There many factors to be discussed in this, one of those factors is time. Traditionally gear get easier to access. This method does half the day to day costs, but it won't effect the special project costs at all, these folks will work just as hard or harder give the number involved. Yes it does mean sometime after sponsorship that some littler fleets will eventually gain access to T5. But they will only do so a good interval after most larger fleets are completed and they will have done it though very hard work, tremendous dedication, putting in more effort individually the most member of the larger fleets ever put in. Also having convinced a large fleet to sponsor them. A feat I am certainly will take no little effort by itself.
This in no way trivializes the Starbase building requirement, and it helps out everyone involved. This is a win win situation, meeting everyone's needs. No one loses, and if fleets are not interested they don't have to be involved.
Either way, the devs I'd hope consider this as an open invitation to address these smaller fleet issues. I don't want a large fleet, we shouldn't be forced into one due to the lack of players within our smaller fleet. :rolleyes:
So...
Instead of grinding 3 Months + 3 Days Project (no actual numbers) it is better to grind 3 Days and Wait 3 Months?
Which effectively means nothing has changed...
Or do you think of a System that adds just a day or two onto the actual project which would again favor the creation of a small fleet, wrapping everything up quickly with less cost and then inviting the rest of your mates.
The Problem with Sponsorships is still: How do you keep track of all that?
How is it decided who's to be benefited, how do you link all these fleets? Is it permanent? A One-Off Deal?
If it is just a token... who's the one to get the token in the first place? Fleetleader? Appointed Bank Officer?
How can you see or decide who will get that token? Do you need to actively search for a "small" Fleet via Chat or Forum? Will it be an Ingame System?
How does one determine if it is actually a "Small Fleet" where do you draw the line?
10 Players and under are a "Small Fleet"? 50? 100?
Sponsorship, doubles xp awards from projects, if your not aware of SB construction works, the longest part of the process grinding up each sections XP. After a part is complete you finish it with a project just like you do when you claim a tier reward with Rep. It just happens that SB have many more possible missions.
My theory on this would be to add a sponsorship tab to the fleet screen, one level 20 fleet could sponsor x number of lower level fleets. This would be done by executing a project creating a token, which would then be claimed in the to be sponcered fleet. I think the token would have to be Bound to the account that accepted it, keeping it from wandering off. The fleet that accepts sponsorship adds the character with the token, and accepts the sponsorship. Some means would have to be developed break the tie if one of the partners went inactive or something along those lines.
Once a sponsorship is accept, the sponsored fleet gets double xp from assignments, and the sponsoring fleet can assist in filling the sponsored fleets projects (limited to the primary fleet holding)
Fleet size is a hard target, lots of fleets have lots of character on the books, but active characters are what determines fleets capability. I don't know if its possible to set conditions, but I doubt it is. Yes in all probability that does open up the door, to exploitation to some degree. However, exploiting the system is self defeating for both parties. As the sponsoring fleet wants to have a fleet that will offer its member the ability to make FC, and a larger sized fleets will prefer to have the FC for their own members. I'm not trying to say there is no chance of exploitation, simply that it won't be overly useful, to both parities involved if its not followed as intended.
That simply my current suggestion, and I'm first admit there are a host of problems with this theory. But lets work through them, with discussion and thought I'm sure workable method can be found.
My biggest concern on this whole matter is small fleets being coned. Folks being tricked into handing over control unscrupulous players claiming they are going to sponsor that fleet. Such concerns can be handled by careful rank structure management but Its worth considering, and taking steps to prevent.
I am also a leader of a (very) small fleet - 4 members but only 2 of us are playing daily.
We?ve almost reached T3 of the mine. We keep the focus on this project to "earn" the dicount for the base and embassy.
I have read a lot of great ideas in this thread but only one would be a "real solution" for the issue small fleets have: scaling - on the basis of number of accounts. This is the only thing which would make sense to me.
And no - I don?t think it is unfair to large fleets. Simply because the number of accounts matters. Every single account will increasse the number of commodities you have to spend to (all) fleet projects. So it is still fair - as more members you have as more you have to fill in the projects. It is almost like a guarantee for every single player in a big fleet to contribute and earn FCs. ...I can hear the voices already who are telling me now that the big fleets will be splitted in a number of small fleets - I cannot believe that!
My big concern is the provisions. Lets say I have queued up a bunch of projects and an allied fleet contributes to all my holdings except they contribute no provisions because they get no benefit. Next thing you know the small fleet has a bunch of provisions that need to be filled an no way to earn the credits to by these provisions because all other donation options were filled by the large fleet.
My solution is different. All holding have 2-3 project rows and 2 special projects rows. Add a third category, "Allied Projects", That can only be contributed to by your ally. Your own fleet members cannot contribute to it. Fleet leaders however can select which project category is selected (Example: Science, Tactical, Engineering for starbases). Upon completion of the project the host fleet gains 500 xp in the category they select and the allied fleet can have provisions or vice versa.
What I'm looking at is taking a standard xp/provisioning mission where the rewards are divided up amongst the 2 parties where the larger fleet can still get its provisions and smaller fleets can still get xp. Small fleets don't need more provisions and larger fleets with completed starbases do not need xp. It also keep donations within their own fleets.
My big concern is the provisions. Lets say I have queued up a bunch of projects and an allied fleet contributes to all my holdings except they contribute no provisions because they get no benefit. Next thing you know the small fleet has a bunch of provisions that need to be filled an no way to earn the credits to by these provisions because all other donation options were filled by the large fleet.
My solution is different. All holding have 2-3 project rows and 2 special projects rows. Add a third category, "Allied Projects", That can only be contributed to by your ally. Your own fleet members cannot contribute to it. Fleet leaders however can select which project category is selected (Example: Science, Tactical, Engineering for starbases). Upon completion of the project the host fleet gains 500 xp in the category they select and the allied fleet can have provisions or vice versa.
What I'm looking at is taking a standard xp/provisioning mission where the rewards are divided up amongst the 2 parties where the larger fleet can still get its provisions and smaller fleets can still get xp. Small fleets don't need more provisions and larger fleets with completed starbases do not need xp. It also keep donations within their own fleets.
You would control what projects are queued, that would include the provision projects. The benefit the larger fleet gains is FC for those contributing. It doesn't matter to them what the project is.There is no need to divide the rewards, the sponsoring fleet could be running the short terms fc generators fully in parallel, or generating loads of their on provisions.
I remain empathetic to the concerns of my community, but do me a favor and lay off the god damn name calling and petty remarks. It will get you nowhere.
I must admit, respect points to Trendy for laying down the law like that.
Maybe what we need is to think outside the box a little more. Maybe we need to adopt (and adapt) the Perl mantra: "There's More Than One Way To Do It".
Right now, there's one way and only one way to complete fleet projects. Maybe we can achieve a sort of balance by providing more options to all fleets.
For example...
Limited Open Project Contribution
Instead of setting up a system that lets another fleet contribute to any of another fleet's projects, maybe we only open that up to certain projects.
Could be that we can open up only the Tier upgrade projects for open contribution. That would help small fleets complete those massive projects, while still allowing the small fleet to grind away at the day-to-day XP and provisioning projects.
Or, turn that around so that the small fleet has to complete the upgrades out of their own resources but any fleet can help out with the XP projects.
Limited Scaling
Along similar lines, maybe only the upgrades or the XP projects are on a sliding scale but not both.
More is More
Or maybe we just need the flexibility of alternate ways to reach the goals of a Tier upgrade. A larger variety of projects to choose from. Incremental Tier upgrades. Whatever.
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'm going to stick with dividing the rewards from these projects of giving the xp to the host fleet and the provisions to the fleet completing the projects for 2 reasons. 1) As a small fleet I need help leveling up. I do not need 100 fleet ships provisioned. 2) As a large fleet I can expect each captain to want about 2 embassy boffs, 5-7 fleet weapons and now about 4 spire consoles. if I have 400 members doing this then that would be 800 embassy boff provisions, 2000 weapon provisions and 1000 spire console provisions. I can only get 5 to 10 provisions per project.
This will give additional incentive to large fleets to donate to help smaller fleets.
At the same time this setup still means that a small fleet is still responsible for their own upgrade projects but make it easier to get there. It also makes sure that allies cannot interfere with internal projects. By only being allowed to slot up to 2 projects to share this also reduces the screen clutter on the allies screen.
I made the allies screen missions sorted by fleet. Only 2 missions will be visible for that fleet. By restricting it to 3 missions to aid another fleet this will prevent them from completely taking advantage of unlimited places to donate.
You would control what projects are queued, that would include the provision projects. The benefit the larger fleet gains is FC for those contributing. It doesn't matter to them what the project is.There is no need to divide the rewards, the sponsoring fleet could be running the short terms fc generators fully in parallel, or generating loads of their on provisions.
Ark, to be honest, I don't like the idea of having the sponsoring fleet and sponsored fleet being in a relationship beyond simple production and claiming of the token. As you (and others) have noted, it would be a headache to administer or manage for waste/fraud/abuse. I am also unsure how easy it would be to technically implement.
My preference would be that Level 20 fleets could run a "tactical/science/engineering sponsorship" that would cost, say, 20K fleet marks (and only cost fleet marks!). This would produce a token that a fleet admiral could claim, and give/sell/trade to someone. Fleets not at level 20 would have the option of slotting a Claim Sponsorship, which thereafter would double the amount of XP produced by projects. So the main projects would give 2000 experience, the provisioning projects would give 1000 experience, etc.
Ark, to be honest, I don't like the idea of having the sponsoring fleet and sponsored fleet being in a relationship beyond simple production and claiming of the token. As you (and others) have noted, it would be a headache to administer or manage for waste/fraud/abuse. I am also unsure how easy it would be to technically implement.
My preference would be that Level 20 fleets could run a "tactical/science/engineering sponsorship" that would cost, say, 20K fleet marks (and only cost fleet marks!). This would produce a token that a fleet admiral could claim, and give/sell/trade to someone. Fleets not at level 20 would have the option of slotting a Claim Sponsorship, which thereafter would double the amount of XP produced by projects. So the main projects would give 2000 experience, the provisioning projects would give 1000 experience, etc.
I hear you Cath, and I agree that something is better then nothing. If we can only get that much out of this discussion I still think it would very good progress. I agree that such would be still solidly helpful to the smaller fleets. I like the idea of 20k fleet mark projects for the same reason I know you do. It also removes all my security concerns about the whole process.
I think its good to discuss as many angles in this as possible. Simple is better then complex and that would certainly be a much more elegantly simple solution.
There was talk a while ago from the devs about having fleets ally with each other (not sure what happened with that chatter).
Thing is you'd need to know of, be friendly with and be on the same faction as the bigger fleets to ally with them. And would be quite a manual process for fleets to come together on.
And with only 3 slottable projects, possibly requires a near 1:1 or 1:2 ratio of big to small fleets which isn't correctly proportional afaik
imo a tender exchange for sub projects would likely be the best option.
Allow fleets to stick various components of a fleet project onto an exchange. Like just the doff portion, or just the XP portion or just the provisions. This allows them to fill the project with the bits they want/can themselves and get others to complete the portions they cannot.
Bigger fleets or non fleet players can accept a tender off the project exchange for the required commodity be it FM's or doffs or shield generators etc. They get a portion of the projects FCs back as payment and the sub project is thus filled and returned to the owning fleets holding project.
This would allow all fleets to put parts of projects out they find hard to fulfil (perhaps provisions [FC sinks] for big fleets and say FM/dil for smaller fleets). Also allows small fleets to retain the project provisioning rewards if any, the base XP and some of the FCs depending on how much they farmed out on exchange.
My suggestion as being part of small fleet for the past year is to change what the projects do.
The numbers I have are just guesses and some real crunching will need to be done.
Leveling up a portion of the starbase or holding should be relatively cheap for each 1000 pts of experience
Say something like 200 Fleet Marks, and 300 of this item and 300 of that item, and maybe 4,000 Dilithium. But still leave the time gate on it for 20 hrs.
Yeah it would still take small fleets some time to get everything for the projects to keep them going (5 - 20 members), but the concern is to build up the starbase and holdings to the appropriate tier. not necessarily acquiring vast amounts of fleet credits. Also making it so you still need to work for it.
Then set different provisioning levels based on provisions acquired.
Say we have a provisioning project that gets 40 and 500 exp
Costs would be 10,000 Fleet Marks, 10,000 of this item and 10,000 of that item and 50,000 Dilithium.
for a larger fleet that would be great, they get the opportunity to get a large chunk of provisions and get the fleet credits
but on a small fleet we wouldn't need that many
but if we have set fleet provisions at say 10 provisions and 500 exp
costs would be 2,500 Fleet Marks 2500 of this item and 2500 of that item and 15,000 dil.
But you get the idea.
Ahh but here comes the end project stuff fleets that are all tiered up. Just make some projects that add cosmetic changes as projects. just like the special dilithium projects but with fleet marks, and commodities, and just make them expensive so contributions would take a bit to finish up.
Example you want freighter traffic I at your fully upgraded starbase (more ships coming and going to give a busier atmosphere) and it would costs 100,000 fleet marks, 1,000,000 of this and 1,000,000 of that, and 500,000 dil.
But this should reflect a large fleet having more traffic because they are a larger fleet....
TLDR;
set provisioning rewards based on number of provisions gained
set leveling up exp at a low level but leave the time gate
add endgame tiered up cosmetic projects with substantial costs to gain fleet credits.
Dynamic projects just aren't really viable. Even if the system could be made to do it, something I am not all certain it could. It's far to open to exploitation.
We have to work in the system we have. We know that sponsorship can work in the system. We know this b/c it works great for the character rep gains, and that system is very similar to the SB system.
I don't love the idea of being able sell tokens, but I don't see a better or safer way of doing it. This method would solve the security issue, and enable help reaching more little fleets. It would still take time, if the project is expensive but it would be serious progress over what we have now.
This kills most all the incentives for joining a large fleet. And no, it doesn't make sense to do that. If anyone can be in a fleet of only a handful of people and get their fleet holdings completed for cheap, there isn't much reason to join a large fleet.
It is unfair to large fleets. Were this implemented, a fleet leader can kick most all members from the fleet so the base can be done cheaper because there are less members. This is also penalizing large fleets for being large.
For the record, I am not in favor of killing off the elephants so the mice can take over.
It is, flat out, going to take small fleets more time to advance. There is no fair way to level the playing field.
I do however believe there are ways to mitigate the problems that both large and small fleets (and even perhaps the unfleeted) are having by creating synergies between the two. There is also potential for small fleets to act collectively... which might even create a better command structure for some fleets that have Divisions.
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 have no problem with a cooperation between fleets either big or small but the problem even my fellow leaders have stated is that there is no benefit currently to having a cooperation between other fleets.
It is not like in other MMO's where resources can be shared or in another game I played where members of one group can provide reinforcement when players cities are attacked.
It just doesn't work in this game and I really don't think there is a way to make it work without abusing the system.
That's not entirely accurate. We've discussed this in my fleet several times. My large fleet gets access to fleet credits and energy credits, while the other fleet gets fleet marks, dilithium, doffs, and other resources. Both sides get something in this transaction.
The problem is that the mechanics right now to have people in large fleets help small fleets are, at best, extraordinarily cumbersome and make it an administrative nightmare. (1)
What Malinus (hereinafter: "Arkin") was getting at with his initial post was a way to try and improve cooperation while "keeping it simple, stupid(2)". That's why I support Arkin's idea of a "XP track" token in order to double the XP given out by projects. This means it'll cost a small fleet roughly half the resources to advance in a specific track.
I would actually argue that many fleets that would be in a position to create XP track tokens would give them away, versus selling them on the exchange.
(1) I don't think it can be doubted that the fleet holdings interface is, at best, suboptimal. I'd love to be able to open and close individual stores on individual holdings. I'd love for the wording on "this opens stores" to be a bit more clear. I'd also like a functioning text editor to change my fleet message of the day.
(2) I am not calling anyone on these boards or Cryptic Studios stupid. Just invoking a standard engineering principle.
That's why I support Arkin's idea of a "XP track" token in order to double the XP given out by projects. This means it'll cost a small fleet roughly half the resources to advance in a specific track.
But don't forget my Donation Dilemma principle, though:
"Fewer inputs likely mean fewer fleet credits are generated as a result. Faster projects may mean fewer people get the opportunity to contribute (because they're filling quicker), and also guarantees that the fleet will run out of things to do faster."
Doubling the XP doesn't make the projects complete any faster, it just means you don't have to do as many of them to reach the next milestone.
This might not be a problem as long as Cryptic keeps cranking out Holdings, but then they're compounding the problem of how long it takes to "max" out when a fleet is already behind the curve.
I'm not opposed to it. I'm just saying that the approach will necessarily generate fewer fleet credits and thus require more projects to make up the difference.
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
But don't forget my Donation Dilemma principle, though:
"Fewer inputs likely mean fewer fleet credits are generated as a result. Faster projects may mean fewer people get the opportunity to contribute (because they're filling quicker), and also guarantees that the fleet will run out of things to do faster."
Doubling the XP doesn't make the projects complete any faster, it just means you don't have to do as many of them to reach the next milestone.
This might not be a problem as long as Cryptic keeps cranking out Holdings, but then they're compounding the problem of how long it takes to "max" out when a fleet is already behind the curve.
I'm not opposed to it. I'm just saying that the approach will necessarily generate fewer fleet credits and thus require more projects to make up the difference.
You're right, it will generate far fewer fleet credits for the fleet that receives a sponsership token, and thus take that available pool of fleet credits out of the game. I think that the trade-off between allowing a serious, small fleet to realistically complete a project versus members of a large fleet to gain (more) fleet credits from other fleets is a worthwhile one.
In theory, there is no upper limit to the amount of fleet credits that can be generated by a large fleet if they choose to slot the starbase provisioning projects. The problem (and the one I'm currently having a dilemma on) is that 1) we want to save resources for the Spire/next fleet holding and 2) slotting projects can be a pain.
#2 is a rather interesting problem: Essentially, one of the problem with the "small" fleet credit generating projects is that while they have a half hour cooldown time, they're still 1) small and 2) require an appropriately ranked officer to slot them. In my fleet, such officers are often not always online. So there could be periods where the projects don't get slotted.
Adding project slotting functionality to Gateway would help quite a bit.
But don't forget my Donation Dilemma principle, though:
"Fewer inputs likely mean fewer fleet credits are generated as a result. Faster projects may mean fewer people get the opportunity to contribute (because they're filling quicker), and also guarantees that the fleet will run out of things to do faster."
Doubling the XP doesn't make the projects complete any faster, it just means you don't have to do as many of them to reach the next milestone.
This might not be a problem as long as Cryptic keeps cranking out Holdings, but then they're compounding the problem of how long it takes to "max" out when a fleet is already behind the curve.
I'm not opposed to it. I'm just saying that the approach will necessarily generate fewer fleet credits and thus require more projects to make up the difference.
It depends upon the pool donating. In absolute terms the limit on how many FC can be generated is measured only in cool downs. Given that you can cycle half hour cool downs at its not a huge concern as long as the population contributing is small enough that everyone gets a chance to donate. Given that a small fleet is the most likely full fill that requirement I'm not overly concerned about it.
The fact of the matter is double XP will simply increase the rate at which, small fleets run into the large project road blocks. That in the grand scheme of things may be the real danger of this plan. As anyone with an interested in the topic knows the top end projects take vast resources. Hopefully the decrease in day to day resources cost will help small fleets deal with the more rapid large scale projects.
Here is a thought, why not suggest a fleet
that has already reach Tier 5 starbase to be
allowed to sponsor another fleet, both fleets
will be allies, the small fleet will have something
like 10% discount on all resources or 10% reduction
on project cooldowns.
Large fleets helping small fleets is all well-and-good, but where's their motivation for doing so?
If you take away the need for members of large fleets to seek other means of getting their fleet credits, or if you do anything that reduces the amount of fleet credits a small fleet is able to generate, you remove the motivation.
Selling sponsorship tokens for EC, I suppose that's another way. But small fleets need EC, too. It would help a very few, but the majority would still be stuck in the grind without another avenue of assistance. Market pressure might drive the going cost down, but it will still likely be in the tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions.
Sponsorship works for the Rep system because the only thing it affects is how fast you gain XP and that is the only goal; it has the side-effect of reducing the total input resources required.
Whereas for the Fleet system, you need both XP and Fleet Credits. Gaining XP faster and reducing input resources is great, but it reduces FC's. It also does little to help with the big upgrade projects, because gaining XP is not the point for those projects.
It might be okay, though. The tremendous resource requirements for upgrades might generate sufficient fleet credits so that the loss of FC's from XP projects is negligible.
I'm coming around to the idea of a FM-FC Exchange, too, if it worked exactly like the Dilithium Exchange does. It would be harder to abuse that. But it won't necessarily help small fleets, either.
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 kinda meant it as like some sorta apprentice system
where a master takes in a student. no sponsor token.
in this case a big fleet takes in a small fleet to train
and help them build there fleet faster. but far as the
rest of the benefits thats completely up to the developers.
Large fleets helping small fleets is all well-and-good, but where's their motivation for doing so?
If you take away the need for members of large fleets to seek other means of getting their fleet credits, or if you do anything that reduces the amount of fleet credits a small fleet is able to generate, you remove the motivation.
Selling sponsorship tokens for EC, I suppose that's another way. But small fleets need EC, too. It would help a very few, but the majority would still be stuck in the grind without another avenue of assistance. Market pressure might drive the going cost down, but it will still likely be in the tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions.
-snip various well-reasoned points I agree with-
I'm coming around to the idea of a FM-FC Exchange, too, if it worked exactly like the Dilithium Exchange does. It would be harder to abuse that. But it won't necessarily help small fleets, either.
1. Motivation for a large fleet helping a small fleet? As mentioned, some do it for energy credits. Others do it for access to fleet credits. But there's another reason: Altruism! Why *not* help a small fleet if the large fleet has everything done and it's two months minimum before the next holding comes out?
2. Yes, under my model you could sell a fleet sponsorship token for EC. And no doubt, some would. I'm *hoping* that most large fleet leaders would be altruistic with this, and simply donate it.
3. A Fleet Mark for Fleet Credit Exchange that worked like the dilithium exchange would be perfect and make me a very happy person. This, I think, would not only help small fleets, it would help KDF fleets in general that have fleet mark mission queues that take forever to pop.
I like and I dislike this proposal. What I like is having outside help and as a leader of a small fleet I would welcome any help.
Problem is in my small fleet, fleet marks and other commodities are not the problem. It is DILITHIUM. Some generous member who shall remain nameless contributed 682,500 Dilithium yesterday to complete the first T3 Dilithium Mine upgrade. We have 1 more to go in 10 days and thats another 682,500.
I think that Dilithium should be allowed to be put in as well as upgrade projects but no Provision projects.
As I stated, this is just an idea to get the ball rolling. As with any idea, tweaks & input are always needed
If the projects were dynamic based, then the actual dilithium costs would of course, reduce, based on your fleet size.
If you look back on page 4 (I think) where I posted the original idea, someone commented & said a lot of what I suggested would still be abused. Abusers will always abuse! Sad, but true!
Timers though to reduce the abuse of fleet hopping, ect. can be adjusted.
12 hour cooldown for leaving a fleet and being able to rejoin a new one to low? Up it to 48 hours then.
Obviously, on the note of scaled projects to fleet sizes, there needs to be a minimum cap on fleet size / project ratio. I'd be inclined to start it at 10 members, increase the multiplier by 10 up to 100 members & then step it up to 25 for fleets between 100-250 members. Final step would be 50 to fleets of 250-500 members. Anything over 500 (is this actually possible in game?) then use a 100 multiplier.
Now thinking more on how to stop abuse of Fleets reducing numbers just to get a cheaper project, solution was actually staring us in the face...
eg.
Fleet of 250, new tier upgrade due. Fleet leader decides that to get the project done cheaper kicks as many members as possible & gets a lot of other members to leave just before the project is due to start. They manage to get the fleet member roster down to 50!!
But wait.. They didn't realise that even though they've shrank the fleet size down, the game still sees their fleet registered size as 250 (here's the kicker) for another 60 days! (increase it more if needed).
So even though they've dropped their numbers to try & get a cheaper project running, all they've done is put all the members they've kicked on a long cooldown where they can no longer gain FC's or help contribute to any projects for said "FM's".
Now if you really wanted to reduce the abuse, when those that left can eventually rejoin, add another cooldown before they can start contributing to fleet projects. 48 hours.
So the short version:
48 hour cooldown on leaving a fleet & being able to rejoin a new one.
48 hour cooldown on joining a fleet & being able to contribute to projects.
Projects scale to fleet size:
10 member min ~ smallest scale size
+ 10 member scale size increase up to 100
+25 member scale size increase up to 250
+50 member scale size increase up to 500
+100 member scale size increase on fleets over 500
Pretty much, the larger the Fleet, the more resources to fill a project v's the smaller Fleets who don't require as much.
60 day system cooldown on Fleet size reduction (for projects)
I said it earlier. Haters are going to hate. Why must my Fleet with 500 members have to contribute more than matey boy and his 10 man Fleet?
Cause and effect. You choose to run a large Fleet, more members fighting for FM's thus there's your cause. Effect is projects cost more.
You choose to run a small Fleet, less members fighting for FM's, ergo.
REMEMBER - numbers are just random - too high? change them. Too Low? change them.
Hmmm.. I'm starting to ramble.. So in true "Thundercats" style...
"COFFEE.... Hooooooooooooooeee!":cool:
**edited bit**
I'll probably edit this down, ect.. once I've woken up a bit!
Comments
Either way, the devs I'd hope consider this as an open invitation to address these smaller fleet issues. I don't want a large fleet, we shouldn't be forced into one due to the lack of players within our smaller fleet. :rolleyes:
Sponsorship, doubles xp awards from projects, if your not aware of SB construction works, the longest part of the process grinding up each sections XP. After a part is complete you finish it with a project just like you do when you claim a tier reward with Rep. It just happens that SB have many more possible missions.
My theory on this would be to add a sponsorship tab to the fleet screen, one level 20 fleet could sponsor x number of lower level fleets. This would be done by executing a project creating a token, which would then be claimed in the to be sponcered fleet. I think the token would have to be Bound to the account that accepted it, keeping it from wandering off. The fleet that accepts sponsorship adds the character with the token, and accepts the sponsorship. Some means would have to be developed break the tie if one of the partners went inactive or something along those lines.
Once a sponsorship is accept, the sponsored fleet gets double xp from assignments, and the sponsoring fleet can assist in filling the sponsored fleets projects (limited to the primary fleet holding)
Fleet size is a hard target, lots of fleets have lots of character on the books, but active characters are what determines fleets capability. I don't know if its possible to set conditions, but I doubt it is. Yes in all probability that does open up the door, to exploitation to some degree. However, exploiting the system is self defeating for both parties. As the sponsoring fleet wants to have a fleet that will offer its member the ability to make FC, and a larger sized fleets will prefer to have the FC for their own members. I'm not trying to say there is no chance of exploitation, simply that it won't be overly useful, to both parities involved if its not followed as intended.
That simply my current suggestion, and I'm first admit there are a host of problems with this theory. But lets work through them, with discussion and thought I'm sure workable method can be found.
We?ve almost reached T3 of the mine. We keep the focus on this project to "earn" the dicount for the base and embassy.
I have read a lot of great ideas in this thread but only one would be a "real solution" for the issue small fleets have: scaling - on the basis of number of accounts. This is the only thing which would make sense to me.
And no - I don?t think it is unfair to large fleets. Simply because the number of accounts matters. Every single account will increasse the number of commodities you have to spend to (all) fleet projects. So it is still fair - as more members you have as more you have to fill in the projects. It is almost like a guarantee for every single player in a big fleet to contribute and earn FCs. ...I can hear the voices already who are telling me now that the big fleets will be splitted in a number of small fleets - I cannot believe that!
My solution is different. All holding have 2-3 project rows and 2 special projects rows. Add a third category, "Allied Projects", That can only be contributed to by your ally. Your own fleet members cannot contribute to it. Fleet leaders however can select which project category is selected (Example: Science, Tactical, Engineering for starbases). Upon completion of the project the host fleet gains 500 xp in the category they select and the allied fleet can have provisions or vice versa.
What I'm looking at is taking a standard xp/provisioning mission where the rewards are divided up amongst the 2 parties where the larger fleet can still get its provisions and smaller fleets can still get xp. Small fleets don't need more provisions and larger fleets with completed starbases do not need xp. It also keep donations within their own fleets.
You would control what projects are queued, that would include the provision projects. The benefit the larger fleet gains is FC for those contributing. It doesn't matter to them what the project is.There is no need to divide the rewards, the sponsoring fleet could be running the short terms fc generators fully in parallel, or generating loads of their on provisions.
Maybe what we need is to think outside the box a little more. Maybe we need to adopt (and adapt) the Perl mantra: "There's More Than One Way To Do It".
Right now, there's one way and only one way to complete fleet projects. Maybe we can achieve a sort of balance by providing more options to all fleets.
For example...
Limited Open Project Contribution
Instead of setting up a system that lets another fleet contribute to any of another fleet's projects, maybe we only open that up to certain projects.
Could be that we can open up only the Tier upgrade projects for open contribution. That would help small fleets complete those massive projects, while still allowing the small fleet to grind away at the day-to-day XP and provisioning projects.
Or, turn that around so that the small fleet has to complete the upgrades out of their own resources but any fleet can help out with the XP projects.
Limited Scaling
Along similar lines, maybe only the upgrades or the XP projects are on a sliding scale but not both.
More is More
Or maybe we just need the flexibility of alternate ways to reach the goals of a Tier upgrade. A larger variety of projects to choose from. Incremental Tier upgrades. Whatever.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Shared Projects
In the shared project tab you would be able to slot missions that you can share with your allies.
Projects from allies
This is where you select projects from your allies.
I'm going to stick with dividing the rewards from these projects of giving the xp to the host fleet and the provisions to the fleet completing the projects for 2 reasons. 1) As a small fleet I need help leveling up. I do not need 100 fleet ships provisioned. 2) As a large fleet I can expect each captain to want about 2 embassy boffs, 5-7 fleet weapons and now about 4 spire consoles. if I have 400 members doing this then that would be 800 embassy boff provisions, 2000 weapon provisions and 1000 spire console provisions. I can only get 5 to 10 provisions per project.
This will give additional incentive to large fleets to donate to help smaller fleets.
At the same time this setup still means that a small fleet is still responsible for their own upgrade projects but make it easier to get there. It also makes sure that allies cannot interfere with internal projects. By only being allowed to slot up to 2 projects to share this also reduces the screen clutter on the allies screen.
I made the allies screen missions sorted by fleet. Only 2 missions will be visible for that fleet. By restricting it to 3 missions to aid another fleet this will prevent them from completely taking advantage of unlimited places to donate.
I think this is a reasonable setup.
Ark, to be honest, I don't like the idea of having the sponsoring fleet and sponsored fleet being in a relationship beyond simple production and claiming of the token. As you (and others) have noted, it would be a headache to administer or manage for waste/fraud/abuse. I am also unsure how easy it would be to technically implement.
My preference would be that Level 20 fleets could run a "tactical/science/engineering sponsorship" that would cost, say, 20K fleet marks (and only cost fleet marks!). This would produce a token that a fleet admiral could claim, and give/sell/trade to someone. Fleets not at level 20 would have the option of slotting a Claim Sponsorship, which thereafter would double the amount of XP produced by projects. So the main projects would give 2000 experience, the provisioning projects would give 1000 experience, etc.
I hear you Cath, and I agree that something is better then nothing. If we can only get that much out of this discussion I still think it would very good progress. I agree that such would be still solidly helpful to the smaller fleets. I like the idea of 20k fleet mark projects for the same reason I know you do. It also removes all my security concerns about the whole process.
I think its good to discuss as many angles in this as possible. Simple is better then complex and that would certainly be a much more elegantly simple solution.
There was talk a while ago from the devs about having fleets ally with each other (not sure what happened with that chatter).
Thing is you'd need to know of, be friendly with and be on the same faction as the bigger fleets to ally with them. And would be quite a manual process for fleets to come together on.
And with only 3 slottable projects, possibly requires a near 1:1 or 1:2 ratio of big to small fleets which isn't correctly proportional afaik
imo a tender exchange for sub projects would likely be the best option.
Allow fleets to stick various components of a fleet project onto an exchange. Like just the doff portion, or just the XP portion or just the provisions. This allows them to fill the project with the bits they want/can themselves and get others to complete the portions they cannot.
Bigger fleets or non fleet players can accept a tender off the project exchange for the required commodity be it FM's or doffs or shield generators etc. They get a portion of the projects FCs back as payment and the sub project is thus filled and returned to the owning fleets holding project.
This would allow all fleets to put parts of projects out they find hard to fulfil (perhaps provisions [FC sinks] for big fleets and say FM/dil for smaller fleets). Also allows small fleets to retain the project provisioning rewards if any, the base XP and some of the FCs depending on how much they farmed out on exchange.
The numbers I have are just guesses and some real crunching will need to be done.
Leveling up a portion of the starbase or holding should be relatively cheap for each 1000 pts of experience
Say something like 200 Fleet Marks, and 300 of this item and 300 of that item, and maybe 4,000 Dilithium. But still leave the time gate on it for 20 hrs.
Yeah it would still take small fleets some time to get everything for the projects to keep them going (5 - 20 members), but the concern is to build up the starbase and holdings to the appropriate tier. not necessarily acquiring vast amounts of fleet credits. Also making it so you still need to work for it.
Then set different provisioning levels based on provisions acquired.
Say we have a provisioning project that gets 40 and 500 exp
Costs would be 10,000 Fleet Marks, 10,000 of this item and 10,000 of that item and 50,000 Dilithium.
for a larger fleet that would be great, they get the opportunity to get a large chunk of provisions and get the fleet credits
but on a small fleet we wouldn't need that many
but if we have set fleet provisions at say 10 provisions and 500 exp
costs would be 2,500 Fleet Marks 2500 of this item and 2500 of that item and 15,000 dil.
But you get the idea.
Ahh but here comes the end project stuff fleets that are all tiered up. Just make some projects that add cosmetic changes as projects. just like the special dilithium projects but with fleet marks, and commodities, and just make them expensive so contributions would take a bit to finish up.
Example you want freighter traffic I at your fully upgraded starbase (more ships coming and going to give a busier atmosphere) and it would costs 100,000 fleet marks, 1,000,000 of this and 1,000,000 of that, and 500,000 dil.
But this should reflect a large fleet having more traffic because they are a larger fleet....
TLDR;
set provisioning rewards based on number of provisions gained
set leveling up exp at a low level but leave the time gate
add endgame tiered up cosmetic projects with substantial costs to gain fleet credits.
We have to work in the system we have. We know that sponsorship can work in the system. We know this b/c it works great for the character rep gains, and that system is very similar to the SB system.
I don't love the idea of being able sell tokens, but I don't see a better or safer way of doing it. This method would solve the security issue, and enable help reaching more little fleets. It would still take time, if the project is expensive but it would be serious progress over what we have now.
For the record, I am not in favor of killing off the elephants so the mice can take over.
It is, flat out, going to take small fleets more time to advance. There is no fair way to level the playing field.
I do however believe there are ways to mitigate the problems that both large and small fleets (and even perhaps the unfleeted) are having by creating synergies between the two. There is also potential for small fleets to act collectively... which might even create a better command structure for some fleets that have Divisions.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
That's not entirely accurate. We've discussed this in my fleet several times. My large fleet gets access to fleet credits and energy credits, while the other fleet gets fleet marks, dilithium, doffs, and other resources. Both sides get something in this transaction.
The problem is that the mechanics right now to have people in large fleets help small fleets are, at best, extraordinarily cumbersome and make it an administrative nightmare. (1)
What Malinus (hereinafter: "Arkin") was getting at with his initial post was a way to try and improve cooperation while "keeping it simple, stupid(2)". That's why I support Arkin's idea of a "XP track" token in order to double the XP given out by projects. This means it'll cost a small fleet roughly half the resources to advance in a specific track.
I would actually argue that many fleets that would be in a position to create XP track tokens would give them away, versus selling them on the exchange.
(1) I don't think it can be doubted that the fleet holdings interface is, at best, suboptimal. I'd love to be able to open and close individual stores on individual holdings. I'd love for the wording on "this opens stores" to be a bit more clear. I'd also like a functioning text editor to change my fleet message of the day.
(2) I am not calling anyone on these boards or Cryptic Studios stupid. Just invoking a standard engineering principle.
But don't forget my Donation Dilemma principle, though:
Doubling the XP doesn't make the projects complete any faster, it just means you don't have to do as many of them to reach the next milestone.
This might not be a problem as long as Cryptic keeps cranking out Holdings, but then they're compounding the problem of how long it takes to "max" out when a fleet is already behind the curve.
I'm not opposed to it. I'm just saying that the approach will necessarily generate fewer fleet credits and thus require more projects to make up the difference.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
You're right, it will generate far fewer fleet credits for the fleet that receives a sponsership token, and thus take that available pool of fleet credits out of the game. I think that the trade-off between allowing a serious, small fleet to realistically complete a project versus members of a large fleet to gain (more) fleet credits from other fleets is a worthwhile one.
In theory, there is no upper limit to the amount of fleet credits that can be generated by a large fleet if they choose to slot the starbase provisioning projects. The problem (and the one I'm currently having a dilemma on) is that 1) we want to save resources for the Spire/next fleet holding and 2) slotting projects can be a pain.
#2 is a rather interesting problem: Essentially, one of the problem with the "small" fleet credit generating projects is that while they have a half hour cooldown time, they're still 1) small and 2) require an appropriately ranked officer to slot them. In my fleet, such officers are often not always online. So there could be periods where the projects don't get slotted.
Adding project slotting functionality to Gateway would help quite a bit.
It depends upon the pool donating. In absolute terms the limit on how many FC can be generated is measured only in cool downs. Given that you can cycle half hour cool downs at its not a huge concern as long as the population contributing is small enough that everyone gets a chance to donate. Given that a small fleet is the most likely full fill that requirement I'm not overly concerned about it.
The fact of the matter is double XP will simply increase the rate at which, small fleets run into the large project road blocks. That in the grand scheme of things may be the real danger of this plan. As anyone with an interested in the topic knows the top end projects take vast resources. Hopefully the decrease in day to day resources cost will help small fleets deal with the more rapid large scale projects.
that has already reach Tier 5 starbase to be
allowed to sponsor another fleet, both fleets
will be allies, the small fleet will have something
like 10% discount on all resources or 10% reduction
on project cooldowns.
If you take away the need for members of large fleets to seek other means of getting their fleet credits, or if you do anything that reduces the amount of fleet credits a small fleet is able to generate, you remove the motivation.
Selling sponsorship tokens for EC, I suppose that's another way. But small fleets need EC, too. It would help a very few, but the majority would still be stuck in the grind without another avenue of assistance. Market pressure might drive the going cost down, but it will still likely be in the tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions.
Sponsorship works for the Rep system because the only thing it affects is how fast you gain XP and that is the only goal; it has the side-effect of reducing the total input resources required.
Whereas for the Fleet system, you need both XP and Fleet Credits. Gaining XP faster and reducing input resources is great, but it reduces FC's. It also does little to help with the big upgrade projects, because gaining XP is not the point for those projects.
It might be okay, though. The tremendous resource requirements for upgrades might generate sufficient fleet credits so that the loss of FC's from XP projects is negligible.
I'm coming around to the idea of a FM-FC Exchange, too, if it worked exactly like the Dilithium Exchange does. It would be harder to abuse that. But it won't necessarily help small fleets, either.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
where a master takes in a student. no sponsor token.
in this case a big fleet takes in a small fleet to train
and help them build there fleet faster. but far as the
rest of the benefits thats completely up to the developers.
1. Motivation for a large fleet helping a small fleet? As mentioned, some do it for energy credits. Others do it for access to fleet credits. But there's another reason: Altruism! Why *not* help a small fleet if the large fleet has everything done and it's two months minimum before the next holding comes out?
2. Yes, under my model you could sell a fleet sponsorship token for EC. And no doubt, some would. I'm *hoping* that most large fleet leaders would be altruistic with this, and simply donate it.
3. A Fleet Mark for Fleet Credit Exchange that worked like the dilithium exchange would be perfect and make me a very happy person. This, I think, would not only help small fleets, it would help KDF fleets in general that have fleet mark mission queues that take forever to pop.
As I stated, this is just an idea to get the ball rolling. As with any idea, tweaks & input are always needed
If the projects were dynamic based, then the actual dilithium costs would of course, reduce, based on your fleet size.
If you look back on page 4 (I think) where I posted the original idea, someone commented & said a lot of what I suggested would still be abused. Abusers will always abuse! Sad, but true!
Timers though to reduce the abuse of fleet hopping, ect. can be adjusted.
12 hour cooldown for leaving a fleet and being able to rejoin a new one to low? Up it to 48 hours then.
Obviously, on the note of scaled projects to fleet sizes, there needs to be a minimum cap on fleet size / project ratio. I'd be inclined to start it at 10 members, increase the multiplier by 10 up to 100 members & then step it up to 25 for fleets between 100-250 members. Final step would be 50 to fleets of 250-500 members. Anything over 500 (is this actually possible in game?) then use a 100 multiplier.
Now thinking more on how to stop abuse of Fleets reducing numbers just to get a cheaper project, solution was actually staring us in the face...
eg.
Fleet of 250, new tier upgrade due. Fleet leader decides that to get the project done cheaper kicks as many members as possible & gets a lot of other members to leave just before the project is due to start. They manage to get the fleet member roster down to 50!!
But wait.. They didn't realise that even though they've shrank the fleet size down, the game still sees their fleet registered size as 250 (here's the kicker) for another 60 days! (increase it more if needed).
So even though they've dropped their numbers to try & get a cheaper project running, all they've done is put all the members they've kicked on a long cooldown where they can no longer gain FC's or help contribute to any projects for said "FM's".
Now if you really wanted to reduce the abuse, when those that left can eventually rejoin, add another cooldown before they can start contributing to fleet projects. 48 hours.
So the short version:
48 hour cooldown on leaving a fleet & being able to rejoin a new one.
48 hour cooldown on joining a fleet & being able to contribute to projects.
Projects scale to fleet size:
10 member min ~ smallest scale size
+ 10 member scale size increase up to 100
+25 member scale size increase up to 250
+50 member scale size increase up to 500
+100 member scale size increase on fleets over 500
Pretty much, the larger the Fleet, the more resources to fill a project v's the smaller Fleets who don't require as much.
60 day system cooldown on Fleet size reduction (for projects)
I said it earlier. Haters are going to hate. Why must my Fleet with 500 members have to contribute more than matey boy and his 10 man Fleet?
Cause and effect. You choose to run a large Fleet, more members fighting for FM's thus there's your cause. Effect is projects cost more.
You choose to run a small Fleet, less members fighting for FM's, ergo.
REMEMBER - numbers are just random - too high? change them. Too Low? change them.
Hmmm.. I'm starting to ramble.. So in true "Thundercats" style...
"COFFEE.... Hooooooooooooooeee!":cool:
**edited bit**
I'll probably edit this down, ect.. once I've woken up a bit!
Beta player - forum knows jack as to when I started
_____________________________________________________