test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Cryptic, I already have a job...
issueman1
Member Posts: 0 Arc User
The starbase and the new mining base just remind me of a second job... Earning Dil and such as well. It shouldn't be work to get these things in game. The Azure nebula rescue is junk and buggy. It's like someone started an mission and fell short and just released it as is. Not to mention that everyone just public ques these and guess what... you have leeching trash.
Post edited by issueman1 on
0
Comments
I also agree with the OP. I didn't join STO to slave away in a mine like a prisoner in Rura Penthe. If I'm an admiral, let me do captain and admiral stuff, not mindless repetitive slave labor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Bf4YINfjQaQ#t=109s
Behold, the great Dan Stahl has spoken!
Really though, it is disturbing to see that sentence worse than death being played out as a rewarding feature for Star Trek Online.
Hey cryptic.. You guys are a customer service class corporationj. Dont you think customer satisfaction should take some part in what you do and who you have working for you???
Agreed. I used to love STO because it was one of the only MMOs out there that didn't feel like a grindfest. Between Rep grinds and Fleet grinds that is no longer the case.
Yeah same, ever since Dan Stahl came back and took over this has been the case.
Parallels: my second mission for Fed aligned Romulans.
However, I think there are other issues with this game that have been going a lot longer which need addressing still. I don't mind the projects so much, even as a small to medium sized fleet. The lack of admin controls for a fleet still gripes me.
And the gameplay does tend to steer away from a trek style, more towards a fast paced tac game that feels like SW. But overall since LoR, I think they are making steps in the right direction, slow steps....... all they need to do is get their priorities straight.
Buckets make endgame go.
It is slow, slow to make endgame go. Slow to fill buckets.
But, if you are smart, then fleet will be big. Big and smart to fill buckets. You will get more dilithium, to make things go.
You will see.
How delightfully Seussian!
::WARNING:: This game is not intended for use as a source of self-esteem.
Yeah there's got to be some good compromises that can be made. I think it would be useful if there were smaller requirement missions but took a week instead of 24 hours to turn around. Or if there was an algorithm that dictated the amount of materials needed based on the amount of members in the fleet. You could make the per person cost higher for smaller fleets, but right now its practically impossible for 5 people to get anywhere in the fleet construction game. The amount of resources needed is staggering you really want closer to 100 people working on it.
That would just invite misuse. Get a pool of 100 players and a small, one-man fleet, securing the lowest amount of materials needed to complete fleet holdings. Invite them one-by-one, have them contribute and leave the fleet. After every holding is done, invite all of them.
Just becaue something is theoretically subject to abuse, doesnt mean it will be abused in practice. While your scenario would be feasible, I don't find it likely.
First, the construction would still take time. Months if not a year or more for a finished starbase at minimum. That means that all those 100 players wouldn't be in a fleet for an extended period of gameplay. That means no warping to starbase, no fleet doffs/store, fleet bank, or any of the other benefits of being in a fleet. How many people do you think would be willing to deal with that?
Second, that's alot of work for the Fleet owner, to constantly invite and boot players over time, and keep track of who's been invited when, and whose turn it is next, and to field requests to join from other players, and invite and boot again people who just want to pop in to buy something from the fleet and leave again, all on likely drastically different times and play schedules. It would be a full time job.
Third, and I think most significantly, the scenario you describe requires alot of trust and faith on the part of those 100 members. They're going to spend their time, essentially, contributing to a fleet they aren't in, in the hopes that someday, in the future, the Fleet leader will still be active, finish the starbase/embassy/dilithium mine, remember who they are, and invite them back in. I don't see that many people having that much faith in one guy, to the point it becomes an issue like you're envisioning.
All in all, scaling fleet contributions should and would work to address the imbalance between large and small fleets, even with the unlikely potential for abuse.
::WARNING:: This game is not intended for use as a source of self-esteem.
+1 Pakled
Our small fleet is lucky enough to be friends with a couple of large fleets that have finished their starbase. We are slogging through the last stages of Tier 4, and occasionally some of their people will come over to our fleet and drop off supplies. Every hit of dil is gratefully accepted!
Romulans: left one homeworld, lost another, third time's the charm?
You must be new to the Internet.
Keep calm, and continue firing photon torpedoes.
I disagree. Most of the people in my fleet like it casual. I don't think any of us would enjoy feeling beholden to some other fleet just because it's larger. We're not in a large fleet already because we do not wish to be right?
It's not the end game we expected. If they don't want to really develop the game, I'm sure HP needs more people to write printer drivers for home office products.
If you want to experience a game transitioning into a job, play World of ******** or Everquest. Anything that has a raid dungeon that takes multiple hours of devotion at a slim chance to get something based on someone's whims.
Try being required to log in at a specific time everyday after being required to gear up to a certain level, with a certain number of consumables, every single day. THAT is treating a game like a job. Star Trek Online is just tedious and time consuming, but doesn't even attempt to make you feel obligated to log on and do something for a number of other people's benefit.
On one hand, my fleet is genuinely struggling to have available projects for members to contribute to - we have no way of limiting contributions, and almost daily, projects are filled within seconds of becoming available. It has actually become a problem and is annoying members of the fleet who don't spend multiple hours of their day in STO.
From that perspective, I welcome the new holding. We'll actually have more projects to contribute to, and people will finally be able to get their fleet credits.
On the other hand, we've got any number of 'allied' fleets who I have seen first-hand struggle with the existing holdings. Some of them are literally 'family fleets', and my fleet has actually started sending members to our allies to help them kick their projects along. We are more than happy to do this, but it's less than ideal and becomes a pain in the backside for our officers to micromanage.
Echoing what has already been suggested here, I'd very much like to see a formal 'alliance system' in place, which would allow fleet groups to feely contribute resources to whichever holdings have active projects amongst that group. Obviously members will favour their own individual fleets first (it stands to reason that an individual who is a member of a more advanced fleet will want to see their fleet continue to advance so they have access to better gear) but you would need checks and balances to make sure that the access of smaller members to the holdings of larger fleets is limitable. I say that only because the temptation could be there for members of those fleets to simply contribute everything to the larger one, leaving their own fleet to fall by the wayside.
This would address the 'overflow' of larger fleets while giving smaller ones access to the support they need to actually progress.
And I don't think I can be clear enough on this point - the alliance system should be as complex as it needs to be. Fleet management is poor in its simplicity as it is. We cannot limit members' contributions (the grinders get everything, the casuals can do nothing) we cannot organize the roster by contributions or even by handle, we are limited to the number of ranks we can instate.
These are the problems we have now, let alone the problems we could get from an equally-simplistic alliance system down the track. Give more power to the officers, and make sure the casual guys get a chance to actually find some worth in their fleets.
which they will never find.............whoops almost forgot (grabs megaphone)......... dismissed!!