starbase goods aren't really unobtainable, they can get it, at a high cost of somehow earning Fleet Marks to buy a Fleet ship and the Advanced / Elite gear. But yes, it would've been better to think about such people in that regards.
Indeed it makes no sense to have large portions of the player base unable to access the majority of end-game items especially with the loss of the STF weapons and stores.
You do realize that system does not scale by size?
Either you didn't read it or didn't understand it. That system scales by size - small fleets have the ability to pay less, which most people would agree is scaling by size.
If not for the unnecessarily complicated "upgrade/downgrade" aspect, the above would just be cost/reward scaling.
It's not "unnecessarily complicated." It's necessary in order to allow fleets to change their size without abandoning all progress. A more draconian solution would be to disallow all aize changes, but that would cause a lot of unhappiness.
Nobody would argue that this gives a particular benefit to anyone.
I'm arguing that the system gives significant benefit to small fleets.
It's only a straight scaling of costs to size that unfairly rewards the work of those in smaller Fleets.
The system is designed to create a situation whereby:
5 players put in a fixed amount of work (say, 1000 hours each over 10 months) and get a starbase with a capacity throughput that can support 5 players.
100 players put in a fixed amount of work (say, 1000 hours each over 10 months) and get a stabase with a capacity throughput that can support 100 players.
If you think that's unfair, then there's something incredibly wrong with your definitions.
"Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
Either you didn't read it or didn't understand it. That system scales by size - small fleets have the ability to pay less, which most people would agree is scaling by size.
It's not "unnecessarily complicated." It's necessary in order to allow fleets to change their size without abandoning all progress. A more draconian solution would be to disallow all aize changes, but that would cause a lot of unhappiness.
I'm arguing that the system gives significant benefit to small fleets.
The system is designed to create a situation whereby:
5 players put in a fixed amount of work (say, 1000 hours each over 10 months) and get a starbase with a capacity throughput that can support 5 players.
100 players put in a fixed amount of work (say, 1000 hours each over 10 months) and get a stabase with a capacity throughput that can support 100 players.
If you think that's unfair, then there's something incredibly wrong with your definitions.
Yes which seems fine to me and a lot more plausible within Cryptics current framework than mine but I see the same thing at the base that one players 1000 hours is worth the same as another's regardless of fleet size over same time period / cost value, The question is how does one implement this in STO. You seem to have though about it far more than I.
("Discount for smaller sizes" is literally exactly the same as "penalty for larger sizes", since it means additional members increase the costs you would otherwise pay.)
True only if the scaling system makes it so.
"Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
I still don`t see what this is all about - are the small fleets having trouble getting to tier 4?
I am just trying to grasp what is the big issue here - do these 5 person fleets think they deserve a T5 starbase sometime this year or something? If 1 person can produce a T4 starbase, it still makes logical sense that under the same system 5 people should be able to get a T5 base eventually.
Is this what this thread is about then - rushing to have access to a T5 starbase?
According to our roster, we have 498 members. We have activity checks, so everyone is "active" and playing STO.
Roughly according to our Embassy leaderboard (counting screens of 22 members each):
154 have less than 5000 FC earned.
198 have less than 50,000 FC but more than 5000 FC earned.
66 have less than 100,000 FC but more than 50,000 FC earned.
So there's only 80 of us who were really pushing our Embassy projects forward. The top 3 are at 1.4 mil, 1.2 mil, and 1.0 mil. The next highest is 612k, and the other 76 of us are uniformly distributed between 500k and 100k.
The 154 account for 385,000 FC worth of contributions. (1.0%)
The 198 account for 5,445,000 FC worth of contributions. (14.4%)
The 66 account for 4,950,000 FC worth of contributions. (13.1%)
The 80 account for 27,012,000 FC worth of contributions. (71.5%)
16.1% of the Fleet contributed 71.5% of the resources to the Embassy.
Roughly according to our Starbase leaderboard (counting screens of 22 members each):
176 have less than 10,000 FC earned.
308 have less than 100,000 FC but more than 10,000 FC earned.
198 have less than 500,000 FC but more than 100,000 FC earned.
44 have less than 1,000,000 FC but more than 500,000 FC earned.
15 have less than 2,000,000 FC, but more than 1,000,000 FC earned.
5 have more than 2,000,000 FC, up to 2.6 mil earned.
The 176 account for 880,000 FC worth of contributions. (0.6%)
The 308 account for 16,940,000 FC worth of contributions. (11.7%)
The 198 account for 59,400,000 FC worth of contributions. (41.2%)
The top 64 account for 67,000,000 FC worth of contributions. (46.4%)
52.6% of the Fleet contributed 87.6% of the resources to the Starbase.
All 498 members are at least active on a monthly basis (we have activity checks). If you're not playing, you get booted out of the in-game Fleet to free up space. (You would still be on our out-of-game membership roster, and getting back into the in-game Fleet is as easy as asking an officer.) None are alts, which go into our Reserve Fleet. KDF alts go to our KDF Fleet.
If costs scale linearly as suggested suddenly half of our Fleet are a burden on the rest of us. There's over 100 people who would just be boosting up the cost for the rest of us. How is this not a penalty?
("Discount for smaller sizes" is literally exactly the same as "penalty for larger sizes", since it means additional members increase the costs you would otherwise pay.)
If you think that's unfair, then there's something incredibly wrong with your definitions.
You misunderstood and/or I was unclear. I meant scaling costs (and only costs) according to size is unfair, not that your proposal (which also scales duration and reward) is unfair.
Sorry why would it mean penalties for larger fleets, it should have no effect at all on larger fleets as it doesn't change their mechanics at all.
We have at least 100 members who are actively playing STO that do not contribute to, nor make use of, our Fleet holdings.
If costs are cheaper at 400 members rather than 500 members (discount for smaller size), then we would literally be paying more than necessary. That's a penalty for having 500 members instead of 400.
P.S. Yes, I know what "literally" means and I am using the actual definition, not valley-girl speak.
P.P.S. We have a lot of members, even if half don't contribute appreciably, but I've still seen projects stagnate for almost a week before somebody goes "Fine!" and buys stuff with EC and Dil.
We have at least 100 members who are actively playing STO that do not contribute to, nor make use of, our Fleet holdings.
If costs are cheaper at 400 members rather than 500 members (discount for smaller size), then we would literally be paying more than necessary. That's a penalty for having 500 members instead of 400.
P.S. Yes, I know what "literally" means and I am using the actual definition, not valley-girl speak.
Therefore a switch that would put them to "not contributing atm" would mitigate that problem I already proposed that if players take a break from the game they would be able to activate such a switch.
With regards to what I proposed if the player was one and playing they would automatically contribute XP to the base just by being logged on and playing for an hour. If they did not contribute to assets which would need resources as well as XP the that would be an issue but you could have once again have a switch to control that aspect.
The point here is there are ways to do this.
But as I said I believe what I am proposing is too byzantine for Cryptic such as they are to attempt to do, all I am seeking really is a way for the advantage larger fleets have to be redressed and some balance brought to the system, small fleet players and solo players should not be locked out of 70% of the end-game items, it's a bad business model and a bad game-model to do so.
You post on how your fleet works is a classic example of why large fleets are bad in the first place, the reality is your fleet is horribly inefficient it has members that serve no use and essentially are a burden and continue to be. Which just reinforces the anthropological line of thinking that suggests such a large community in this case is not really a community at all but a collection of cliques and really the core here of your fleet is actually much smaller than the bloat of it. This is why naturally we should be favoring smaller fleet units the benefits are myriad including less negative politics, less exploitation and less cruft, a closer knit community where people actively participate and care about each other and the fleet. What is occurring in your fleet is a natural trend towards around 80 members being the upper ceiling for involved participation and contribution. I wonder if we would see similar figures from other mega fleets.
Again though, I'm just talking about scaling just costs to Fleet size, whereas your proposal also tweaks the returns. Most of the people who chime in with "Yeah! I want stuff!" just flat out want scaling on only the costs so they get stuff faster/cheaper, without giving anything up.
I'm kind of curious about other Fleet member activity as well, the UFP is actually a really old guild that predates STO and is basically a Star Trek fandom thing across multiple games. I don't know if our activity level is typical or atypical.
I still don`t see what this is all about - are the small fleets having trouble getting to tier 4?
I am just trying to grasp what is the big issue here - do these 5 person fleets think they deserve a T5 starbase sometime this year or something? If 1 person can produce a T4 starbase, it still makes logical sense that under the same system 5 people should be able to get a T5 base eventually.
Is this what this thread is about then - rushing to have access to a T5 starbase?
Yes. But you have to cloak it in concern for the long term health of the game. Otherwise it'd just look impatient and greedy.
I have no solution for small fleets, other than to allow them to fold and merge. Let them close up shop, and each player released with a percentage of the value in line with their donations. To be fair to the game economy, make that percentage only 50% of the actual value.
Although to be honest - how would the devs even make that happen? Who would initiate it? Would the leadership make that decision only, or would a majority of the members have to vote?
It's a mess. Let them die.
20% of of any group does 80% of the work. This is a fact of life. It's as American as Apple Pie, and it allows our economy to grow. Nothing would put me off this game faster than enabling smaller fleets to match our efforts getting to T3, for less cost.
Hint to the devs - my significant $$$ would go elsewhere.
It's harsh - yes. But I think that anyone entering into Starbase development without realizing the astronomical cost IN ADVANCE needs to seriously have a conversation with their math teacher.
I have no solution for small fleets, other than to allow them to fold and merge. Let them close up shop, and each player released with a percentage of the value in line with their donations. To be fair to the game economy, make that percentage only 50% of the actual value.
Although to be honest - how would the devs even make that happen? Who would initiate it? Would the leadership make that decision only, or would a majority of the members have to vote?
It's a mess. Let them die.
20% of of any group does 80% of the work. This is a fact of life. It's as American as Apple Pie, and it allows our economy to grow. Nothing would put me off this game faster than enabling smaller fleets to match our efforts getting to T3, for less cost.
Hint to the devs - my significant $$$ would go elsewhere.
It's harsh - yes. But I think that anyone entering into Starbase development without realizing the astronomical cost IN ADVANCE needs to seriously have a conversation with their math teacher.
My Two Bits
Admiral Thrax
Lol, this is part of the reason why the game is in the state that it is we have players who only care about themselves and at the mere hint of something being done to benefit others they immediatly say they will leave the game and take their bounteous money with them.
You're just one player and if changes came in that upset you but helped small fleets I'd return to the game and easily make up for your significant $$$ with my significant Pounds Sterlingx3
I really find all this negativity and hating / trolling on small fleets to be self defeating and makes me lose significant heart in the possibility of solidarity across the groups of players we have. I see the same thing with people trolling the KDF and to be honest it's just a distasteful waste of time and bits.
Again though, I'm just talking about scaling just costs to Fleet size, whereas your proposal also tweaks the returns. Most of the people who chime in with "Yeah! I want stuff!" just flat out want scaling on only the costs so they get stuff faster/cheaper, without giving anything up.
I'm kind of curious about other Fleet member activity as well, the UFP is actually a really old guild that predates STO and is basically a Star Trek fandom thing across multiple games. I don't know if our activity level is typical or atypical.
I don't deny that some people may want a free meal and it is F2P after-all but honestly I don't believe that most players voicing frustration want instant rewards.
For me I think the reason for this thread and the frustration is not about instant gratification, if it was they wouldn't being playing an MMO at all. It's about feeling like have a chance to progress at a viable rate regardless of how big or small your fleet is.
It's about the frustration about the lack of inclusion.
It's also just simply a bad idea that 70% of the end game items are locked away from a sizable chunk of the playerbase.
I honestly think with regards to mega-fleets that they are mostly inefficient and that to a certain extent Cryptic backed the wrong horse, however I am not saying there is no place for large fleets just that there seems to be a natural entropy and waste factor once you get beyond a couple of hundred players.
The truth is even if we implemented scaling whilst it would help small fleets who are based on real-life friendships or long standing virtual friendships would benefit but new fleets and non-fraternal small fleets would still encounter the crippling issue of there being little incentive to join a new T0 fleet or a reactivated T1-T3 fleet looking for players.
Comments
"Scaling" is the most ridiculously obvious way for large fleets to exploit in a way that would benefit them more than the current system. You could just kick everyone out/splinter the fleets into smaller sub-fleets when a progression project comes up to lower the upgrade requirements and once it's done, invite everyone back in to reap the rewards, until the next progression project comes up and rinse/repeat.
Raptr profile
I think you need to have all 5 in a team at the same time, so you'd need 5 pc's to do it.
Alsp the reason why I say 5 is because that is the minimum limit Cryptic set if Cryptic were happy to go lower I don't see a problem.
With regards to you later point I agree with this but it would just be easier have the facility available at Earth / Qo'Nos though the idea of a community starbase is a good one, especially if you can only access the shops after reaching personal FM thresholds or something along those lines.
As I said before having end game rewards that are unobtainable to soloists and the like is simply bad design.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
This would make no difference as if you kick the players the fleet will still take the same 10 months to Teir 5, this "exploit" is irreverent as it wouldn't work. You scale based on player input not fleet size.
The point here is you can have a 5 man fleet, ah 50 man fleet a 500 man fleet you can't get to Teir 5 any quicker than 10 months.
However as we've already concluded scaling would likely not be introduced because of the development time required and potentially poor ROI.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
Not a terrible idea, but listing fleets in any non-customizable order at all is not fair.
People would simply name their fleets something like "A111111111111" to get to the top of the list and nobody would ever see "Zeta-Zero Fleet".
It would be better to give people the option to search for a fleet based on fleet size, whether they have a website, open membership, etc. It would benefit everybody.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Hang on, I thought when we invited people to our base and they used our shops, they were buying from our unlocks and provisions. Is that not the case?
There are two kinds of equality. Equality of outcome, and equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome is inapplicable to a game - this would mean someone who plays for 5 minutes a day gets the same results as someone who grinds for 20 hours a day.
Equality of opportunity from a supplier would be a lack of bias towards any particular group of people.
If one person rents a video for $2.50, it costs $2.50 per person.
If ten people rent a video for $2.50, it costs $0.25 per person.
The supplier has set the same price for everyone. They have not given a bonus or penalty to anyone or shown any bias.
Scaling to size means that the sum total individual efforts will be worth more or less depending on how many people are working together, a strictly non-egalitarian penalty for cooperation. Scaling to time means a choice (less work and more waiting, or more work and less waiting) but not an advantage.
This cap already exists, because there are only 3 simultaneous 20 hour projects that can be run at the same time.
A 500 man Fleet won't be faster than a 100 man Fleet if 100 players are all you need to launch projects the moment they're ready.
No the point here is 5 playing for one hour each is equal to 30 players playing for 1 hour each, the individuals all play for the same amount of time (equal) the fleet they contribute towards receives the same progress.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
That is blatantly unfair and biased. The efforts of those 30 people is worth only 1/6th the efforts of those 5 people. One hour of their time only generates 1/6th the XP the latter group gets.
This is asking to be exempt from the consequences of your choices. You want to avoid whatever disadvantage you see from being in or creating a large Fleet, but want the innate advantage that comes from many people working towards a common cause.
One person working to buy something should take ten times as long as ten people working to buy that same something. (This factor is actually capped in STO - more people than necessary will not result in faster progression.)
Division of labor is the entire point of people working together. It is the basis of trade, our economy, and our civilization. Tasks insurmountable for one individual is made possible by the cooperation of many.
(The adage of "too many cooks" doesn't refer to collaboration, but what happens when people work at cross-purposes.)
I've been in small guilds in other MMOs, including WoW. This is actually the first large guild I've been a part of. I have heard people complain about it being too difficult or slow to advance, but until now I have never heard anyone suggest that our small guilds (usually <30) should be able to make progress on par with giant guilds (usually >300). That idea wouldn't fly anywhere else, why is it suddenly considered a valid idea here?
The problem right now is that it's too difficult to advance, but many people seem to be taking the opportunity to also request a bonus. The solution to the issue with difficulty is scaling costs to time. Scaling costs to size is just plain getting an advantage to progression.
Post #250. A scaling system that is not exploitable in this fashion.
Post #250. A scaling system that avoids this problem by giving the 30 people a base that can serve the needs of 30 people, while the 5 people get a base that can serve the needs of 5 people.
You're still not getting it. It's not a bonus that 5 players can access the same fleet provision as 30 in the same amount of time. There is no bonus there, there is no advantage, the 5 aren't getting special powers and as individuals they are working just as hard as other individuals in the bigger fleet.
My point here is to reward the work of individuals not their collective work which is simply iniquitous.
Once again you are using real world analogies that have no place in the game.
hat I propose is to do away completely with resource costs for Fleet XP and only have costs for construction of assets and costs of buying things from the shop. The actual fleet XP would accrue for every minute you are in a fleet action, alongside this I would want greater variety in fleet actions, though of course you could simply accrue fleet XP for play time alone. Though that would go against Cryptics belief that you should do fleet events for fleet rewards. Having said that they broke their own rule on that so why not.
Even of you are a solo player you should be able to accrue XP which will allow you to access the community fleet holdings. this would be personal to you.
You still have to spend time in game you still have customers coming in and paying for things.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
Yes this is a very good idea I back post #250
#2311#2700#2316#2500
The 30 people are each individually earning 16.7% that those 5 individuals are earning for exactly the same amount of work. How is that not a massive bonus to the work of those 5 individuals? Each hour of their work is worth 6 times that of the others!
Scaling cost by size is iniquitous. If one project generates 50 provisions, then the 5 people each get 10 provisions, but those 30 people each individually doing the same amount of work only get 1.67 provisions each. How is that in any way equitable or fair?
Oh, it's your turn to say "oh, that part of reality doesn't apply here" without any sort of justification?
30 should be six times more than 5. This applies for DPS, wealth, shield strength, hull strength, absolutely everything else in the game - but not for Fleet contributions?
You do realize that system does not scale by size?
If not for the unnecessarily complicated "upgrade/downgrade" aspect, the above would just be cost/reward scaling. With the "upgrade/downgrade" aspect, it becomes a cost/reward scaling system with additional prerequisites and penalties for choosing projects.
Nobody would argue that this gives a particular benefit to anyone. It's only a straight scaling of costs to size that unfairly rewards the work of those in smaller Fleets.
Oh dear, let me try this again for you...
why are you comparing the means when the only thing of value is the end product, each individual in the 30 man fleet is doing no more work than an individual in the 5 man fleet.
In the current system the individuals in the 5 man fleet have to as individuals do much more work than the individuals in the 30 man fleet to make the same progress. The larger fleet has the bonus, that is were the bonus lies, what I propose is to redress that bonus.
Therefore individuals in a small fleet put in just as much work as individuals in the large fleet for the same time scaled reward that unlike the current system would remove the bonus large fleets currently enjoy.
There is no justification for real world analogies in Star Trek Online, If this game was set to reflect real life then I could see it but we buy lockboxes with Zen that pop ships out of them... the idea that real world measurements have any relevance to this game is frankly nonsensical. It is entirely irrelevant that in the real world we have economies of scale and division of labour no such rules of economics need exist in this game and indeed if it was the case the game wouldn't be playable as we'd need 1000's of players working industrial fabricators just to build ships let alone fly them.
With regards to provisions this is simply wrong provisions would be generated by individuals through game-time so no they wont divide like that at all, 5 players get 1 provision each, 30 players get one provision each.
Just because the system in #250 does not scale by size does not mean it is not a good idea worth backing. I like the idea that no matter what size fleet your in your 1 hour is equal to someone else one hour in terms of contribution to progression. It damages no one and benefits all. That doesn't mean that alternatives like #250 is just as good if not better, I have no real bias towards the solution I offer, which is actually pretty exotic or alien to the way the current system works... probably not practical within Cryptics time / reward curve.
It is still worth debating. What I am not sure with regards to yourself is why you are so against small fleets having a perceived advantage, yet you have no problem with large fleets having an advantage which is the current system.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
This alone means that you are not talking about costs scaling to Fleet size, but also scaling the rewards.
The system as implemented gives no bonuses to larger Fleets, in fact it restricts larger Fleets by limiting the number of simultaneous projects that can be run. What gives larger numbers an advantage is the same bit of reality you appear to reject as being applicable to STO Fleets.
30 is six times more than 5.
30 ships will deal six times more DPS than 5 ships.
30 ships will deal six times more shields than 5 ships.
30 ships will deal six times more hull than 5 ships.
30 players will have six times more EC than 5 players.
30 players will have six times more Dilithium than 5 players.
30 players will have six times more time than 5 players.
30 man hours is six times more work completed than 5 man hours.
When every individual is equal, 30 will always have an advantage over 5 unless the 5 are given a bonus. This is simple math.
Scaling costs by size without scaling time and rewards means giving a bonus to smaller numbers, which is equivalent to penalizing larger groups. I have no problem with facing reality and accepting the concept of "numerical superiority", but I have a problem with any particular group being granted an advantage just because they keep complaining.
Yes what I am saying is provisions should be rewarded to individuals via time played I find the idea of provisioning projects to be flawed and a vector for potential abuse as they stand it causes problems with fleet politics. I would prefer to avoid that and instead give individuals provisions not pool them.
The reality you talk of is not relevant this is about time in game and reward not DPS. 5 Vs 10 in a PVP you both play for the same period of time and both receive the same rewards at the end regardless of the 5 man team getting their TRIBBLE handed to them. The irony of your example above is it proves my point. 15 players playing PVP regardless of what side you're on you play for the same amount of time and receive the same rewards. Indeed 14 Vs 1 would still yield the same individual rewards.
I understand you are in a mega-fleet and don't want anything to effect the position of large fleets but honestly I cannot see why giving small fleets a chance or indeed as you say giving them an advantage will have any effect at all on large fleets, because it will simply have no effect.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
Actually you don't. A decent computer actually can do up to 3 STO instances. And Second, you can easily hire people to start a Fleet, add the mules, and those who helped you start a fleet can go on their merry way. So such a system is easily subverted.
I agree, I made posts where I suggested that fleets could have an option to have a HUB as their headquarters than a Starbase. Since most of the resources are already available, it would cut down on a fleet's resources. And really would've been optimal for small fleets.
And Starbase goods aren't really unobtainable, they can get it, at a high cost of somehow earning Fleet Marks to buy a Fleet ship and the Advanced / Elite gear. But yes, it would've been better to think about such people in that regards.
Indeed it makes no sense to have large portions of the player base unable to access the majority of end-game items especially with the loss of the STF weapons and stores.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
Either you didn't read it or didn't understand it. That system scales by size - small fleets have the ability to pay less, which most people would agree is scaling by size.
It's not "unnecessarily complicated." It's necessary in order to allow fleets to change their size without abandoning all progress. A more draconian solution would be to disallow all aize changes, but that would cause a lot of unhappiness.
I'm arguing that the system gives significant benefit to small fleets.
The system is designed to create a situation whereby:
5 players put in a fixed amount of work (say, 1000 hours each over 10 months) and get a starbase with a capacity throughput that can support 5 players.
100 players put in a fixed amount of work (say, 1000 hours each over 10 months) and get a stabase with a capacity throughput that can support 100 players.
If you think that's unfair, then there's something incredibly wrong with your definitions.
Yes which seems fine to me and a lot more plausible within Cryptics current framework than mine but I see the same thing at the base that one players 1000 hours is worth the same as another's regardless of fleet size over same time period / cost value, The question is how does one implement this in STO. You seem to have though about it far more than I.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
True only if the scaling system makes it so.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
I am just trying to grasp what is the big issue here - do these 5 person fleets think they deserve a T5 starbase sometime this year or something? If 1 person can produce a T4 starbase, it still makes logical sense that under the same system 5 people should be able to get a T5 base eventually.
Is this what this thread is about then - rushing to have access to a T5 starbase?
According to our roster, we have 498 members. We have activity checks, so everyone is "active" and playing STO.
Roughly according to our Embassy leaderboard (counting screens of 22 members each):
154 have less than 5000 FC earned.
198 have less than 50,000 FC but more than 5000 FC earned.
66 have less than 100,000 FC but more than 50,000 FC earned.
So there's only 80 of us who were really pushing our Embassy projects forward. The top 3 are at 1.4 mil, 1.2 mil, and 1.0 mil. The next highest is 612k, and the other 76 of us are uniformly distributed between 500k and 100k.
The 154 account for 385,000 FC worth of contributions. (1.0%)
The 198 account for 5,445,000 FC worth of contributions. (14.4%)
The 66 account for 4,950,000 FC worth of contributions. (13.1%)
The 80 account for 27,012,000 FC worth of contributions. (71.5%)
16.1% of the Fleet contributed 71.5% of the resources to the Embassy.
Roughly according to our Starbase leaderboard (counting screens of 22 members each):
176 have less than 10,000 FC earned.
308 have less than 100,000 FC but more than 10,000 FC earned.
198 have less than 500,000 FC but more than 100,000 FC earned.
44 have less than 1,000,000 FC but more than 500,000 FC earned.
15 have less than 2,000,000 FC, but more than 1,000,000 FC earned.
5 have more than 2,000,000 FC, up to 2.6 mil earned.
The 176 account for 880,000 FC worth of contributions. (0.6%)
The 308 account for 16,940,000 FC worth of contributions. (11.7%)
The 198 account for 59,400,000 FC worth of contributions. (41.2%)
The top 64 account for 67,000,000 FC worth of contributions. (46.4%)
52.6% of the Fleet contributed 87.6% of the resources to the Starbase.
All 498 members are at least active on a monthly basis (we have activity checks). If you're not playing, you get booted out of the in-game Fleet to free up space. (You would still be on our out-of-game membership roster, and getting back into the in-game Fleet is as easy as asking an officer.) None are alts, which go into our Reserve Fleet. KDF alts go to our KDF Fleet.
If costs scale linearly as suggested suddenly half of our Fleet are a burden on the rest of us. There's over 100 people who would just be boosting up the cost for the rest of us. How is this not a penalty?
("Discount for smaller sizes" is literally exactly the same as "penalty for larger sizes", since it means additional members increase the costs you would otherwise pay.)
You misunderstood and/or I was unclear. I meant scaling costs (and only costs) according to size is unfair, not that your proposal (which also scales duration and reward) is unfair.
If costs are cheaper at 400 members rather than 500 members (discount for smaller size), then we would literally be paying more than necessary. That's a penalty for having 500 members instead of 400.
P.S. Yes, I know what "literally" means and I am using the actual definition, not valley-girl speak.
P.P.S. We have a lot of members, even if half don't contribute appreciably, but I've still seen projects stagnate for almost a week before somebody goes "Fine!" and buys stuff with EC and Dil.
Therefore a switch that would put them to "not contributing atm" would mitigate that problem I already proposed that if players take a break from the game they would be able to activate such a switch.
With regards to what I proposed if the player was one and playing they would automatically contribute XP to the base just by being logged on and playing for an hour. If they did not contribute to assets which would need resources as well as XP the that would be an issue but you could have once again have a switch to control that aspect.
The point here is there are ways to do this.
But as I said I believe what I am proposing is too byzantine for Cryptic such as they are to attempt to do, all I am seeking really is a way for the advantage larger fleets have to be redressed and some balance brought to the system, small fleet players and solo players should not be locked out of 70% of the end-game items, it's a bad business model and a bad game-model to do so.
You post on how your fleet works is a classic example of why large fleets are bad in the first place, the reality is your fleet is horribly inefficient it has members that serve no use and essentially are a burden and continue to be. Which just reinforces the anthropological line of thinking that suggests such a large community in this case is not really a community at all but a collection of cliques and really the core here of your fleet is actually much smaller than the bloat of it. This is why naturally we should be favoring smaller fleet units the benefits are myriad including less negative politics, less exploitation and less cruft, a closer knit community where people actively participate and care about each other and the fleet. What is occurring in your fleet is a natural trend towards around 80 members being the upper ceiling for involved participation and contribution. I wonder if we would see similar figures from other mega fleets.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
I'm kind of curious about other Fleet member activity as well, the UFP is actually a really old guild that predates STO and is basically a Star Trek fandom thing across multiple games. I don't know if our activity level is typical or atypical.
Yes. But you have to cloak it in concern for the long term health of the game. Otherwise it'd just look impatient and greedy.
Although to be honest - how would the devs even make that happen? Who would initiate it? Would the leadership make that decision only, or would a majority of the members have to vote?
It's a mess. Let them die.
20% of of any group does 80% of the work. This is a fact of life. It's as American as Apple Pie, and it allows our economy to grow. Nothing would put me off this game faster than enabling smaller fleets to match our efforts getting to T3, for less cost.
Hint to the devs - my significant $$$ would go elsewhere.
It's harsh - yes. But I think that anyone entering into Starbase development without realizing the astronomical cost IN ADVANCE needs to seriously have a conversation with their math teacher.
My Two Bits
Admiral Thrax
Lol, this is part of the reason why the game is in the state that it is we have players who only care about themselves and at the mere hint of something being done to benefit others they immediatly say they will leave the game and take their bounteous money with them.
You're just one player and if changes came in that upset you but helped small fleets I'd return to the game and easily make up for your significant $$$ with my significant Pounds Sterlingx3
I really find all this negativity and hating / trolling on small fleets to be self defeating and makes me lose significant heart in the possibility of solidarity across the groups of players we have. I see the same thing with people trolling the KDF and to be honest it's just a distasteful waste of time and bits.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
I don't deny that some people may want a free meal and it is F2P after-all but honestly I don't believe that most players voicing frustration want instant rewards.
For me I think the reason for this thread and the frustration is not about instant gratification, if it was they wouldn't being playing an MMO at all. It's about feeling like have a chance to progress at a viable rate regardless of how big or small your fleet is.
It's about the frustration about the lack of inclusion.
It's also just simply a bad idea that 70% of the end game items are locked away from a sizable chunk of the playerbase.
I honestly think with regards to mega-fleets that they are mostly inefficient and that to a certain extent Cryptic backed the wrong horse, however I am not saying there is no place for large fleets just that there seems to be a natural entropy and waste factor once you get beyond a couple of hundred players.
The truth is even if we implemented scaling whilst it would help small fleets who are based on real-life friendships or long standing virtual friendships would benefit but new fleets and non-fraternal small fleets would still encounter the crippling issue of there being little incentive to join a new T0 fleet or a reactivated T1-T3 fleet looking for players.
#2311#2700#2316#2500