Oh, I know. Was just saying that certain things never change. Everyone wants to seem bigger than they really are.
I still put forth the challenge to Cryptic to let us know how many real, active accounts they currently have. I don't care about a 2 year old account that hasn't been touched since it was opened. I wanna see how many people log on at least every other day for the last couple of months. Those are the people who really play the game.
Something tells me they will never do this. But hey, what do I know.
I know that the EP of this game has made me seriously reconsider my expenditures in it, due to his actions and attitude, that I know.
Something tells me they will never do this. But hey, what do I know.
I know that the EP of this game has made me seriously reconsider my expenditures in it, due to his actions and attitude, that I know.
I know blizzard (the makers of WOW) have no problem letting us know how many they have playing their games. Why is it so hard for Cryptic to do the same? At it's peak, WoW had something like 13m players. Now it's way down, but that's to be expected. You can just keep on that pace forever. At least I liked the fact that they were straight with us about their growth, their plans, and with their patch notes. There were no stealth patches done. If a patch came out, we were told why and what it did. It wasn't something like "General Improvements" which is a statement that basically means "We're making changes we don't really want you to know about, but affect you anyway."
It is just so obvious what the player base wants, yet they are still sticking with this decision. I can't understand why they would want to upset the people that keep them working.
No, I am not who you think I am. I am someone different. I am instead a banana.
Flaming and/or Trolling
You may not post content which contains insults to other users or Perfect World Entertainment Staff, are specifically made to create undue discontent on the forums, disturbances in forum threads, pick fights or otherwise promote unfriendly conversation.
...and you think that calling all those who disagree with you obnoxious is not flaming eh.....
and then there was your post inserting real world party politics.
Do you think we can not read.....
I was accused of being in a party, likely Republican, just denying that accusation
Collective is one of those fleets with more on record than that play. This is due to we respect that people have jobs and lives and MANY are casual players. We have those that are off on miliatary duty, do not play during the college school year, people with illnesses and injuries that do not allow them to play... and many more legit excuses, of which leaves some that just linger and have several alts.
Ah, first, I am not arguing with your statement, but showing that you are right, and, and at least in our case, it is this way for a reason. In fact, our more active players split off into their own, with little hard feelings because of our stance. That said... to continue:
We would love to be a fleet that was in-game all the time. Most of us love the game and many of those "sleeper" members have returned lately and are carrying the fleet forward.
We welcome those that play for the enjoyment, but cannot continuously play. We look forward to, hope, and expect others that have other commitments will join us.
Therefore, we hurt in way things are set up. Partly, it is rightfully so... neither do we put the effort into it as full time players can nor can we expect to. The bothersome part is that the rewards of being a full time fleet off balance us in aspects of the game to include PvP.
Casual players in more hardcore fleets tend to be a bit outcast, although I know many exceptions.
Without posting all other ideas, the Captain count cap is the wrong approach... instead... make it a number of players in a fleet. Who cares how many Captains they have... that is limited in other ways... and they can only play one Captain at a time.
Another is to have large and small missions. Large and small fleets can choose either, but large missions take more time and greater rewards, smaller missions are the exact same, except scaled down. Large fleets would lean towards doing the one large mission and not constantly be updating missions and smaller fleets would lean towards the smaller missions as not to become annoyed with that huge mission lingering on the list for so long.
Second, we casual players do not expect to be at the same level as the hardcore players, but we do expect to be competative. We casual players, I would bet (without access to the statistics) make up most of the players in the game... who does not have a job, schooling, family, and other committments that STO is wonderful and it is escape from real life (RL), but, in the end, it is just a game... and a social means for us.
Thanks for listening. I hope this is inline with what you were trying to project with some semi-concrete examples thereof.
This needs to be changed back until there is an alternative in place to make up for the FM they have removed. We should be able to FM on any mission that requires teaming. Taking out the FM without additional options isn't going to help what is being deemed a shortfall.
I think one of the biggest problems, the one that angers alot of people, is we see the games real potential, and then we have to stand by helpless and watch Cryptic TRIBBLE it away...
A reasonable compromise suggested in game that I heard was instead of removing FM for foundry entirely, it should be for certain foundry missions that need groups to complete this would be more in line with what devs wanted that FM be earned for group activity.
I think one of the biggest problems, the one that angers alot of people, is we see the games real potential, and then we have to stand by helpless and watch Cryptic TRIBBLE it away...
What gets us even more upset is that they think we are too stupid to know when we are getting the shaft. Really? You picked the players of a game like STAR TREK online to try and dupe? Why not just try and rip a million dollars from Warren Buffet in a stock swap?
No, I am not who you think I am. I am someone different. I am instead a banana.
I think one of the biggest problems, the one that angers alot of people, is we see the games real potential, and then we have to stand by helpless and watch Cryptic TRIBBLE it away...
It's the way of the fast buck.
Long-term sustainability is being sacrificed for short-term profit - (sadly) understandable from a business point of view but if there was any IP to build a long-term, sustainable MMO around, Star Trek was it.
I've noticed that, as well. Any of the pics of people showing off tier 5 starbases shows their sci and engineering are at tier 3 or tier 4 while military has gone up to 5. Those starbases aren't finished yet. Nice try.
I would suspect that the shipyard is by far the most cared-about part of any of the starbases. Some people don't even think that the fleet gear is worth much of anything due to poor modifiers, plus the fact that everything but the weapons breaks sets - which, by the time you can afford and use Mk XII ultra-rare gear, you are probably trying to acquire. And the weapons seem to have the worst mods of all in the shape of [Dmg]x3, which is almost universally panned as garbage.
This is probably why Cryptic may want to slow starbase progression down - the sweet, tasty nougat center has been hit, and the somewhat dry chocolate outside has lost its luster, as it were, as a result.
What gets us even more upset is that they think we are too stupid to know when we are getting the shaft. Really? You picked the players of a game like STAR TREK online to try and dupe? Why not just try and rip a million dollars from Warren Buffet in a stock swap?
Most people know they are being shafted.
But it's Star Trek. Star Trek... So we will keep coming back...
I don't want to sound like a troll - but seriously how are there so many people who didn't understand that the fleet system favours larger groups. Simple math here. Just as in the real world, those with the most contributors to a group wins the game. They will always be ahead.
Because Cryptic said it was designed not to and people assumed easier fleet marks were one means of correcting against slow progress by smaller fleets.
Heck, when they added fleet marks to Foundry missions, I did a double take.
It would have made more sense for Foundry missions to award 10 (making them the worst source of FMs but a viable one, especially once IOR became doable every half hour -- still slower than fleet progress) and Officer of the Watch to award 50, because it's daily and requires going to your starbase for no real other reason.
It might have made sense to go from 50 FM for IOR to 10 or even 1 when IOR went from daily to every half hour. (1 would have been roughly the same rate per day as the 50 daily.)
But in terms of human psychology when it comes to buying/spending (and I could cite this one), the distance from 1 to 0 is greater than the distance from 1 to 1000. Zero is a wildly distortionary number going from any quantity.
It should be obvious from a F2P perspective. When you make a game free, it's dramatically different than if you make it even a $1 a month sub game.
And when people are used to getting 50 of something, reducing that to a number as low as 1 is a balancing pass but reducing to 0 is a radical paradigm shift.
I think it was a mistake to keep it at 50 when IOR went from daily to hourly. But they could have made it 5 and the net result would be people playing more without Foundry missions being the best source of FM to a point where other content is trivialized.
But there is a world of difference between 5 and 0.
This is a true fact. Because in no other game could I be this unhappy, and still log in to play...
Aww!! Bumble!
Go take a break - watch your favourite Star Trek movie or show - read some of the novels and then come back - there's nothing nothing in this world that's worth making yourself unhappy over.
This is how a modern business works. You look at your customer base, monitor trends, and adapt processes to better achieve your goal of profitability through continuous growth.
You don't do things based solely on a customers verbal feedback. But it guides your data mining efforts to see if what you're saying is valid.
Credit card companies can predict if you'er cheating on your wife based on usage profiles. Political parties know how you can be swayed by which sites you visit (used to great effect last election).
I want a financially profitable STO/PWE. That means more Trek, and potentially more fun. What other Star Trek game has lasted this long? Where are they now?
Admiral Thrax
No. It's not.
It's how a modern data analysis firm works. Which is one major component of a business.
A modern business has also abandoned the production-oriented model as the business' paradigm and has adopted a marketing-oriented model with a focus on the crafted, modeled, and artfully designed customer experience.
The data is only valuable to the extent that you ask the right questions and have human-oriented, service-oriented people drafting and implementing strategy and rollout to streamline the customer experience.
Go take a break - watch your favourite Star Trek movie or show - read some of the novels and then come back - there's nothing nothing in this world that's worth making yourself unhappy over.
*hugs!!*
No hugs allowed!!!! Whips out disruptor compression pistol and shoots dead every tribble in the room .
Here were my 2 suggestions to help out with the situation that could be done immediately:
1. Add a token amount of fleet marks to STF - say 5 for Normal and 10 for elite
2. Bases were made to be social hubs but they are almost always empty. I belong to one of the Largest KDF fleets in the Game with over 400 active member - (500 cap due to some people having a few alts) But there is almost no-one at this beautiful base with every addition.
My suggestion which would be to drastically increase the "officer of the watch" daily to reward 50 fleet marks. This would get a lot more people out to the base.
I hope that this thread remain somewhere where you can read it. And for the other players - I would ask that only constructive and positive responses be left. 60+ pages of ranting helps no-one and anything left in those threads now just gets buried in nowhere land.
Thanks.
I agree with both of these options.
5 FMs is basically nothing once you get up to the higher tiers (if not before), and time-wise is a fairly pointless investment. While the missions are a bit unique, they aren't the kind that most people would want to grind, or do every day.
And arguably FMs should be part of the STFs - multiplayer content in general is dealing with a fleet, even if they only band together for a short while, it is still a group effort against a larger foe, and teamwork should be rewarded.
I would propose the following changes to the fleet marks system:
1) Individual projects, or projects with specific groups, with lower fleet mark requirements; something like a shared reputation system. Less payout, but you could actually use small amounts of fleet marks immediately and see real progress. Even if this is mathematically more expensive in fleet marks than huge projects, if 2-3 (or even one) person come together and see a small amount of progress QUICKLY I think that this would help greatly.
2) Have the person playing the Foundry mission choose - FMs, or dil. And if you really want to restrict it only offer the FMs once every twenty hours or something. That way people get at least the 50 credit fix they're after.
3) Consider adding FMs to STFs - maybe make it part of the optional?
4) Make FMs an optional reward for several other missions (certain episodes perhaps?) This would actually make grinding episodic content a bit more likely and useful,.
There are a few others I may post later but can't recall/articulate right now.
Anyway, I think Cryptic is missing something big here - that FMs are somewhat difficult to get and involve usomewhat uninspired mission options. Foundry-based rewards allow for a lot more variety.
Also, while a certain amount of artificial stalling is expected - some people can mega-grind content a hundred times as fast as it can be developed and deployed - restricting resources this way only breeds frustration, and I am hard pressed to see how it serves even short-term economic interests. This also hurts the Foundry - especially if they're looking to it as a source for large amounts of episode-like content, the last thing they want to do is alienate the people they're trying to sell it to.
That said, these are just my thoughts, and I don't care all THAT much about Foundry FMs myself, but I can definitely see the concerns of those who do, so I thought I'd chime in.
Devs, if you're reading it, please keep what I've said in mind. I think that there are a lot of ways this can be worked around, but starting with the nerf bat is only going to frustrate people, especially when it's stealth-included. There are too many players for it not to be noticed by SOMEONE willing to say something, as many Internet companies have found the hard way.
Go take a break - watch your favourite Star Trek movie or show - read some of the novels and then come back - there's nothing nothing in this world that's worth making yourself unhappy over.
*hugs!!*
I was actually debating re-reading Dreadnought! (Star Trek, No 29) by Diane Carey circa 1999..:P
The fleetmarks thing kinda stinks for small fleets that can't farm them anymore
but!
the built-in dilithium rewards are great for foundry missions as that means we don't have to pick-up two missions and the scaling means we don't have to create a mission with the best time-to-reward ratio
I'd actually like to point out that I don't think scaling fleet requirements work at all.
I'm an honest player. And even I can pretty easily see that let's say I have a 50 man fleet. I kick out 40 players before I select a project. Then after its price is set low I re-invite those 40 guys who kick in resources. Repeat.
It's way too easy to exploit without adding a ton of lockdowns, cooldowns, and all sorts of nonsense that just isn't worth going through.
It's a nice idea in theory but sorry I don't see how it's remotely workable in reality.
The only solution to it I see is that you'd need an option to set a max player cap *when you found your fleet* that would establish your price range. For instance when you found your fleet you assign yourself a 50 player limit, which then assigns you Cost Set X, as opposed to a 250 player limit where you'd have Cost Set Y.
But if that happened, fleets would quickly run into the "hey we have 50 players and 7 of them are actually contributing, this sucks" problem, and they'll want a magic fix for that too.
This isn't nearly as easy to fix as some people are pretending. Sorry.
"We are smart." - Grebnedlog
Member of Alliance Central Command/boq botlhra'ghom
rofl... No one understands. As far as many of us are concerned, you made the small fleet handicap to gain wealth. Regardless about how you rationalize Cryptic's actions, the real reason why this system was made was to generate revenue. If you guys actually cared about 'fun', Cryptic would have solved these issues many moons ago.
It's how a modern data analysis firm works. Which is one major component of a business.
A modern business has also abandoned the production-oriented model as the business' paradigm and has adopted a marketing-oriented model with a focus on the crafted, modeled, and artfully designed customer experience.
The data is only valuable to the extent that you ask the right questions and have human-oriented, service-oriented people drafting and implementing strategy and rollout to streamline the customer experience.
No idea which business your talking about. Airlines are rated as having some of the poorest customer service and rude flight attendants. Facebook and Google basically don't even have customer service. Most businesses have moved towards cheap products and little to no customer support. The same applies to most manufacturers of computer components: ASUS, Sapphire, MSI, and ASROCK-all have greatly reduced customer support within the last 5-7 years.
You talk a big game with the words you use leviathon but honestly, paradigms and drafting implement strategy and roll out are buzzwords that basically mean nothing unless businesses can back up that nonsense with real growth and a pleased and loyal customer base. Most of that buzzword speak is nonsense that was invented by a group of clever executives to confuse low to mid level workers so that they could never understand the decisions that were made by the top level guys.
"streamlining customer experience" You've got to be joking? What does that actually mean?
Go take a break - watch your favourite Star Trek movie or show - read some of the novels and then come back - there's nothing nothing in this world that's worth making yourself unhappy over.
*hugs!!*
[not_quite_serious]Hey kaz, our task masters wanted me to pass along a message, telling you to get back to the grind![/not_quite_serious]
In all seriousness, we do have a perceived shortfall of FM and a dire lack of actual team work. If the powers that be really want to encourage teamwork, then perhaps a separate IOR style mission rewarding dil and FM for running a mission as a team. I do mean any mission be it foundry, episode, pve whatever.
That might just get our fleets running again.
78 pages thus far not including the first thread, i think people dont like the change there cryptic, make your fans happy if not we gonna walk.. just sayin.
Comments
Something tells me they will never do this. But hey, what do I know.
I know that the EP of this game has made me seriously reconsider my expenditures in it, due to his actions and attitude, that I know.
Sparing you a rant, the short answer is: yes, Cryptic has absolutely been less than truthful about things.
I know blizzard (the makers of WOW) have no problem letting us know how many they have playing their games. Why is it so hard for Cryptic to do the same? At it's peak, WoW had something like 13m players. Now it's way down, but that's to be expected. You can just keep on that pace forever. At least I liked the fact that they were straight with us about their growth, their plans, and with their patch notes. There were no stealth patches done. If a patch came out, we were told why and what it did. It wasn't something like "General Improvements" which is a statement that basically means "We're making changes we don't really want you to know about, but affect you anyway."
It is just so obvious what the player base wants, yet they are still sticking with this decision. I can't understand why they would want to upset the people that keep them working.
I was accused of being in a party, likely Republican, just denying that accusation
Collective is one of those fleets with more on record than that play. This is due to we respect that people have jobs and lives and MANY are casual players. We have those that are off on miliatary duty, do not play during the college school year, people with illnesses and injuries that do not allow them to play... and many more legit excuses, of which leaves some that just linger and have several alts.
Ah, first, I am not arguing with your statement, but showing that you are right, and, and at least in our case, it is this way for a reason. In fact, our more active players split off into their own, with little hard feelings because of our stance. That said... to continue:
We would love to be a fleet that was in-game all the time. Most of us love the game and many of those "sleeper" members have returned lately and are carrying the fleet forward.
We welcome those that play for the enjoyment, but cannot continuously play. We look forward to, hope, and expect others that have other commitments will join us.
Therefore, we hurt in way things are set up. Partly, it is rightfully so... neither do we put the effort into it as full time players can nor can we expect to. The bothersome part is that the rewards of being a full time fleet off balance us in aspects of the game to include PvP.
Casual players in more hardcore fleets tend to be a bit outcast, although I know many exceptions.
Without posting all other ideas, the Captain count cap is the wrong approach... instead... make it a number of players in a fleet. Who cares how many Captains they have... that is limited in other ways... and they can only play one Captain at a time.
Another is to have large and small missions. Large and small fleets can choose either, but large missions take more time and greater rewards, smaller missions are the exact same, except scaled down. Large fleets would lean towards doing the one large mission and not constantly be updating missions and smaller fleets would lean towards the smaller missions as not to become annoyed with that huge mission lingering on the list for so long.
Second, we casual players do not expect to be at the same level as the hardcore players, but we do expect to be competative. We casual players, I would bet (without access to the statistics) make up most of the players in the game... who does not have a job, schooling, family, and other committments that STO is wonderful and it is escape from real life (RL), but, in the end, it is just a game... and a social means for us.
Thanks for listening. I hope this is inline with what you were trying to project with some semi-concrete examples thereof.
-Darqun-
STOCollective.com
You also accused everyone who disagreed with you of being obnoxious.
That was, clearly, against a strict interpretation of the TOS.
What gets us even more upset is that they think we are too stupid to know when we are getting the shaft. Really? You picked the players of a game like STAR TREK online to try and dupe? Why not just try and rip a million dollars from Warren Buffet in a stock swap?
It's the way of the fast buck.
Long-term sustainability is being sacrificed for short-term profit - (sadly) understandable from a business point of view but if there was any IP to build a long-term, sustainable MMO around, Star Trek was it.
PWE just isn't wired that way though.
I would suspect that the shipyard is by far the most cared-about part of any of the starbases. Some people don't even think that the fleet gear is worth much of anything due to poor modifiers, plus the fact that everything but the weapons breaks sets - which, by the time you can afford and use Mk XII ultra-rare gear, you are probably trying to acquire. And the weapons seem to have the worst mods of all in the shape of [Dmg]x3, which is almost universally panned as garbage.
This is probably why Cryptic may want to slow starbase progression down - the sweet, tasty nougat center has been hit, and the somewhat dry chocolate outside has lost its luster, as it were, as a result.
Most people know they are being shafted.
But it's Star Trek. Star Trek... So we will keep coming back...
This is a true fact. Because in no other game could I be this unhappy, and still log in to play...
Because Cryptic said it was designed not to and people assumed easier fleet marks were one means of correcting against slow progress by smaller fleets.
Heck, when they added fleet marks to Foundry missions, I did a double take.
It would have made more sense for Foundry missions to award 10 (making them the worst source of FMs but a viable one, especially once IOR became doable every half hour -- still slower than fleet progress) and Officer of the Watch to award 50, because it's daily and requires going to your starbase for no real other reason.
It might have made sense to go from 50 FM for IOR to 10 or even 1 when IOR went from daily to every half hour. (1 would have been roughly the same rate per day as the 50 daily.)
But in terms of human psychology when it comes to buying/spending (and I could cite this one), the distance from 1 to 0 is greater than the distance from 1 to 1000. Zero is a wildly distortionary number going from any quantity.
It should be obvious from a F2P perspective. When you make a game free, it's dramatically different than if you make it even a $1 a month sub game.
And when people are used to getting 50 of something, reducing that to a number as low as 1 is a balancing pass but reducing to 0 is a radical paradigm shift.
I think it was a mistake to keep it at 50 when IOR went from daily to hourly. But they could have made it 5 and the net result would be people playing more without Foundry missions being the best source of FM to a point where other content is trivialized.
But there is a world of difference between 5 and 0.
Aww!! Bumble!
Go take a break - watch your favourite Star Trek movie or show - read some of the novels and then come back - there's nothing nothing in this world that's worth making yourself unhappy over.
*hugs!!*
No. It's not.
It's how a modern data analysis firm works. Which is one major component of a business.
A modern business has also abandoned the production-oriented model as the business' paradigm and has adopted a marketing-oriented model with a focus on the crafted, modeled, and artfully designed customer experience.
The data is only valuable to the extent that you ask the right questions and have human-oriented, service-oriented people drafting and implementing strategy and rollout to streamline the customer experience.
No hugs allowed!!!! Whips out disruptor compression pistol and shoots dead every tribble in the room
I agree with both of these options.
5 FMs is basically nothing once you get up to the higher tiers (if not before), and time-wise is a fairly pointless investment. While the missions are a bit unique, they aren't the kind that most people would want to grind, or do every day.
And arguably FMs should be part of the STFs - multiplayer content in general is dealing with a fleet, even if they only band together for a short while, it is still a group effort against a larger foe, and teamwork should be rewarded.
I would propose the following changes to the fleet marks system:
1) Individual projects, or projects with specific groups, with lower fleet mark requirements; something like a shared reputation system. Less payout, but you could actually use small amounts of fleet marks immediately and see real progress. Even if this is mathematically more expensive in fleet marks than huge projects, if 2-3 (or even one) person come together and see a small amount of progress QUICKLY I think that this would help greatly.
2) Have the person playing the Foundry mission choose - FMs, or dil. And if you really want to restrict it only offer the FMs once every twenty hours or something. That way people get at least the 50 credit fix they're after.
3) Consider adding FMs to STFs - maybe make it part of the optional?
4) Make FMs an optional reward for several other missions (certain episodes perhaps?) This would actually make grinding episodic content a bit more likely and useful,.
There are a few others I may post later but can't recall/articulate right now.
Anyway, I think Cryptic is missing something big here - that FMs are somewhat difficult to get and involve usomewhat uninspired mission options. Foundry-based rewards allow for a lot more variety.
Also, while a certain amount of artificial stalling is expected - some people can mega-grind content a hundred times as fast as it can be developed and deployed - restricting resources this way only breeds frustration, and I am hard pressed to see how it serves even short-term economic interests. This also hurts the Foundry - especially if they're looking to it as a source for large amounts of episode-like content, the last thing they want to do is alienate the people they're trying to sell it to.
That said, these are just my thoughts, and I don't care all THAT much about Foundry FMs myself, but I can definitely see the concerns of those who do, so I thought I'd chime in.
Devs, if you're reading it, please keep what I've said in mind. I think that there are a lot of ways this can be worked around, but starting with the nerf bat is only going to frustrate people, especially when it's stealth-included. There are too many players for it not to be noticed by SOMEONE willing to say something, as many Internet companies have found the hard way.
I was actually debating re-reading Dreadnought! (Star Trek, No 29) by Diane Carey circa 1999..:P
Maybe nows the time...
but!
the built-in dilithium rewards are great for foundry missions as that means we don't have to pick-up two missions and the scaling means we don't have to create a mission with the best time-to-reward ratio
http://sto.perfectworld.com/news/?p=820691
Can't wait to see this...
Do Tribbles hug? Do they have teeny-tiny arms under all that faux-fur?
And the hug police haven't arrived in my corner of the globe yet so I'll hug whomever I choose thank you very much :P
Absolutely! There's some old Babylon 5 episodes I've been meaning to watch again - I really loved the one with David Warner as the 'true seeker'
I'm an honest player. And even I can pretty easily see that let's say I have a 50 man fleet. I kick out 40 players before I select a project. Then after its price is set low I re-invite those 40 guys who kick in resources. Repeat.
It's way too easy to exploit without adding a ton of lockdowns, cooldowns, and all sorts of nonsense that just isn't worth going through.
It's a nice idea in theory but sorry I don't see how it's remotely workable in reality.
The only solution to it I see is that you'd need an option to set a max player cap *when you found your fleet* that would establish your price range. For instance when you found your fleet you assign yourself a 50 player limit, which then assigns you Cost Set X, as opposed to a 250 player limit where you'd have Cost Set Y.
But if that happened, fleets would quickly run into the "hey we have 50 players and 7 of them are actually contributing, this sucks" problem, and they'll want a magic fix for that too.
This isn't nearly as easy to fix as some people are pretending. Sorry.
"We are smart." - Grebnedlog
Member of Alliance Central Command/boq botlhra'ghom
Oh I know trust me I know all too well, I believed Dan once, and spent 300.00 on a LTS. Only to find out that wasn't the "whole story"
it was a bit of sarcasm.
No idea which business your talking about. Airlines are rated as having some of the poorest customer service and rude flight attendants. Facebook and Google basically don't even have customer service. Most businesses have moved towards cheap products and little to no customer support. The same applies to most manufacturers of computer components: ASUS, Sapphire, MSI, and ASROCK-all have greatly reduced customer support within the last 5-7 years.
You talk a big game with the words you use leviathon but honestly, paradigms and drafting implement strategy and roll out are buzzwords that basically mean nothing unless businesses can back up that nonsense with real growth and a pleased and loyal customer base. Most of that buzzword speak is nonsense that was invented by a group of clever executives to confuse low to mid level workers so that they could never understand the decisions that were made by the top level guys.
"streamlining customer experience" You've got to be joking? What does that actually mean?
[not_quite_serious]Hey kaz, our task masters wanted me to pass along a message, telling you to get back to the grind![/not_quite_serious]
In all seriousness, we do have a perceived shortfall of FM and a dire lack of actual team work. If the powers that be really want to encourage teamwork, then perhaps a separate IOR style mission rewarding dil and FM for running a mission as a team. I do mean any mission be it foundry, episode, pve whatever.
That might just get our fleets running again.
Olivia, watched your vid btw