I think I don't really understand the Romulan aspect of this. Fleets are either KDF or Federation. There is no such thing as a "Romulan Fleet" outside of restricting membership to those of the Romulan race. To expect a wholesale cross faction fleet system for the sake of one race seems pretty demanding.
As I said previously, the RRF does not consist of a single race. But as for your contention that there is no such thing as a Romulan fleet, why do we have three distinct fleet administrative fora?
I think I don't really understand the Romulan aspect of this. Fleets are either KDF or Federation. There is no such thing as a "Romulan Fleet" outside of restricting membership to those of the Romulan race. To expect a wholesale cross faction fleet system for the sake of one race seems pretty demanding.
As I said previously, the RRF does not consist of a single race. But as for your contention that there is no such thing as a Romulan fleet, why do we have three distinct fleet administrative fora?
I think I don't really understand the Romulan aspect of this. Fleets are either KDF or Federation. There is no such thing as a "Romulan Fleet" outside of restricting membership to those of the Romulan race. To expect a wholesale cross faction fleet system for the sake of one race seems pretty demanding.
As I said previously, the RRF does not consist of a single race. But as for your contention that there is no such thing as a Romulan fleet, why do we have three distinct fleet administrative fora?
Note in particular:
"New Romulus
Romulan Fleet Recruitment"
to facilitate roleplay.
Explain the distinction into factions at all. PvP? No, since we can PvP against people of our own faction (I've even PvPed against fleetmates, without them having to leave the fleet, as they would have to do in some other games). So what is the compelling reason for factions in STO? I must confess, I'm at a loss to come up with a single reason other than "to facilitate RP."
No, as low level Charactes aren't in the "We are Allies now!"-Camp. They are at war with each other until very late into the game, even if the player doesn't do any fighting at all.
Explain the distinction into factions at all. PvP? No, since we can PvP against people of our own faction (I've even PvPed against fleetmates, without them having to leave the fleet, as they would have to do in some other games). So what is the compelling reason for factions in STO? I must confess, I'm at a loss to come up with a single reason other than "to facilitate RP."
The blue and red factions are a relic from the early days. I don't know how long you've been around but when STO launched there was only one "faction", you would only play a Starfleet captain. Later, when you reached level 20, you unlocked a Klingon "bonus" character which wouldn't have any story content at all, it was a PvP/"Monsterplay" character for when you were done with your main. Very, very slowly they developed plans for a full-fledged two-faction game based on the premise of a war, that however never was realized in that way (we all know that Cryptic had severe problems getting STO up and running in the first place, the Atari thing etc.). They kept the two factions around, though, probably to advertise the game as a two faction MMO and I don't mean that in some passive-aggressive way directed at Cryptic but it wouldn't have made much sense to remove the red faction completely and it does sound better in advertisments. But since we know officially reached the point the lead designer said they will not develop Klingon-exclusive content anymore the point is moot and thus, remains a relic from the past.
With Romulans it is similiar. When they announced the "green" flavour everybody would have thought we get a three-faction RvR mechanic and independent sotrylines and unique experiences. The truth however was merely a cross-faction character class available to both factions with unique traits and ships. They keep the illusion of having three factions, again maybe for advertising reasons or maybe there were good intentions behind it, but ultimately we're back at "we will never develop exclusive content ever again".
No, as low level Charactes aren't in the "We are Allies now!"-Camp. They are at war with each other until very late into the game, even if the player doesn't do any fighting at all.
The war effectively ends during the war storyline at level 12 or so when you are merely fighting a rogue Klingon house or you start the Fek'ihr arc KDF side when you stop fighting Starfleet. There are still the daily missions but those aren't integrated in the story, just as DOFF missions have no bearing on the story.
Player fleets, by the way, also don't exist in-universe logic. It's a purely social installation for the players, the game doesn't care in what way you RP your fleet.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
The blue and red factions are a relic from the early days. I don't know how long you've been around but when STO launched there was only one "faction", you would only play a Starfleet captain. Later, when you reached level 20, you unlocked a Klingon "bonus" character which wouldn't have any story content at all, it was a PvP/"Monsterplay" character for when you were done with your main.
well, you obviously werent around for launch. the requirement to take a fed to level 25 to unlock your level 20 kdf wasnt a feature until season 5, when sto went f2p. i think that is actually relevant in this discussion, come to think of it. its kind of hard for one not to have developed an 'us vs them' mindset if one was a kdf-main through the 'monster play' days of s1-s4 and all the hollow promises and dev inattention of that time, not to mention the things that followed. if anyone thinks cryptic lies about the kdf or pvp or whatnot in the pwe days, it was way worse in the atari days no doubt.
in a sense, feddies in this game are almost a virtual allegory of 'white male privilege'. dont be surprised that many of 'the 16%' tend to feel disenfranchised and itching for a fight.
Explain the distinction into factions at all. PvP? No, since we can PvP against people of our own faction (I've even PvPed against fleetmates, without them having to leave the fleet, as they would have to do in some other games). So what is the compelling reason for factions in STO? I must confess, I'm at a loss to come up with a single reason other than "to facilitate RP."
The blue and red factions are a relic from the early days. I don't know how long you've been around but when STO launched there was only one "faction", you would only play a Starfleet captain. Later, when you reached level 20, you unlocked a Klingon "bonus" character which wouldn't have any story content at all, it was a PvP/"Monsterplay" character for when you were done with your main. Very, very slowly they developed plans for a full-fledged two-faction game based on the premise of a war, that however never was realized in that way (we all know that Cryptic had severe problems getting STO up and running in the first place, the Atari thing etc.). They kept the two factions around, though, probably to advertise the game as a two faction MMO and I don't mean that in some passive-aggressive way directed at Cryptic but it wouldn't have made much sense to remove the red faction completely and it does sound better in advertisments. But since we know officially reached the point the lead designer said they will not develop Klingon-exclusive content anymore the point is moot and thus, remains a relic from the past.
With Romulans it is similiar. When they announced the "green" flavour everybody would have thought we get a three-faction RvR mechanic and independent sotrylines and unique experiences. The truth however was merely a cross-faction character class available to both factions with unique traits and ships. They keep the illusion of having three factions, again maybe for advertising reasons or maybe there were good intentions behind it, but ultimately we're back at "we will never develop exclusive content ever again".
No, as low level Charactes aren't in the "We are Allies now!"-Camp. They are at war with each other until very late into the game, even if the player doesn't do any fighting at all.
The war effectively ends during the war storyline at level 12 or so when you are merely fighting a rogue Klingon house or you start the Fek'ihr arc KDF side when you stop fighting Starfleet. There are still the daily missions but those aren't integrated in the story, just as DOFF missions have no bearing on the story.
Player fleets, by the way, also don't exist in-universe logic. It's a purely social installation for the players, the game doesn't care in what way you RP your fleet.
I haven't been here since launch, but I was here before LoR, when we had to start as Fed and level up before being allowed to make a KDF character.
But you've answered my question precisely: there is no point to factions in STO, and there never really was. There could have been, but that never materialized. Now there is particularly no point, since everything after the Jenolan Accords is de jure one big alliance, and there was no point de facto by the time you hit level 20, even before the discovery of the Dyson sphere. As you said, they're little or nothing more than relics of something that almost was, but never became. So why would anyone cling to the rubble of a dream that was never made into reality? The faction system is more of a hindrance to players than anything else. If the Devs would do it right, with three factions which are more than factions in name only, it would be interesting enough, since games with more than two factions are a rarity. But the current Dev team won't do that without someone higher up giving the order, and it doesn't look like that is on the table for now. So why not just do away with the aspects of the system which hinder players? A cross-faction Armada system would be a good start on that path.
Wether or not this hypothetical grouping should rely on certain kinds of characters is indeed a point not helping anyone. The STO community needs cooperation, not separation as the ship on getting unique factions sailed. This is not going to happen. We will also not see a Romulan faction (sorry protogoth and others. I would have liked a true 3 faction game like DAOC, but that's not STO).
I think it was a mistake rooted in WoW-vision to ever factionalize content and it hobbled content production from day one and continues to. Having been around other Trek games (heck, I recently discovered I knew Rikturscale IRL from STCCG), I know the way you get the most out of factions in a Trek game is to make the difference between factions HOW you complete objectives, not what objectives or missions you're trying to complete. STO kind of does this with clunky dialogue differences which always have to be manually produced. If the completion of missions was mechanical and if story structure was mechanically produced, more factions and unique faction play would be doable.
It's interesting to me that I've generally been on the theme park side of theme park vs. sandbox debates but I realize now that I simply wanted DIFFERENT things to be sandbox than some sandbox players.
And having played other MMOs, I think you're right about the inevitability factor but one thing STO doesn't have is play diversity. There are sort of roles, especially by ship, but profession is more about aptitude. The closest we have to a real, substantial gameplay difference in the heat of action are raiders and singularity cores. What I mean is... anybody can equip a sword. The availability of one sword or gun type vs. another is an artificial faction difference, not a mechanical faction difference. There isn't the kind of play diversity you'd have in a fantasy game or a super-hero game where you have:
A Hunter who is always ranged, always has a pet or more, and ALMOST ALWAYS fights ranged
VERSUS
A Warrior who is 99.9% of the time melee, who can tank or deal damage in two different ways/speeds, and who generally gets more powerful the longer as fight goes
VERSUS
A Paladin who is a bit more ranged, who can tank, deal damage, or heal, and who generally in a very loose sense starts powerfully and gets weaker over a long fight
Super-hero games are the same with mechanics like the Rage/Mana/Psyche/Combo Points/etc.
I feel like that is what should make the faction's different: pace and style of play. Not gear. Not ships, altogether. Power levels and pacing and role within a ship type. The range and pace of combat. Whether you take on one enemy or AoE.
At the end of the day, I think:
1) Faction in STO should be more like classes, to a point where same faction teaming is mechanically disadvantageous to multi-faction teaming. IDIC for goodness sakes! If we had that, you'd see more Klingon players and Romulan players. If the actual mechanics of movement and combat pacing varied between factions and Romulan + Fed + Klingon were incentivized over 3 Romulans, 3 Klingons, or 3 Fed. I not only favor cross faction teaming. I favor cross faction teaming being superior to same faction teaming. That's one reason why the factions skew so heavily towards Fed play because the factions are not synergistic and are less synergistic than everyone playing one faction. (Note: being synergistic alone is not enough. You need FUN synergy. In games where, for example, tanking or healing is a chore, fewer people do those things. I have also seen that when tanking becomes fun, people do it.)
2) Content probably needs to do more to systematically and abstractly represent Star Trek story structure to both produce more of it and create a faction feel. As long as everything has to be a scripted sequence, content is slow to produce and has a monotonous "press F" quality. Creating content for factions that is basically like producing separate novels or TV series for factions is a no-go in the longrun, sure. At the same time, content should be immersive.
I keep coming back to STCCG which had its non-intuitive elements but which had a lot of clever mechanical elements. Let me outline their content approach:
- A single player could play multiple factions aboard a ship but cooperation and maintaining that cooperation took work. A Cardassian Gul could command a Galaxy class ship with the right circumstances in effect but those circumstances were fragile and among other things you always needed one senior staff of the appropriate faction. Faction was a character trait, not so much a player trait but faction tended to involve resources and strategy.
- Characters had Integrity, Strength, and Cunning stats and a variety of skills. Generally, Feds were the weakest at Strength, Klingons were the weakest at Cunning, Romulans were the weakest at Integrity. Accomplishing things required totals of stats and generally the presence of skills (sometimes the presence of skills x2 or x3). Cross faction collaboration of characters that a player controlled required treaties (generally). There was actually quite a lot of symbolic depth to the game. Faction dictated several things including attack rules. Feds could never fire the first shot except for Mirror Feds, when under the command of non-Feds, or with a war in place.
_ Space was represented as a string of planets, placed by players. Fed ships could move faster between planets but generally had less damage. Here's where it gets interesting in terms of mechanical symbolism.
- The game's success conditions were to hit 100 points. You could hit 100 points by completing missions. Spaceline locations had missions, ground or space, with point values for the missions. Attempting a mission would require you to overcome dilemmas. Some were ground. Some were space. Some were either. The precise nature varied between editions but these dilemmas would place requirements for the player to overcome like a locked door or a computer virus or an assault by a matriarchal culture. You'd overcome these with things like Cunning, Computer skill, gender balance (or gender imbalance of away team, etc.) Factions could bypass these with card plays that were effectively faction specials sometimes. Most missions had one or more faction requirements but could be attempted if your team had a member of that faction present.
- There were alternate ways to achieve points. If you played Borg, you couldn't attempt missions at all. Borg was the PvP faction of the game. Missions were irrelevant and they got points by being a spoiler in other people's missions. Feds could often get points by having things like Youth and Music for a small bonus every turn or doing Astrophysics side objectives. I think there were cards and conditions for Klingons to get points through battle. Meanwhile, there were also (Cardassian-leaning) ways to get points through capture/torture/interrogation.
None of this is STO but I can see ways to hybridize quite a bit of this with STO, particularly with exploration content or new content types in mind. Some might have taken a STO 2 to implement. It's difficult for episodes.
But stuff like New Romulus where you have percentage completion activities shows a way forward. Now imagine that different factions have different ways to boost the percentage completion and you have cross faction teaming. That's a start. Now if you also have different pluses and different minuses to completion, that gets interesting.
Ie. maybe combat improves the team completion score for each Klingon present but provides a slight negative for each Fed present and it varies by enemy type. Now what you have is a value conflict. So instead of just having a fast completion where Feds fix all the broken ship parts and Klingons kill everything that moves, the team has to balance its values. The Fed player finds themselves saying, "Do you have to shoot everything?" And the Klingon says, "Fine. I'll try to restrain myself but only because you're my ally... for now." Maybe the Klingon gets a bonus for melee. Fed: "Why do you stab everything when you could shoot it?" Klingon: "You wouldn't understand." Fed (after looking at score): "Well, you get results, I'll say that."
Suddenly you've not just rewarded individual play or made faction abilities or faction scripted content (which is laborious). You've actually put players into their faction roles. The role is the unique faction content. The faction is the mindset.
I think it was a mistake rooted in WoW-vision to ever factionalize content and it hobbled content production from day one and continues to. Having been around other Trek games (heck, I recently discovered I knew Rikturscale IRL from STCCG), I know the way you get the most out of factions in a Trek game is to make the difference between factions HOW you complete objectives, not what objectives or missions you're trying to complete.
i actually read your entire post. really... i did!
and although there are some nice ideas there, it brings us round full circle; anything anybody has or can do, feds will demand for themselves (and with none of the associated caveats). and feds have learnt that if the cry enough, cryptic will always give in sooner or later. so your ideas could never work, because you guys would never allow it too.
]well, you obviously werent around for launch. the requirement to take a fed to level 25 to unlock your level 20 kdf wasnt a feature until season 5, when sto went f2p. i think that is actually relevant in this discussion, come to think of it. its kind of hard for one not to have developed an 'us vs them' mindset if one was a kdf-main through the 'monster play' days of s1-s4 and all the hollow promises and dev inattention of that time, not to mention the things that followed. if anyone thinks cryptic lies about the kdf or pvp or whatnot in the pwe days, it was way worse in the atari days no doubt.
in a sense, feddies in this game are almost a virtual allegory of 'white male privilege'. dont be surprised that many of 'the 16%' tend to feel disenfranchised and itching for a fight.
I was indeed not around at launch but I had my PvP only Klingon as well. I joined shortly before crossfire hit which is why I wrote "later" you unlocked the char at lvl 25 (I wrote 20 as I really didn't know anymore). The "us vs. them" thing has nothing to do with the game, though, it has to be a general mental attitude one has. I only bought STO so I could play a Klingon because I liked the idea and the Starfleet aesthetics turned me off at the time (very little canon stuff). But I never developed that mindset as I considered it petty (outside of in-game events and RP situations) in DAOC, in WoW, WAR or in EVE or any other MMO I played (granted, today I only play STO anymore and occasionally GW2). Even if your main was KDF and even if Cryptic lied during their pre-launch advertisments we all were still in it together. I am still waiting for my Targ handling kit and yes I am disappointed but I can still enjoy what the game offers while I wait. And yes, I will continue to wait. I want my promised Targ handling kit. But I don't throw a tantrum about it or blame other players. I blame Cryptic for broken promises - but they are a company. I expect them to lie to sell their stuff so I'm not surprised. And I expect them to follow the money and fed is the larger playerbase (and strangely it is also full of people who think you can only play one faction or else something will fall off).
(...) So why would anyone cling to the rubble of a dream that was never made into reality? The faction system is more of a hindrance to players than anything else. If the Devs would do it right, with three factions which are more than factions in name only, it would be interesting enough, since games with more than two factions are a rarity. But the current Dev team won't do that without someone higher up giving the order, and it doesn't look like that is on the table for now. So why not just do away with the aspects of the system which hinder players? A cross-faction Armada system would be a good start on that path.
I can't answer that. In the best case it's a admirable stalwartness in face of broken promises from six years ago. In the worst case it's some kind of unhealthy fixation on being hateful and chronically unstatisfied and unhappy. To me it's just a game. A game that took a turn in a direction I do not favour but also a game that made big mistakes before it even launched. But it's still just a game and I accept the reality of how it looks today and I play it and be active in the community as long as I have fun. If the community would get together and would promote cooperation I think it would be in the best interest of all of us instead of spitting defiance and hostility in all directions because at one point I can see this behaviour extinguishing the slightest motivation of the devs to do something nice at all (for example quite a lot of people actually reacted hostile on the KDF art asset update announcement).
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
]the requirement to take a fed to level 25 to unlock your level 20 kdf wasnt a feature until season 5, when sto went f2p.
I joined shortly before crossfire hit which is why I wrote "later" you unlocked the char at lvl 25 (I wrote 20 as I really didn't know anymore).
At launch, the requirement to start a KDF character was to get your Fed to level 5. That was increased when they raised the KDF starting level to 20. It wasn't until they added more KDF missions that they removed the starting requirement completely. But that was all in the past. Now we have five years of additional game developments changing the way the factions interact.
I think it was a mistake rooted in WoW-vision to ever factionalize content and it hobbled content production from day one and continues to. Having been around other Trek games (heck, I recently discovered I knew Rikturscale IRL from STCCG), I know the way you get the most out of factions in a Trek game is to make the difference between factions HOW you complete objectives, not what objectives or missions you're trying to complete.
i actually read your entire post. really... i did!
and although there are some nice ideas there, it brings us round full circle; anything anybody has or can do, feds will demand for themselves (and with none of the associated caveats). and feds have learnt that if the cry enough, cryptic will always give in sooner or later. so your ideas could never work, because you guys would never allow it too.
Well, Feds will demand it for themselves because it's behind a wall. And Cryptic will comply up to a point because Feds represent the majority of players and supporting features is easier when more people use them and monetizing things is more effective when you have more people to sell to.
This takes us back to the problematic design of factionalization and faction being something you ARE rather than something you HAVE.
One reason factions could be very well supported in STCCG is because you have a deck that contains cards of multiple factions. Ultimately, per given deck strategy, one or two factions will dominate or one or two mechanics will dominate. But if a must-have Cardassian came out, people found ways to get that into use in a Fed or Klingon deck. The faction may have created a vulnerability but I think it helped in that case that a player wasn't playing a single captain but a third person force overseeing multiple interacting ships and captains. Same could probably be said for Armada.
There are a lot of ways to look at this but Cryptic has always talked about getting to a point where we're Ben Siskos, overseeing fleets of allied ships from our one with Captain BOs.
At the point where you have Captain BOs, I'm not sure it matters that they match your faction. (Not that many of the special ones do already.) I recognize that idea might drive people nuts but it also opens the door for more unique faction mechanics.
Yes, Feds will demand unique Klingon features. You get around that issue if you give them a Klingon who gets those features. Basically a sub-alt. And I know that would make some Klingons livid but giving people sub-alts of the other factions would actually encourage faction distinctiveness in a roundabout way.
If every Fed has a Klingon attache and a Romulan attache under their command that they can hot swap to play (and every KDF captain has a Fed and a Romulan and every Romulan has a Fed and a Klingon) then play distinctiveness becomes more supportable. And then you not only have, say, hotswapping but you make it so that the "bridge officer commanding an NPC assist ship" squadron consists of the two attaches you're not playing as so every player captain is flying a mini-fleet composed of one Fed ship, one Rom ship, and one KDF ship.
And if you made that ship tied to C-Store ownership, you'd see demand for KDF ships of all types skyrocket overnight, financially and mechanically supporting development. Because Feds if their space armada has to be 1/3rd Klingon, will buy Klingon ships then.
If space away teams are like ground, you'd be controlling 5 ships, right? Make it:
Your ship.
One same faction ship.
One other faction ship.
One other-other faction ship.
One universal ship ally slot.
Ground would be all universal. Or maybe shift the way ground slots work so that it's:
You
3 Bridge Officer Slots
1 Special Bridge Officer Slot that can be EITHER a standard BO or a Captain (of any faction) under your command. Maybe start adjusting things so that the T7 content ALL allows every Captain to bring one captain BO. So Infected Ground T7 would be redesigned around having 5 player Fleet Admirals with 5 Captain BOs assisting them.
Absolutely not. With the Klingon Empire already being superior to the feddybears, so superior that the Iconians AND the Undine targeted us first as the biggest challenge to their conquest, all it would be, would be more feddybears sponging technology and strength off of the mighty Klingon Defense Force.
Sorry, I have not completely read this entire thread...so I am not sure if this has been brought up......
If the ONLY thing that is stopping a cross faction FLEET for the Romulans is "FED" vs "KDF" gear specific sale in the Fleet Stores.....all Cryptic has to do is: make FED and KDF fleet CREDITS a different currency.
The "pure" KDF player and the KDF Aligned Romulan will earn "KDF Fleet CREDITS".
The "pure" FED players and the FED aligned Romulan will earn "FED Fleet CREDITS".
Everything sold in the Fleet Stores will have faction currency applied (instead of a generalized fleet credit as it is, now)
Characters must have the faction specific Fleet Credit to buy from the store.
In this way, you CAN have a dual faction fleet holding, with Fleet stores from both "sides" included.
Sale of gear will be segregated, because that character will only have Fleet Credits for one faction or the other.
+++++++++++++++
You don't need a "ROM Fleet Credits" currency because they are purchasing gear per their alignment.
Plus, you want to make sure a KDF/FED Aligned Romulan can still make purchases, if they prefer to be in a KDF or FED fleet, instead of the Romulan one.
Everyone is already blocked from buying or using T-5, and higher, ships of the factions. I don't see that there is any concern there....at least, not one that should be visible to the players at this point.
"Spend your life doing strange things with weird people." -- UNK
“Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.” -- Benjamin Franklin
And if you made that ship tied to C-Store ownership, you'd see demand for KDF ships of all types skyrocket overnight, financially and mechanically supporting development. Because Feds if their space armada has to be 1/3rd Klingon, will buy Klingon ships then.
True. I would buy more KDF and Rom ships for sure. As it is now, klingons only need a big doff roster and ship with bank access. There's no other advantage in playing them. (Tho, yes it's a pretty big one lol...)
IF Cryptic should allow CROSS FACTION ARMADAS….it would set up a very poisonous atmosphere in this game.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Story:
A high level KDF ARMADA ….needs more Gammas. They grab several low level, incomplete fleets (that have plenty of active players) from the FED side for their purposes.
Wouldn’t FED ARMADAS feel the pinch for lack of working fleets?
Probably not, because of "numbers".
BUT…. think on this:
ISN’T THIS what you are asking the KDF players to suffer through?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think some of the premise of “cross faction ARMADAS” is actually about gaining an advantage for alternate characters of Fed players. Connecting to “Sister Fleets” so they can gain growth and access to what they need for themselves in the Fed Fleet.
This is NOT community building on the KDF side at all.
It is a sad thing to see. Doing this under the guise of being altruistic toward the “poor” KDF fleets. Under the guise of building "interest" in the KDF and Romulan factions.
When in reality what they are "seeing" and "thinking" is: Access to everything with the least amount of interaction with those OUTSIDE the group we play with already.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think most KDF fleets are self reliant (as in does not need infusions from FED) and know we don’t have to spend our resources on our holdings. So, we don't. Thanks to fully leveled fleets that are open and public about helping us out.
Let us, the KDF players, make our own alignments, and help each other without interference from all this Federation “good will”.
(Still, have not read this entire thread, and I don't have time.....but I think this all needed to be said.)
Edit...oops wrote "Fleet" where I meant to say "Armada".
"Spend your life doing strange things with weird people." -- UNK
“Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.” -- Benjamin Franklin
I think some of the premise of “cross faction ARMADAS” is actually about gaining an advantage for alternate characters of Fed players. Connecting to “Sister Fleets” so they can gain growth and access to what they need for themselves in the Fed Fleet.
(...)
What kind of growth and access do the fed fleets gain from adding to the kdf projects? Seriously?
I don't get this kind of delusional paranoia towards... towards what? Players that play the blue side, players that play all sides or players that don't forum-rp in a free-to-play, open-for-all online game?
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
When in reality what they are "seeing" and "thinking" is: Access to everything with the least amount of interaction with those OUTSIDE the group we play with already.
...
How is being allowed to contribute to projects access to everything?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think most KDF fleets are self reliant (as in does not need infusions from FED) and know we don’t have to spend our resources on our holdings. So, we don't. Thanks to fully leveled fleets that are open and public about helping us out.
Ahh, there it is, someone's worried that a certain soup kitchen front will lose its attraction and thus usefulness.
This is my Risian Corvette. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I think most KDF fleets are self reliant (as in does not need infusions from FED) and know we don’t have to spend our resources on our holdings. So, we don't. Thanks to fully leveled fleets that are open and public about helping us out.
Ahh, there it is, someone's worried that a certain soup kitchen front will lose its attraction and thus usefulness.[/quote]
More like evidence of what I have said in reply to tehbubbaloo, that the "free T5 starbase for all" thing is not helping smaller KDF and KDF-allied RRF fleets, but hindering their development.
Ahh, there it is, someone's worried that a certain soup kitchen front will lose its attraction and thus usefulness.
More like evidence of what I have said in reply to tehbubbaloo, that the "free T5 starbase for all" thing is not helping smaller KDF and KDF-allied RRF fleets, but hindering their development.
And they present it as community service.
This is my Risian Corvette. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
IF Cryptic should allow CROSS FACTION ARMADAS….it would set up a very poisonous atmosphere in this game.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Story:
A high level KDF ARMADA ….needs more Gammas. They grab several low level, incomplete fleets (that have plenty of active players) from the FED side for their purposes.
Wouldn’t FED ARMADAS feel the pinch for lack of working fleets?
Probably not, because of "numbers".
BUT…. think on this:
ISN’T THIS what you are asking the KDF players to suffer through?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think some of the premise of “cross faction ARMADAS” is actually about gaining an advantage for alternate characters of Fed players. Connecting to “Sister Fleets” so they can gain growth and access to what they need for themselves in the Fed Fleet.
This is NOT community building on the KDF side at all.
It is a sad thing to see. Doing this under the guise of being altruistic toward the “poor” KDF fleets. Under the guise of building "interest" in the KDF and Romulan factions.
When in reality what they are "seeing" and "thinking" is: Access to everything with the least amount of interaction with those OUTSIDE the group we play with already.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think most KDF fleets are self reliant (as in does not need infusions from FED) and know we don’t have to spend our resources on our holdings. So, we don't. Thanks to fully leveled fleets that are open and public about helping us out.
Let us, the KDF players, make our own alignments, and help each other without interference from all this Federation “good will”.
(Still, have not read this entire thread, and I don't have time.....but I think this all needed to be said.)
Edit...oops wrote "Fleet" where I meant to say "Armada".
More like evidence of what I have said in reply to tehbubbaloo, that the "free T5 starbase for all" thing is not helping smaller KDF and KDF-allied RRF fleets, but hindering their development.
if it werent for that soup kitchen, id likely have a dozen fleets in my sig full of your ex-members. us keeping your fleet members fat and happy keeps you from losing those members to fleets with higher holdings. i know you guys dont want to see it that way, but its reality.
Well, Feds will demand it for themselves because it's behind a wall. And Cryptic will comply up to a point because Feds represent the majority of players and supporting features is easier when more people use them and monetizing things is more effective when you have more people to sell to.
This takes us back to the problematic design of factionalization and faction being something you ARE rather than something you HAVE.
One reason factions could be very well supported in STCCG is because...
im not trying to dodge your post. i just dont think i can make a reply that does it justice because i cannot envision the system you are talking about.
Out of pure self-interest, I voted "yes" because it could be a boon to our one allied KDF fleet, and it's one more potential option for any of us looking to unload fleet marks, which has been difficult in the largest fleet due to a dilithium shortage.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
More like evidence of what I have said in reply to tehbubbaloo, that the "free T5 starbase for all" thing is not helping smaller KDF and KDF-allied RRF fleets, but hindering their development.
if it werent for that soup kitchen, id likely have a dozen fleets in my sig full of your ex-members. us keeping your fleet members fat and happy keeps you from losing those members to fleets with higher holdings. i know you guys dont want to see it that way, but its reality.
Well, as I don't have any fleets, by null set logic you only truthfully can have every one of my fleet members or none.
Of the two I'm in that aren't just for being able to do that fleet action event last year, one is a mostly defunct social fed fleet and the other is a social one from another game redside.
I'm just glad I found out the soup kitchen fleet's affiliation before becoming beholden to them in anyway.
This is my Risian Corvette. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Here's a question for you, tehbubbaloo: What about your own Fed spinoff fleet? If this does go through, are you planning to stick to your guns and not invite House of Beautiful -ufp- into the fold?
Comments
seriously.
free jkname
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
As I said previously, the RRF does not consist of a single race. But as for your contention that there is no such thing as a Romulan fleet, why do we have three distinct fleet administrative fora?
Look:
http://www.arcgames.com/en/forums#/categories/fleet-administrative-station
Note in particular:
"New Romulus
Romulan Fleet Recruitment"
to facilitate roleplay.
free jkname
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Explain the distinction into factions at all. PvP? No, since we can PvP against people of our own faction (I've even PvPed against fleetmates, without them having to leave the fleet, as they would have to do in some other games). So what is the compelling reason for factions in STO? I must confess, I'm at a loss to come up with a single reason other than "to facilitate RP."
There are no Factions in STO.
RIP KDF and PvP 2014-07-17 Season 9.5 - Death by Dev
The blue and red factions are a relic from the early days. I don't know how long you've been around but when STO launched there was only one "faction", you would only play a Starfleet captain. Later, when you reached level 20, you unlocked a Klingon "bonus" character which wouldn't have any story content at all, it was a PvP/"Monsterplay" character for when you were done with your main. Very, very slowly they developed plans for a full-fledged two-faction game based on the premise of a war, that however never was realized in that way (we all know that Cryptic had severe problems getting STO up and running in the first place, the Atari thing etc.). They kept the two factions around, though, probably to advertise the game as a two faction MMO and I don't mean that in some passive-aggressive way directed at Cryptic but it wouldn't have made much sense to remove the red faction completely and it does sound better in advertisments. But since we know officially reached the point the lead designer said they will not develop Klingon-exclusive content anymore the point is moot and thus, remains a relic from the past.
With Romulans it is similiar. When they announced the "green" flavour everybody would have thought we get a three-faction RvR mechanic and independent sotrylines and unique experiences. The truth however was merely a cross-faction character class available to both factions with unique traits and ships. They keep the illusion of having three factions, again maybe for advertising reasons or maybe there were good intentions behind it, but ultimately we're back at "we will never develop exclusive content ever again".
The war effectively ends during the war storyline at level 12 or so when you are merely fighting a rogue Klingon house or you start the Fek'ihr arc KDF side when you stop fighting Starfleet. There are still the daily missions but those aren't integrated in the story, just as DOFF missions have no bearing on the story.
Player fleets, by the way, also don't exist in-universe logic. It's a purely social installation for the players, the game doesn't care in what way you RP your fleet.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
in a sense, feddies in this game are almost a virtual allegory of 'white male privilege'. dont be surprised that many of 'the 16%' tend to feel disenfranchised and itching for a fight.
free jkname
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I haven't been here since launch, but I was here before LoR, when we had to start as Fed and level up before being allowed to make a KDF character.
But you've answered my question precisely: there is no point to factions in STO, and there never really was. There could have been, but that never materialized. Now there is particularly no point, since everything after the Jenolan Accords is de jure one big alliance, and there was no point de facto by the time you hit level 20, even before the discovery of the Dyson sphere. As you said, they're little or nothing more than relics of something that almost was, but never became. So why would anyone cling to the rubble of a dream that was never made into reality? The faction system is more of a hindrance to players than anything else. If the Devs would do it right, with three factions which are more than factions in name only, it would be interesting enough, since games with more than two factions are a rarity. But the current Dev team won't do that without someone higher up giving the order, and it doesn't look like that is on the table for now. So why not just do away with the aspects of the system which hinder players? A cross-faction Armada system would be a good start on that path.
I think it was a mistake rooted in WoW-vision to ever factionalize content and it hobbled content production from day one and continues to. Having been around other Trek games (heck, I recently discovered I knew Rikturscale IRL from STCCG), I know the way you get the most out of factions in a Trek game is to make the difference between factions HOW you complete objectives, not what objectives or missions you're trying to complete. STO kind of does this with clunky dialogue differences which always have to be manually produced. If the completion of missions was mechanical and if story structure was mechanically produced, more factions and unique faction play would be doable.
It's interesting to me that I've generally been on the theme park side of theme park vs. sandbox debates but I realize now that I simply wanted DIFFERENT things to be sandbox than some sandbox players.
And having played other MMOs, I think you're right about the inevitability factor but one thing STO doesn't have is play diversity. There are sort of roles, especially by ship, but profession is more about aptitude. The closest we have to a real, substantial gameplay difference in the heat of action are raiders and singularity cores. What I mean is... anybody can equip a sword. The availability of one sword or gun type vs. another is an artificial faction difference, not a mechanical faction difference. There isn't the kind of play diversity you'd have in a fantasy game or a super-hero game where you have:
A Hunter who is always ranged, always has a pet or more, and ALMOST ALWAYS fights ranged
VERSUS
A Warrior who is 99.9% of the time melee, who can tank or deal damage in two different ways/speeds, and who generally gets more powerful the longer as fight goes
VERSUS
A Paladin who is a bit more ranged, who can tank, deal damage, or heal, and who generally in a very loose sense starts powerfully and gets weaker over a long fight
Super-hero games are the same with mechanics like the Rage/Mana/Psyche/Combo Points/etc.
I feel like that is what should make the faction's different: pace and style of play. Not gear. Not ships, altogether. Power levels and pacing and role within a ship type. The range and pace of combat. Whether you take on one enemy or AoE.
At the end of the day, I think:
1) Faction in STO should be more like classes, to a point where same faction teaming is mechanically disadvantageous to multi-faction teaming. IDIC for goodness sakes! If we had that, you'd see more Klingon players and Romulan players. If the actual mechanics of movement and combat pacing varied between factions and Romulan + Fed + Klingon were incentivized over 3 Romulans, 3 Klingons, or 3 Fed. I not only favor cross faction teaming. I favor cross faction teaming being superior to same faction teaming. That's one reason why the factions skew so heavily towards Fed play because the factions are not synergistic and are less synergistic than everyone playing one faction. (Note: being synergistic alone is not enough. You need FUN synergy. In games where, for example, tanking or healing is a chore, fewer people do those things. I have also seen that when tanking becomes fun, people do it.)
2) Content probably needs to do more to systematically and abstractly represent Star Trek story structure to both produce more of it and create a faction feel. As long as everything has to be a scripted sequence, content is slow to produce and has a monotonous "press F" quality. Creating content for factions that is basically like producing separate novels or TV series for factions is a no-go in the longrun, sure. At the same time, content should be immersive.
I keep coming back to STCCG which had its non-intuitive elements but which had a lot of clever mechanical elements. Let me outline their content approach:
- A single player could play multiple factions aboard a ship but cooperation and maintaining that cooperation took work. A Cardassian Gul could command a Galaxy class ship with the right circumstances in effect but those circumstances were fragile and among other things you always needed one senior staff of the appropriate faction. Faction was a character trait, not so much a player trait but faction tended to involve resources and strategy.
- Characters had Integrity, Strength, and Cunning stats and a variety of skills. Generally, Feds were the weakest at Strength, Klingons were the weakest at Cunning, Romulans were the weakest at Integrity. Accomplishing things required totals of stats and generally the presence of skills (sometimes the presence of skills x2 or x3). Cross faction collaboration of characters that a player controlled required treaties (generally). There was actually quite a lot of symbolic depth to the game. Faction dictated several things including attack rules. Feds could never fire the first shot except for Mirror Feds, when under the command of non-Feds, or with a war in place.
_ Space was represented as a string of planets, placed by players. Fed ships could move faster between planets but generally had less damage. Here's where it gets interesting in terms of mechanical symbolism.
- The game's success conditions were to hit 100 points. You could hit 100 points by completing missions. Spaceline locations had missions, ground or space, with point values for the missions. Attempting a mission would require you to overcome dilemmas. Some were ground. Some were space. Some were either. The precise nature varied between editions but these dilemmas would place requirements for the player to overcome like a locked door or a computer virus or an assault by a matriarchal culture. You'd overcome these with things like Cunning, Computer skill, gender balance (or gender imbalance of away team, etc.) Factions could bypass these with card plays that were effectively faction specials sometimes. Most missions had one or more faction requirements but could be attempted if your team had a member of that faction present.
- There were alternate ways to achieve points. If you played Borg, you couldn't attempt missions at all. Borg was the PvP faction of the game. Missions were irrelevant and they got points by being a spoiler in other people's missions. Feds could often get points by having things like Youth and Music for a small bonus every turn or doing Astrophysics side objectives. I think there were cards and conditions for Klingons to get points through battle. Meanwhile, there were also (Cardassian-leaning) ways to get points through capture/torture/interrogation.
None of this is STO but I can see ways to hybridize quite a bit of this with STO, particularly with exploration content or new content types in mind. Some might have taken a STO 2 to implement. It's difficult for episodes.
But stuff like New Romulus where you have percentage completion activities shows a way forward. Now imagine that different factions have different ways to boost the percentage completion and you have cross faction teaming. That's a start. Now if you also have different pluses and different minuses to completion, that gets interesting.
Ie. maybe combat improves the team completion score for each Klingon present but provides a slight negative for each Fed present and it varies by enemy type. Now what you have is a value conflict. So instead of just having a fast completion where Feds fix all the broken ship parts and Klingons kill everything that moves, the team has to balance its values. The Fed player finds themselves saying, "Do you have to shoot everything?" And the Klingon says, "Fine. I'll try to restrain myself but only because you're my ally... for now." Maybe the Klingon gets a bonus for melee. Fed: "Why do you stab everything when you could shoot it?" Klingon: "You wouldn't understand." Fed (after looking at score): "Well, you get results, I'll say that."
Suddenly you've not just rewarded individual play or made faction abilities or faction scripted content (which is laborious). You've actually put players into their faction roles. The role is the unique faction content. The faction is the mindset.
and although there are some nice ideas there, it brings us round full circle; anything anybody has or can do, feds will demand for themselves (and with none of the associated caveats). and feds have learnt that if the cry enough, cryptic will always give in sooner or later. so your ideas could never work, because you guys would never allow it too.
free jkname
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I was indeed not around at launch but I had my PvP only Klingon as well. I joined shortly before crossfire hit which is why I wrote "later" you unlocked the char at lvl 25 (I wrote 20 as I really didn't know anymore). The "us vs. them" thing has nothing to do with the game, though, it has to be a general mental attitude one has. I only bought STO so I could play a Klingon because I liked the idea and the Starfleet aesthetics turned me off at the time (very little canon stuff). But I never developed that mindset as I considered it petty (outside of in-game events and RP situations) in DAOC, in WoW, WAR or in EVE or any other MMO I played (granted, today I only play STO anymore and occasionally GW2). Even if your main was KDF and even if Cryptic lied during their pre-launch advertisments we all were still in it together. I am still waiting for my Targ handling kit and yes I am disappointed but I can still enjoy what the game offers while I wait. And yes, I will continue to wait. I want my promised Targ handling kit. But I don't throw a tantrum about it or blame other players. I blame Cryptic for broken promises - but they are a company. I expect them to lie to sell their stuff so I'm not surprised. And I expect them to follow the money and fed is the larger playerbase (and strangely it is also full of people who think you can only play one faction or else something will fall off).
I can't answer that. In the best case it's a admirable stalwartness in face of broken promises from six years ago. In the worst case it's some kind of unhealthy fixation on being hateful and chronically unstatisfied and unhappy. To me it's just a game. A game that took a turn in a direction I do not favour but also a game that made big mistakes before it even launched. But it's still just a game and I accept the reality of how it looks today and I play it and be active in the community as long as I have fun. If the community would get together and would promote cooperation I think it would be in the best interest of all of us instead of spitting defiance and hostility in all directions because at one point I can see this behaviour extinguishing the slightest motivation of the devs to do something nice at all (for example quite a lot of people actually reacted hostile on the KDF art asset update announcement).
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
At launch, the requirement to start a KDF character was to get your Fed to level 5. That was increased when they raised the KDF starting level to 20. It wasn't until they added more KDF missions that they removed the starting requirement completely. But that was all in the past. Now we have five years of additional game developments changing the way the factions interact.
...pretty much sums up the argument against cross-faction armadas: Blame the Feds.
STO Resources: <Ship Comparison - All Tiers + Small Craft + Hangar Pets> <Damage Resistance>
<R&D + Upgrade Costs> <Duty Officer Finder> <Suliban Doff Reqs> <Fleet Costs> <Rep Costs>
<Keybind Tour the Galaxy> <Fleet / Armada Management> <Currency Exchange> <Other STO Links>
Well, Feds will demand it for themselves because it's behind a wall. And Cryptic will comply up to a point because Feds represent the majority of players and supporting features is easier when more people use them and monetizing things is more effective when you have more people to sell to.
This takes us back to the problematic design of factionalization and faction being something you ARE rather than something you HAVE.
One reason factions could be very well supported in STCCG is because you have a deck that contains cards of multiple factions. Ultimately, per given deck strategy, one or two factions will dominate or one or two mechanics will dominate. But if a must-have Cardassian came out, people found ways to get that into use in a Fed or Klingon deck. The faction may have created a vulnerability but I think it helped in that case that a player wasn't playing a single captain but a third person force overseeing multiple interacting ships and captains. Same could probably be said for Armada.
There are a lot of ways to look at this but Cryptic has always talked about getting to a point where we're Ben Siskos, overseeing fleets of allied ships from our one with Captain BOs.
At the point where you have Captain BOs, I'm not sure it matters that they match your faction. (Not that many of the special ones do already.) I recognize that idea might drive people nuts but it also opens the door for more unique faction mechanics.
Yes, Feds will demand unique Klingon features. You get around that issue if you give them a Klingon who gets those features. Basically a sub-alt. And I know that would make some Klingons livid but giving people sub-alts of the other factions would actually encourage faction distinctiveness in a roundabout way.
If every Fed has a Klingon attache and a Romulan attache under their command that they can hot swap to play (and every KDF captain has a Fed and a Romulan and every Romulan has a Fed and a Klingon) then play distinctiveness becomes more supportable. And then you not only have, say, hotswapping but you make it so that the "bridge officer commanding an NPC assist ship" squadron consists of the two attaches you're not playing as so every player captain is flying a mini-fleet composed of one Fed ship, one Rom ship, and one KDF ship.
And if you made that ship tied to C-Store ownership, you'd see demand for KDF ships of all types skyrocket overnight, financially and mechanically supporting development. Because Feds if their space armada has to be 1/3rd Klingon, will buy Klingon ships then.
If space away teams are like ground, you'd be controlling 5 ships, right? Make it:
Your ship.
One same faction ship.
One other faction ship.
One other-other faction ship.
One universal ship ally slot.
Ground would be all universal. Or maybe shift the way ground slots work so that it's:
You
3 Bridge Officer Slots
1 Special Bridge Officer Slot that can be EITHER a standard BO or a Captain (of any faction) under your command. Maybe start adjusting things so that the T7 content ALL allows every Captain to bring one captain BO. So Infected Ground T7 would be redesigned around having 5 player Fleet Admirals with 5 Captain BOs assisting them.
If the ONLY thing that is stopping a cross faction FLEET for the Romulans is "FED" vs "KDF" gear specific sale in the Fleet Stores.....all Cryptic has to do is: make FED and KDF fleet CREDITS a different currency.
The "pure" KDF player and the KDF Aligned Romulan will earn "KDF Fleet CREDITS".
The "pure" FED players and the FED aligned Romulan will earn "FED Fleet CREDITS".
Everything sold in the Fleet Stores will have faction currency applied (instead of a generalized fleet credit as it is, now)
Characters must have the faction specific Fleet Credit to buy from the store.
In this way, you CAN have a dual faction fleet holding, with Fleet stores from both "sides" included.
Sale of gear will be segregated, because that character will only have Fleet Credits for one faction or the other.
+++++++++++++++
You don't need a "ROM Fleet Credits" currency because they are purchasing gear per their alignment.
Plus, you want to make sure a KDF/FED Aligned Romulan can still make purchases, if they prefer to be in a KDF or FED fleet, instead of the Romulan one.
Everyone is already blocked from buying or using T-5, and higher, ships of the factions. I don't see that there is any concern there....at least, not one that should be visible to the players at this point.
“Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.” -- Benjamin Franklin
True. I would buy more KDF and Rom ships for sure. As it is now, klingons only need a big doff roster and ship with bank access. There's no other advantage in playing them. (Tho, yes it's a pretty big one lol...)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Story:
A high level KDF ARMADA ….needs more Gammas. They grab several low level, incomplete fleets (that have plenty of active players) from the FED side for their purposes.
Wouldn’t FED ARMADAS feel the pinch for lack of working fleets?
Probably not, because of "numbers".
BUT…. think on this:
ISN’T THIS what you are asking the KDF players to suffer through?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think some of the premise of “cross faction ARMADAS” is actually about gaining an advantage for alternate characters of Fed players. Connecting to “Sister Fleets” so they can gain growth and access to what they need for themselves in the Fed Fleet.
This is NOT community building on the KDF side at all.
It is a sad thing to see. Doing this under the guise of being altruistic toward the “poor” KDF fleets. Under the guise of building "interest" in the KDF and Romulan factions.
When in reality what they are "seeing" and "thinking" is: Access to everything with the least amount of interaction with those OUTSIDE the group we play with already.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think most KDF fleets are self reliant (as in does not need infusions from FED) and know we don’t have to spend our resources on our holdings. So, we don't. Thanks to fully leveled fleets that are open and public about helping us out.
Let us, the KDF players, make our own alignments, and help each other without interference from all this Federation “good will”.
(Still, have not read this entire thread, and I don't have time.....but I think this all needed to be said.)
Edit...oops wrote "Fleet" where I meant to say "Armada".
“Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.” -- Benjamin Franklin
What kind of growth and access do the fed fleets gain from adding to the kdf projects? Seriously?
I don't get this kind of delusional paranoia towards... towards what? Players that play the blue side, players that play all sides or players that don't forum-rp in a free-to-play, open-for-all online game?
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
How is being allowed to contribute to projects access to everything?
Ahh, there it is, someone's worried that a certain soup kitchen front will lose its attraction and thus usefulness.
Ahh, there it is, someone's worried that a certain soup kitchen front will lose its attraction and thus usefulness.[/quote]
More like evidence of what I have said in reply to tehbubbaloo, that the "free T5 starbase for all" thing is not helping smaller KDF and KDF-allied RRF fleets, but hindering their development.
And they present it as community service.
free jkname
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
if it werent for that soup kitchen, id likely have a dozen fleets in my sig full of your ex-members. us keeping your fleet members fat and happy keeps you from losing those members to fleets with higher holdings. i know you guys dont want to see it that way, but its reality.
free jkname
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
im not trying to dodge your post. i just dont think i can make a reply that does it justice because i cannot envision the system you are talking about.
free jkname
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Well, as I don't have any fleets, by null set logic you only truthfully can have every one of my fleet members or none.
Of the two I'm in that aren't just for being able to do that fleet action event last year, one is a mostly defunct social fed fleet and the other is a social one from another game redside.
I'm just glad I found out the soup kitchen fleet's affiliation before becoming beholden to them in anyway.