The number of fleet members determined to be in the fleet can be based on a weighted moving average over set period of time, say over a two month period.
Then wouldn't it take 2 months for small fleets to see any benefit?
If you take the membership numbers for the last 2 months as of day X (the day this system goes into effect) they'd have to base it on the number of Accounts in the fleet, not the number of characters. I'm not sure if Cryptic tracks that or not.
There are quite frankly better options then some sort of scale based on size. Ones that are harder to exploit and won't cause as many issues. I also think any new system needs to benefit larger fleets as well as smaller ones in some way.
Scaling the cost based on size is a bit unfair to larger fleets, because it devalues their efforts thus far.
Capping the fleet size and scaling costs based on that capped number could make the time/effort the same for all fleets.
I don't think you'll ever see it where a 5-10 man fleet can progress as quickly as a 250 person fleet can. It's clear that they want the bigger fleets to get there faster then the small ones.
I'm all for a system that lets small 5-10 man fleets progress faster then they do now. But I don't think a 5-10 man fleet should advance as quickly as even a 40-50 person fleet does.
Why? How does it in any way impact your enjoyment of the game?
I think there should be some sort of advantage to being in a large fleet. The SB system was designed to give large fleets and advantage in speed over smaller ones.
Again I'll support making it easier for small fleets to advance, but they quite frankly should never get there as fast as larger fleets do.
5 person fleet should take longer then a 10 person fleet.
10 person fleets should take longer then 20 person fleets.
20 person fleets should take longer then 50 person fleets, and so on.
A larger group of people pooling their resources should get the same amount of work done sooner then smaller group can.
There should be some sort of reward for being part of a larger fleet when you consider how much more effort it takes to keep one running.
There is an advantage, more people to socialize and team with at any given time.
Having a larger SB helps with his however.
Having a large SB means people are more inclined to join an existing fleet then start one of their own. If a new fleet of 5-10 people can get to T3 before an existing fleet can get from T3 to T4, then those 5-10 people are more likely to start a new fleet then join an existing one.
That means larger fleets have an advantage in recruiting new members which is a benefit to everyone. So allowing small fleets to advance at the same rate as larger ones does effect the enjoyment of the larger fleet. It means they're less likely to get new members to play and socialize with.
It also means that you devalue the effort of the members of the larger fleet. Both in the cost of the SB and the fact that they had to work harder to keep their fleet going then a group of 5 RL friends did. They should see some sort of reward for that.
I do see what you're saying, however I don't agree.
Feel free, I don't feel any need to convince of you. You asked why this would mater to me, and I told you.
This is assuming folks would join a fleet solely because of a starbase.
No, but given a choice between joining a fleet that offers X, Y and Z, and starting a fleet that offers X and Y, but will have to work on Z. Most will join the fleet that already has what they want.
People don't join solely because of the SB size, but a large SB does have an advantage. It also is a demonstration of how well the fleet works together and how active it is.
At least that's my understanding of the proposal in this thread and it would be equal for everyone.
No it won't, because the cost/member doesn't matter. The cost to the fleet as a whole is the only value that IMO counts. That means a 5 person fleet paid much less then a 150 person fleet did.
I guess some just want to lord things over others.
Yes because clearly the desire to see the hard work providing me with something, means I want to lord something over others... :rolleyes:
I simply think there should be some sort of tangible advantage inherent in the Fleet Starbase system for larger fleets. It also means my fleet has an advantage in gaining new members which improves my enjoyment.
None of that has anything to do with lording it over others. If I felt that way, then I wouldn't offer the ideas I have to help out smaller fleets.
Then wouldn't it take 2 months for small fleets to see any benefit?
If you take the membership numbers for the last 2 months as of day X (the day this system goes into effect) they'd have to base it on the number of Accounts in the fleet, not the number of characters. I'm not sure if Cryptic tracks that or not.
That's why I suggested a weighted moving average. Giving the more recent data points gives more relevance for recent numbers than older data points do. It wont count as the most recent number, but will give a more realistic number for fleets that fluctuate, and fleets that are static won't be impacted pretty much at all.
There are quite frankly better options then some sort of scale based on size. Ones that are harder to exploit and won't cause as many issues. I also think any new system needs to benefit larger fleets as well as smaller ones in some way.
Scaling the cost based on size is a bit unfair to larger fleets, because it devalues their efforts thus far.
How does it devalue large fleets current efforts? They got where they did at a relatively low cost, and future costs wont be that heavy in relation to membership contribution. Scaling costs gives large fleets advantages from Economies of Scale but yet lets smaller fleets able to progress at a lower price than a fleet significantly larger than it is. Small fleets will still take longer to advance than larger fleets will, so larger fleets lose nothing. Having a small fleet pay the same price for leveling their SB as a very large fleet only serves to stagnate small fleets to the point of future abandonment and disdain for the system at all.
I still think there could be an alternative path of progress that helps small fleets but is less optimal for larger ones that would tend to follow the normal path.
I want to take some time to brainstorm this notion of alternative progression for a bit.
Let's say that the goal of a small fleet could be to either follow the standard "Build a Starbase" progression, or to build a lot of smaller "Minor Holdings" that replicate some, but not all, of what a Starbase can have. Unlike the Starbase, there may be fewer visual changes as you upgrade these Minor Holdings.
So let's say that there exists something called a "Fleet Depot" that any fleet can build, and let's stick it somewhere in Tau Dewa to distinguish it from the "Fleet Starbase" location.
There's nothing stopping a large fleet from building up their Depot, but the diminishing return is that it only duplicates a limited set of functions that the Starbase does and they might not want to divert resources to it.
At Tier 1, let's say the Depot allows Bank access as a basic function. There are no "Featured Projects" for Depots. Once the Depot is at Tier 1, let's say that a number of construction projects become available.
Instead of building a Shipyard, the Depot allows you to construct a basic Spacedock. Once the Tier 1 Spacedock is complete, you can undertake additional construction projects that will allow your Spacedock to build one kind of Tier 1 Fleet vessel per upgrade. At Tier 2, it will allow you to construct upgrades which allow you to build specific Tier 2 Fleet vessels. At Tier 3, the Spacedock caps out and lets you build specific Tier 3 Fleet vessels. There is no Tier 4 or 5 Spacedock.
At Tier 2, the Depot allows you to access Mail and construct a Starship Weapons Lab that allows you to provision Advanced Fleet Space Weapons.
At Tier 3, the Depot allows you to access the Exchange and to construct a Starship Propulsion Lab that allows you to provision Advanced Fleet Engines.
Now, Why?
What's the purpose of all this?
The Depot and it's construction projects can be built faster, cheaper, and easier than a Starbase. If all you want is the fastest and most economic way to get to building a Fleet Tactical Escort Retrofit, the Depot and its' Spacedock is the way to go. But if you want the flexibility of a full Shipyard to build any ship you want, you need to be building that instead and it will be cheaper than a Depot in the long run.
If a Large Fleet builds a Depot, they're basically getting a stripped down mini Starbase in an alternate location, they're duplicating effort, and they're probably better off concentrating on their Starbase. But if they find they have more resources than projects to use them on, they can decide to build up their Minor Holdings, too.
A Small Fleet, on the other hand, could concentrate on Minor Holdings like the Depot and specialize in the functionality they want at the cost of having less flexibility. If they grow their membership later on, they can switch back to building up their Starbase, or build it up over time.
With the right mix of Minor and Major Holdings, fleets would have the option to progress in any way they deem fit.
1. Start out Fast and Easy with Minor Holdings, then Build Up Major Holdings to achieve maximum capability over Time.
2. Start out Building Major Holdings and achieve maximum capability before branching out to Minor Holdings.
3. Balance construction across Major and Minor Holdings, mixing and matching to achieve your fleet's specific goals.
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
.....And another, no idea if anyone else has come up with this but if you have I agree then!
Work out the average size of a fleet since they were formed and use that as a their base to scale from. If it is weekly fleet size data since fleets were formed that is used then unless I am missing something it will not help to throw everyone out to get things cheaper and then invite them all back.
The only exploit that I can think of is that you must have a base amount for the minimum number of people in the fleet to scale from. Big fleets could use that to let their hundreds of fleet mates save costs on while they all take turns rotating in and out.
A way around that in theory could be to take the time people have been in the fleet into consideration, something like a veterans award. Give bonuses on fleet credits earned when contributing for instance, or give slight discounts in costs to buying things. It would probably be prudent to reset this veterans reward timer each time they leave a fleet. Doing that should also stop people from just paying to join a big fleet to buy stuff and then leave which would also be a boon to Cryptic.
A way around that in theory could be to take the time people have been in the fleet into consideration, something like a veterans award. Give bonuses on fleet credits earned when contributing for instance, or give slight discounts in costs to buying things. It would probably be prudent to reset this veterans reward timer each time they leave a fleet. Doing that should also stop people from just paying to join a big fleet to buy stuff and then leave which would also be a boon to Cryptic.
I'm not sure how this particular bit helps small fleets much, but a sort of longevity bonus for staying in the same fleet makes a certain amount of sense.
I would suggest that a longevity bonus could grant a fleet mark bonus similar to the ones you can buy from the fleet store for fleet credits. Except this would be "free" and it would represent the increased efficiency realized from experience operating in a specific organization over time.
On the other hand, it would benefit large fleets more than small fleets and additionally benefit older fleets with longtime members more than newer fleets.
How does this idea appeal to Cryptic's interests? And what impact would it ultimately have on the Community? How does it help the game to influence players to remain in one fleet?
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 criticize the game at times on this forum, but I try and keep that criticism constructive and realistic. Which frankly is way ahead of a lot of the recent drivel over how people in a 4 man fleet want the game to be the same as if it was 400.
I don't think that anyone in a small fleet really wants that. I'm in a tiny fleet, which is me and some IRL friends. We have a total of ten characters in IIRC and half of those are alts. I honestly don't care if we can get a huge starbase. I don't even really want one, because it doesn't really make sense for who and what we are. What I want is to be able to build something that's meaningful to us and appropriate to our needs, and the fleet system as it is doesn't allow for that.
We can't get cool/powerful fleet ships.
We can't get cool/powerful fleet items.
We can't get cool things for our starbase which is the same as anyone else's except that it's worse, because we don't have the time to grind for massive amounts of dilithium for special upgrades.
The only thing meaningful we can achieve is to advance our starbase in the exact same way and at the exact same costs as fleets with 500 active players, and that's profoundly discouraging. We just don't have the energy to do it, so the fleet system doesn't work for us. It's not drawing us into the game.
Someone in the big thread suggested that small fleets be limited to a "listening post" and not a real starbase. I thought his sentiment was wrongheaded but there's something in it regardless.
I'd love to have a tiny little listening post that's suited to our needs and provides us with meaningful experiences.
I'd love to have a variety of holdings we could choose from so that we could specialize in something we can come up with the resources to build, and have it be at least a little unique and meaningful to us.
I'd love to have fleet interaction so we can make specialization work for us by being able to support each other through the holdings we've specialized in, and be able to have access to interesting and powerful ships/gear, and thereby have meaningful relationships with other players without sacrificing the identity of our own fleet.
But for now all we have is stuff locked behind resource and time requirements that we can't really overcome, and which doesn't distinguish our fleet at all except as being basically pointless. That isn't fun.
And if you can't have fun, then what is the point?
I posted it some place around page 5 or 6 I think. But here's the gist of it.
Projects would have a slider, with one end being time, the other being resources. Move the slider down, and each project would take longer to do once started, but would require less resources. Move the slider to the other end and it would get done faster, but require more resources.
So if something costs 50 Item X, and 3 days. Slide it towards time and it would take only 15 of item X and 9 days. Slide it towards resources and it would take 125 of item X but be done in 18 hours.
That's a fairly rough idea of what I had in mind. It lets small fleets advance for less resources, but they pay for that in how long it takes to finish a project. Better IMO to wait a week for a project to finish, then to spend 2 weeks trying to gather the resources needed.
I don't think that anyone in a small fleet really wants that.
Actually there have been people in this tread who have said that very thing. That they think a small fleet should advance at the same speed as a large one does.
I'm not sure how this particular bit helps small fleets much, but a sort of longevity bonus for staying in the same fleet makes a certain amount of sense.
I would suggest that a longevity bonus could grant a fleet mark bonus similar to the ones you can buy from the fleet store for fleet credits. Except this would be "free" and it would represent the increased efficiency realized from experience operating in a specific organization over time.
On the other hand, it would benefit large fleets more than small fleets and additionally benefit older fleets with longtime members more than newer fleets.
How does this idea appeal to Cryptic's interests? And what impact would it ultimately have on the Community? How does it help the game to influence players to remain in one fleet?
To be honest I hadn't given it much more thought then what it took to post it. I think this was the third idea I have posted just to try and satisfy myself if nothing else that a different alternative that was more fairer was possible instead of what Cryptic went with, one suggestion was more of a what could have been but it's too late now though idea.
I will try to answer your questions though so here goes. It isn't meant to advantage big or small, it's an attempt at fairness although of course I could have missed some obvious exploit that someone might point out. Like I said in the first bit that wasn't quoted this should be based on a fleet size average and then scaled.
FLEET SIZE AVERAGE
It's finding a way to scale that has no obvious exploits that seems to be the hard part. I have no idea what info Cryptic tracks and how far back that goes but what we need is the fleet size info for a time period to use. In the part that you didn't quote I said about weekly data. You could use monthly data but if large fleets know that a size reading is taken at the end of a month they could abuse the data by having people leave before the reading is taken.
Ideally it would be best to check fleet size info in real time but I imagine that would be complex and resource hogging. Now as I said we need the size info for a set period to use to stop exploitation. This would work like a number of slots so if for example we used the last 50 weeks, a large fleet dropping all their players to get projects cheaper would gain little to nothing as that would only affect the next time slot and that is 1/50th. Sorry if it seems like I am talking down to you, I am just thinking aloud as I type.
BASE SCALE SIZE (or resources per person)
Just typed a fair bit out for this but wiped it as it should actually be simpler then I first thought hence the bit in brackets in the title. Cryptic just needs to work out how many resources are needed per person for the next project and scale that to the fleet size average number.
Your points
The longevity reward as you called it can be any incentive really, Cryptic could even give box gifts or daily buffs or something if they wanted to. They could even have different rewards for different amounts of time in the fleet so they start straight away and improve as time goes on. The point the awards/bonuses is to try and deter people from rotating in and out of fleets to keep that fleet's average size down but they would be cool anyway regardless.
A secondary affect of them would be to affect people who join big fleets to get things and then leave if Cryptic don't like that because you could reset their loyalty/longevity bonus when leaving a fleet. If the resource costs are scaled per person then it shouldn't even be a problem unless I am missing something because all is equal whether big/small and little difference in age in the fleet either as time passes.
The benefits to Cryptic with this system would be massive if done right as PR should be very positive, how can you go wrong when giving buffs away for free and all you ask for in return is fleet loyalty that is expected anyway? Giving smaller fleets a fair chance at similar time access to the same kit as other customers in larger fleets will also encourage more to pursue SB's instead of abandoning them. That should mean that Cryptic sell more as people chase projects that are not getting abandoned now. They also get extra sales from ships etc that they would not have gotten if people had given up.
Benefit to players depends on the formula decided upon to an extent. Working to the fleet size average it depends if they scale costs to a base scale rate of 25 or other number and if they scale up from there in individual per person amounts or blocks of 25's or whatever. Going with that sort of system should make things far cheaper then they are now for smaller fleets but obviously one man fleets wouldn't get as much of a reward as others would.
If however they used a resources per person number and scaled that to the fleet size average number for projects all should be equal for everyone. That obviously means that people in larger fleets will be paying more each then currently now but they needed to for the sake of fairness anyway. There is another twist to this though. People in small fleets wont have millions of fleet credits because of saddling all the costs themselves and people in big fleets will get access to more fleet credits because projects wont fill as fast. Player retention is a fleet problem not mine but the loyalty bonuses should help with that anyway.
I really hope that I am not missing something but by what I can see the benefits are good for all parties including Cryptic so positives all round and less grind for smaller fleets which frees up time.
Scaled projects seems to be a common and popular theme here. I'm not too sure that Cryptic will pursue that path, but there's a convincing argument that the members of a smaller fleet end up contributing a very disproportionate amount of resources and anything that balances the scales a bit more is welcome.
Lest someone misunderstand me, I am NOT arguing that small fleets should be able to match larger fleets in terms of how fast they can build. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect us to take longer.
What's not reasonable is completely stalling progress to the point where we pretty much lose the desire to try, and I have to confess that I'm just about there. I haven't completely given up, but it's no longer a main focus for me until I'm confident we can accumulate the fleet marks needed to complete projects.
The way things are working out, Cryptic might as well have capped small fleets at Tier3 because I'm not sure it's worth it to us to go any further. Anyone else feel that way?
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
The way things are working out, Cryptic might as well have capped small fleets at Tier3 because I'm not sure it's worth it to us to go any further.
Let me throw this idea out. Not sure how much people would like it but...
What if they did do that, but offer some way to buy select item unlocks as projects? Unlocking the Fleet Ship X could cost considerably less then Tier 5 starbase. But doing so wouldn't give little to no xp, wouldn't advance the base, ect... But would give people the option to buy the stuff they wanted.
Let me throw this idea out. Not sure how much people would like it but...
What if they did do that, but offer some way to buy select item unlocks as projects? Unlocking the Fleet Ship X could cost considerably less then Tier 5 starbase. But doing so wouldn't give little to no xp, wouldn't advance the base, ect... But would give people the option to buy the stuff they wanted.
Could work, but that seems like a half measure. If the concern is a lack of access to high tier items (which in my opinion is one of the biggest flaws of the fleet holding system) then why not just desynch functional gear acquisition (fleet ships, elite/advanced gear) from starbase tiers entirely?
Leave the starbase as a prestige thing with cosmetics (uniforms, titles, perhaps new ship costuming vfx options (think a new ship material)) to let fleets who had gone the extra mile have something shiny to show off, without putting smaller fleets at a disadvantage for not being able of overcoming the insane grind.
then why not just desynch functional gear acquisition (fleet ships, elite/advanced gear) from starbase tiers entirely?
That could work, but I think part of the idea is that they want the various tiers to offer more then just cosmetic fluff. They want there to be a tangible reward for reaching each tier.
So yes my idea was a half measure, but I considered it more along the line of a compromise. Meeting somewhere in the middle of how they want the system to work and what would help small fleets achieve the goals they wanted.
I posted it some place around page 5 or 6 I think. But here's the gist of it.
Projects would have a slider, with one end being time, the other being resources. Move the slider down, and each project would take longer to do once started, but would require less resources. Move the slider to the other end and it would get done faster, but require more resources.
So if something costs 50 Item X, and 3 days. Slide it towards time and it would take only 15 of item X and 9 days. Slide it towards resources and it would take 125 of item X but be done in 18 hours.
That's a fairly rough idea of what I had in mind. It lets small fleets advance for less resources, but they pay for that in how long it takes to finish a project. Better IMO to wait a week for a project to finish, then to spend 2 weeks trying to gather the resources needed.
Question. The time required, is that the time it takes between the supplying of all items needed to complete and the actual completion of the assignment (in order to start another)?
That could work, but I think part of the idea is that they want the various tiers to offer more then just cosmetic fluff. They want there to be a tangible reward for reaching each tier.
Which in theory, is a great idea. The problem is that those tangible rewards turned out to be so overwhelmingly powerful for a vast majority of players that they obsoleted a great deal of things.
That leaves only two options: make fleet gear less of an upgrade (which considering the amount of real money involved in say fleet ships would cause another riot), or don't make it effectively off limits for a not insignificant portion of the playerbase.
Question. The time required, is that the time it takes between the supplying of all items needed to complete and the actual completion of the assignment (in order to start another)?
If so, its an interesting concept.
If I'm remembering correctly from the proposal it's the time to completion of the project. So instead of 20 hours it would be 3 days, 6 days or what have you.
Comments
Then wouldn't it take 2 months for small fleets to see any benefit?
If you take the membership numbers for the last 2 months as of day X (the day this system goes into effect) they'd have to base it on the number of Accounts in the fleet, not the number of characters. I'm not sure if Cryptic tracks that or not.
There are quite frankly better options then some sort of scale based on size. Ones that are harder to exploit and won't cause as many issues. I also think any new system needs to benefit larger fleets as well as smaller ones in some way.
Scaling the cost based on size is a bit unfair to larger fleets, because it devalues their efforts thus far.
I don't think you'll ever see it where a 5-10 man fleet can progress as quickly as a 250 person fleet can. It's clear that they want the bigger fleets to get there faster then the small ones.
I'm all for a system that lets small 5-10 man fleets progress faster then they do now. But I don't think a 5-10 man fleet should advance as quickly as even a 40-50 person fleet does.
I think there should be some sort of advantage to being in a large fleet. The SB system was designed to give large fleets and advantage in speed over smaller ones.
Again I'll support making it easier for small fleets to advance, but they quite frankly should never get there as fast as larger fleets do.
5 person fleet should take longer then a 10 person fleet.
10 person fleets should take longer then 20 person fleets.
20 person fleets should take longer then 50 person fleets, and so on.
A larger group of people pooling their resources should get the same amount of work done sooner then smaller group can.
There should be some sort of reward for being part of a larger fleet when you consider how much more effort it takes to keep one running.
Having a larger SB helps with his however.
Having a large SB means people are more inclined to join an existing fleet then start one of their own. If a new fleet of 5-10 people can get to T3 before an existing fleet can get from T3 to T4, then those 5-10 people are more likely to start a new fleet then join an existing one.
That means larger fleets have an advantage in recruiting new members which is a benefit to everyone. So allowing small fleets to advance at the same rate as larger ones does effect the enjoyment of the larger fleet. It means they're less likely to get new members to play and socialize with.
It also means that you devalue the effort of the members of the larger fleet. Both in the cost of the SB and the fact that they had to work harder to keep their fleet going then a group of 5 RL friends did. They should see some sort of reward for that.
Feel free, I don't feel any need to convince of you. You asked why this would mater to me, and I told you.
No, but given a choice between joining a fleet that offers X, Y and Z, and starting a fleet that offers X and Y, but will have to work on Z. Most will join the fleet that already has what they want.
People don't join solely because of the SB size, but a large SB does have an advantage. It also is a demonstration of how well the fleet works together and how active it is.
No it won't, because the cost/member doesn't matter. The cost to the fleet as a whole is the only value that IMO counts. That means a 5 person fleet paid much less then a 150 person fleet did.
Yes because clearly the desire to see the hard work providing me with something, means I want to lord something over others... :rolleyes:
I simply think there should be some sort of tangible advantage inherent in the Fleet Starbase system for larger fleets. It also means my fleet has an advantage in gaining new members which improves my enjoyment.
None of that has anything to do with lording it over others. If I felt that way, then I wouldn't offer the ideas I have to help out smaller fleets.
And that has nothing to do with the Starbase system.
That's why I suggested a weighted moving average. Giving the more recent data points gives more relevance for recent numbers than older data points do. It wont count as the most recent number, but will give a more realistic number for fleets that fluctuate, and fleets that are static won't be impacted pretty much at all.
Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_average#Weighted_moving_average
I am all ears to hear your idea.
How does it devalue large fleets current efforts? They got where they did at a relatively low cost, and future costs wont be that heavy in relation to membership contribution. Scaling costs gives large fleets advantages from Economies of Scale but yet lets smaller fleets able to progress at a lower price than a fleet significantly larger than it is. Small fleets will still take longer to advance than larger fleets will, so larger fleets lose nothing. Having a small fleet pay the same price for leveling their SB as a very large fleet only serves to stagnate small fleets to the point of future abandonment and disdain for the system at all.
I want to take some time to brainstorm this notion of alternative progression for a bit.
Let's say that the goal of a small fleet could be to either follow the standard "Build a Starbase" progression, or to build a lot of smaller "Minor Holdings" that replicate some, but not all, of what a Starbase can have. Unlike the Starbase, there may be fewer visual changes as you upgrade these Minor Holdings.
So let's say that there exists something called a "Fleet Depot" that any fleet can build, and let's stick it somewhere in Tau Dewa to distinguish it from the "Fleet Starbase" location.
There's nothing stopping a large fleet from building up their Depot, but the diminishing return is that it only duplicates a limited set of functions that the Starbase does and they might not want to divert resources to it.
At Tier 1, let's say the Depot allows Bank access as a basic function. There are no "Featured Projects" for Depots. Once the Depot is at Tier 1, let's say that a number of construction projects become available.
Instead of building a Shipyard, the Depot allows you to construct a basic Spacedock. Once the Tier 1 Spacedock is complete, you can undertake additional construction projects that will allow your Spacedock to build one kind of Tier 1 Fleet vessel per upgrade. At Tier 2, it will allow you to construct upgrades which allow you to build specific Tier 2 Fleet vessels. At Tier 3, the Spacedock caps out and lets you build specific Tier 3 Fleet vessels. There is no Tier 4 or 5 Spacedock.
At Tier 2, the Depot allows you to access Mail and construct a Starship Weapons Lab that allows you to provision Advanced Fleet Space Weapons.
At Tier 3, the Depot allows you to access the Exchange and to construct a Starship Propulsion Lab that allows you to provision Advanced Fleet Engines.
Now, Why?
What's the purpose of all this?
The Depot and it's construction projects can be built faster, cheaper, and easier than a Starbase. If all you want is the fastest and most economic way to get to building a Fleet Tactical Escort Retrofit, the Depot and its' Spacedock is the way to go. But if you want the flexibility of a full Shipyard to build any ship you want, you need to be building that instead and it will be cheaper than a Depot in the long run.
If a Large Fleet builds a Depot, they're basically getting a stripped down mini Starbase in an alternate location, they're duplicating effort, and they're probably better off concentrating on their Starbase. But if they find they have more resources than projects to use them on, they can decide to build up their Minor Holdings, too.
A Small Fleet, on the other hand, could concentrate on Minor Holdings like the Depot and specialize in the functionality they want at the cost of having less flexibility. If they grow their membership later on, they can switch back to building up their Starbase, or build it up over time.
With the right mix of Minor and Major Holdings, fleets would have the option to progress in any way they deem fit.
1. Start out Fast and Easy with Minor Holdings, then Build Up Major Holdings to achieve maximum capability over Time.
2. Start out Building Major Holdings and achieve maximum capability before branching out to Minor Holdings.
3. Balance construction across Major and Minor Holdings, mixing and matching to achieve your fleet's specific goals.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Work out the average size of a fleet since they were formed and use that as a their base to scale from. If it is weekly fleet size data since fleets were formed that is used then unless I am missing something it will not help to throw everyone out to get things cheaper and then invite them all back.
The only exploit that I can think of is that you must have a base amount for the minimum number of people in the fleet to scale from. Big fleets could use that to let their hundreds of fleet mates save costs on while they all take turns rotating in and out.
A way around that in theory could be to take the time people have been in the fleet into consideration, something like a veterans award. Give bonuses on fleet credits earned when contributing for instance, or give slight discounts in costs to buying things. It would probably be prudent to reset this veterans reward timer each time they leave a fleet. Doing that should also stop people from just paying to join a big fleet to buy stuff and then leave which would also be a boon to Cryptic.
I'm not sure how this particular bit helps small fleets much, but a sort of longevity bonus for staying in the same fleet makes a certain amount of sense.
I would suggest that a longevity bonus could grant a fleet mark bonus similar to the ones you can buy from the fleet store for fleet credits. Except this would be "free" and it would represent the increased efficiency realized from experience operating in a specific organization over time.
On the other hand, it would benefit large fleets more than small fleets and additionally benefit older fleets with longtime members more than newer fleets.
How does this idea appeal to Cryptic's interests? And what impact would it ultimately have on the Community? How does it help the game to influence players to remain in one fleet?
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I don't think that anyone in a small fleet really wants that. I'm in a tiny fleet, which is me and some IRL friends. We have a total of ten characters in IIRC and half of those are alts. I honestly don't care if we can get a huge starbase. I don't even really want one, because it doesn't really make sense for who and what we are. What I want is to be able to build something that's meaningful to us and appropriate to our needs, and the fleet system as it is doesn't allow for that.
We can't get cool/powerful fleet ships.
We can't get cool/powerful fleet items.
We can't get cool things for our starbase which is the same as anyone else's except that it's worse, because we don't have the time to grind for massive amounts of dilithium for special upgrades.
The only thing meaningful we can achieve is to advance our starbase in the exact same way and at the exact same costs as fleets with 500 active players, and that's profoundly discouraging. We just don't have the energy to do it, so the fleet system doesn't work for us. It's not drawing us into the game.
Someone in the big thread suggested that small fleets be limited to a "listening post" and not a real starbase. I thought his sentiment was wrongheaded but there's something in it regardless.
I'd love to have a tiny little listening post that's suited to our needs and provides us with meaningful experiences.
I'd love to have a variety of holdings we could choose from so that we could specialize in something we can come up with the resources to build, and have it be at least a little unique and meaningful to us.
I'd love to have fleet interaction so we can make specialization work for us by being able to support each other through the holdings we've specialized in, and be able to have access to interesting and powerful ships/gear, and thereby have meaningful relationships with other players without sacrificing the identity of our own fleet.
But for now all we have is stuff locked behind resource and time requirements that we can't really overcome, and which doesn't distinguish our fleet at all except as being basically pointless. That isn't fun.
And if you can't have fun, then what is the point?
I posted it some place around page 5 or 6 I think. But here's the gist of it.
Projects would have a slider, with one end being time, the other being resources. Move the slider down, and each project would take longer to do once started, but would require less resources. Move the slider to the other end and it would get done faster, but require more resources.
So if something costs 50 Item X, and 3 days. Slide it towards time and it would take only 15 of item X and 9 days. Slide it towards resources and it would take 125 of item X but be done in 18 hours.
That's a fairly rough idea of what I had in mind. It lets small fleets advance for less resources, but they pay for that in how long it takes to finish a project. Better IMO to wait a week for a project to finish, then to spend 2 weeks trying to gather the resources needed.
Actually there have been people in this tread who have said that very thing. That they think a small fleet should advance at the same speed as a large one does.
USS WARRIOR NCC 1720 Commanding Officer
Star Trek Gamers
To be honest I hadn't given it much more thought then what it took to post it. I think this was the third idea I have posted just to try and satisfy myself if nothing else that a different alternative that was more fairer was possible instead of what Cryptic went with, one suggestion was more of a what could have been but it's too late now though idea.
I will try to answer your questions though so here goes. It isn't meant to advantage big or small, it's an attempt at fairness although of course I could have missed some obvious exploit that someone might point out. Like I said in the first bit that wasn't quoted this should be based on a fleet size average and then scaled.
FLEET SIZE AVERAGE
It's finding a way to scale that has no obvious exploits that seems to be the hard part. I have no idea what info Cryptic tracks and how far back that goes but what we need is the fleet size info for a time period to use. In the part that you didn't quote I said about weekly data. You could use monthly data but if large fleets know that a size reading is taken at the end of a month they could abuse the data by having people leave before the reading is taken.
Ideally it would be best to check fleet size info in real time but I imagine that would be complex and resource hogging. Now as I said we need the size info for a set period to use to stop exploitation. This would work like a number of slots so if for example we used the last 50 weeks, a large fleet dropping all their players to get projects cheaper would gain little to nothing as that would only affect the next time slot and that is 1/50th. Sorry if it seems like I am talking down to you, I am just thinking aloud as I type.
BASE SCALE SIZE (or resources per person)
Just typed a fair bit out for this but wiped it as it should actually be simpler then I first thought hence the bit in brackets in the title. Cryptic just needs to work out how many resources are needed per person for the next project and scale that to the fleet size average number.
Your points
The longevity reward as you called it can be any incentive really, Cryptic could even give box gifts or daily buffs or something if they wanted to. They could even have different rewards for different amounts of time in the fleet so they start straight away and improve as time goes on. The point the awards/bonuses is to try and deter people from rotating in and out of fleets to keep that fleet's average size down but they would be cool anyway regardless.
A secondary affect of them would be to affect people who join big fleets to get things and then leave if Cryptic don't like that because you could reset their loyalty/longevity bonus when leaving a fleet. If the resource costs are scaled per person then it shouldn't even be a problem unless I am missing something because all is equal whether big/small and little difference in age in the fleet either as time passes.
The benefits to Cryptic with this system would be massive if done right as PR should be very positive, how can you go wrong when giving buffs away for free and all you ask for in return is fleet loyalty that is expected anyway? Giving smaller fleets a fair chance at similar time access to the same kit as other customers in larger fleets will also encourage more to pursue SB's instead of abandoning them. That should mean that Cryptic sell more as people chase projects that are not getting abandoned now. They also get extra sales from ships etc that they would not have gotten if people had given up.
Benefit to players depends on the formula decided upon to an extent. Working to the fleet size average it depends if they scale costs to a base scale rate of 25 or other number and if they scale up from there in individual per person amounts or blocks of 25's or whatever. Going with that sort of system should make things far cheaper then they are now for smaller fleets but obviously one man fleets wouldn't get as much of a reward as others would.
If however they used a resources per person number and scaled that to the fleet size average number for projects all should be equal for everyone. That obviously means that people in larger fleets will be paying more each then currently now but they needed to for the sake of fairness anyway. There is another twist to this though. People in small fleets wont have millions of fleet credits because of saddling all the costs themselves and people in big fleets will get access to more fleet credits because projects wont fill as fast. Player retention is a fleet problem not mine but the loyalty bonuses should help with that anyway.
I really hope that I am not missing something but by what I can see the benefits are good for all parties including Cryptic so positives all round and less grind for smaller fleets which frees up time.
Scaled projects seems to be a common and popular theme here. I'm not too sure that Cryptic will pursue that path, but there's a convincing argument that the members of a smaller fleet end up contributing a very disproportionate amount of resources and anything that balances the scales a bit more is welcome.
Lest someone misunderstand me, I am NOT arguing that small fleets should be able to match larger fleets in terms of how fast they can build. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect us to take longer.
What's not reasonable is completely stalling progress to the point where we pretty much lose the desire to try, and I have to confess that I'm just about there. I haven't completely given up, but it's no longer a main focus for me until I'm confident we can accumulate the fleet marks needed to complete projects.
The way things are working out, Cryptic might as well have capped small fleets at Tier3 because I'm not sure it's worth it to us to go any further. Anyone else feel that way?
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Let me throw this idea out. Not sure how much people would like it but...
What if they did do that, but offer some way to buy select item unlocks as projects? Unlocking the Fleet Ship X could cost considerably less then Tier 5 starbase. But doing so wouldn't give little to no xp, wouldn't advance the base, ect... But would give people the option to buy the stuff they wanted.
Could work, but that seems like a half measure. If the concern is a lack of access to high tier items (which in my opinion is one of the biggest flaws of the fleet holding system) then why not just desynch functional gear acquisition (fleet ships, elite/advanced gear) from starbase tiers entirely?
Leave the starbase as a prestige thing with cosmetics (uniforms, titles, perhaps new ship costuming vfx options (think a new ship material)) to let fleets who had gone the extra mile have something shiny to show off, without putting smaller fleets at a disadvantage for not being able of overcoming the insane grind.
That could work, but I think part of the idea is that they want the various tiers to offer more then just cosmetic fluff. They want there to be a tangible reward for reaching each tier.
So yes my idea was a half measure, but I considered it more along the line of a compromise. Meeting somewhere in the middle of how they want the system to work and what would help small fleets achieve the goals they wanted.
Question. The time required, is that the time it takes between the supplying of all items needed to complete and the actual completion of the assignment (in order to start another)?
If so, its an interesting concept.
Which in theory, is a great idea. The problem is that those tangible rewards turned out to be so overwhelmingly powerful for a vast majority of players that they obsoleted a great deal of things.
That leaves only two options: make fleet gear less of an upgrade (which considering the amount of real money involved in say fleet ships would cause another riot), or don't make it effectively off limits for a not insignificant portion of the playerbase.
If I'm remembering correctly from the proposal it's the time to completion of the project. So instead of 20 hours it would be 3 days, 6 days or what have you.