test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Devs: Biggest issue with Fleet Advancement System as shown on test server

accessdenied1accessdenied1 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
Excited for S6 and all the content around fleets and starbases. But, as is stands currently on tribble I am concerned about the way resources are contributed for fleet tasks. This quote from another player best sums it up:
of everything I've seen (most of which I think is good) - the first come first serve contribution system is IMO not a good method as it will allow for certain cliques within a fleet to monopolize Fleet Credit generation and as a result, will make a lot of what is 'provisioned' into the Fleet store unobtainable for some members who come in, WANT to donate (and earn Fleet Credits); and find that everything is full, and no further donations can be made.

I hope this catches the eyes of the right people currently developing the fleet system. I can see alot of problems coming up with this with in the fleet. where one person just decides to throw in everything needed and swamps up all the fleet marks and credits before anyone else has a chance to contribute.

Please think of something else like a pool where any fleet member can add to this pool (and recieve credit) but the fleet leaders then allocate from that pool to the tasks the fleet votes on doing first. Or something else other then "first come first serve"
Post edited by accessdenied1 on
«1

Comments

  • accessdenied1accessdenied1 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    Just to add another idea with this, you have a system developed already with the fleet bank that allows fleet leaders to setup min and max limits of deposits and withdrawls per bank tab. In our fleet the bank tabs are named similar to fleet ranks so you gain access to more items in the bank as you earn rank in the fleet.

    You could apply this system to the fleet stabase UI. setting min and max per person (or per fleet rank) allowed per 24 hour period. so everyone has a better chance to make a contribution and earn fleet marks. This way, someone cannot say they didnt have a chance to contribute, earn marks etc.

    NOT a hard limit per person set by Cryptic! that is not good. :)

    But, limits that are adjustable (like the bank system) which are a setting option the fleet elects to use (min-max). So in the case of smaller fleets with say, 5 people. They can still add unlimited resources per person. (they would opt not to use a Min-max setting since they have only 5 people). The same way we can elect not to use the min-max setting on fleet bank tabs)

    Just another way to have a check in place, but not restrict the people/fleet that dont need it or want to use it. I like the "resource pool" method better, but with this you could perhaps use some of the system already developed for fleet bank tabs.
  • arcademasterarcademaster Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    This criticism got brought up A TON since the bases hit Tribble. Cryptic can't feign ignorance on this, they must know. How do fix it though, it's not so easy.

    If you let the leadership set the limits, it'll still allow them to set the rules in the favor of their internal clique and for large public fleets it won't be different in the end than what we have now. This is not so easy to fix.

    In theory you should always be able to fill stuff for special projects while you wait for the main projects. Maybe they should make it so more special projects can be run in parallel.
  • captainrevo1captainrevo1 Member Posts: 3,948 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    the main ones for me are the dilithium and bridge officer points. in over a dozen attempts i hardly get chance to add any as people are so quick. they certainly need a limit per attempt to give people an even chance.

    limits adjustable by fleet leaders seem wise as well so they can set it dependant on the fleet size.
  • darkstarkiriandarkstarkirian Member Posts: 1 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    nevermind.
    [SIGPIC]Handle: @kirian_darkstar
    Registered: Oct/2009 , LTS : Feb/2011
    Fleets: Warriors of the Phoenix, Kirian Industries[/SIGPIC]
    Three years and still no Captain Klaa hair...
  • azurianstarazurianstar Member Posts: 6,985 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    Yeah, the flaws in the system are really becoming apparent.


    Like said above, people rushing to contribute, leaving others without a way to earn fleet credits. So this is a major negative for large fleets, even for moderate-sized fleets.

    The pigeonholed way of earning Fleet Merits by doing Fleet Events, which again means large fleets will be at a disadvantage since not everyone would be able to earn them. And small fleets with casual players be hurt with this too, since they won't have enough players to form teams to earn Fleet Merits.

    Then there is the Fleet Ships, which are better than the C-store ships, which makes us wonder how Cryptic is going to earn income?

    Also, given these ships are mainly upgraded Tier 2s and 3s, why don't they finally implement a ship upgrade system so we can level up with our favorite ships? And at Level 50+, those in fleets get a chance to unlock that 10th console slot and fleet buffs (Shields, HPs).

    This also prevents Fleets having moments where people are passed over for ships (due to no ships being available and officers getting first pick).
  • pwebranflakespwebranflakes Member Posts: 7,741
    edited July 2012
    I will pass the feedback along, but this is where Fleet Politics will come into play :) Fleet Leaders and Officers will probably want to establish some ground rules about contributions (and ship provisioning once that is unlocked).

    Cheers,

    Brandon =/\=
  • accessdenied1accessdenied1 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    I will pass the feedback along, but this is where Fleet Politics will come into play :) Fleet Leaders and Officers will probably want to establish some ground rules about contributions (and ship provisioning once that is unlocked).

    Cheers,

    Brandon =/\=

    Thank you for replying! I fear issues with the fleet politics solution. With some fleets being very large, monitoring everyone that contributes, and the only method for recourse being removal from the fleet will create additional problems. And this is for only the baddies that know there is a policy and dont follow it. Many fleets have members that dont pay attention to new policy right away, dont speak english but enjoy a soical group to play with etc. Those guys will just go about a normal day contributing not even knowing what they are doing is not "fair" for the other 400 plus people wanting to earn merits.

    If you have 400 members and 10 keep sucking up all the fleet merits not listening to fleet policy what else can leaders do aside from remove them from the fleet? That will create problems for cryptic with tickets such as "I was in this fleet forever, contributed a ton of resources to the Starbase then they kicked me for helping!"

    We need something in the fleet advancement system to decide how everyone will have a fair shot at contributing and earning fleet merit.
  • bluegeekbluegeek Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    While I get the basic issue people are having, I can't imagine how the system could be restructured to be fairer.

    Basically, the output of the Starbase projects come down to services and products. The only way to get either one is to contribute to projects and earn fleet credits in the process.

    Let's face it, most people are interested in the fleet ships. So let's go with that.

    Assume the fleet has managed, after many moons, to upgrade their shipyards to T5. In that time, everyone has earned fleet credits based on how much they contributed to the fleet. Let's use a fictional "Cap'n Skippy" as our example.

    Skippy wants a particular ship. He's been faithfully contributing to the fleet and he's got a nice pile of fleet credits. Nobody can directly cheat him out of those credits. He could even form a new fleet and take the credits with him.

    Before he can get the ship, a provisioning project has to be started to put the "schematics" or whatever in the fleet store. Skippy doesn't control which projects are in play, but he makes it known that he wants his ship.

    Let's say for instance that Skippy's fleet doesn't want to provision a ship. Worst case scenario, he can't find another fleet to join that has a T5 shipyard and is willing to provision the fleet store. Skippy has every reason to feel a bit disgruntled, but at least he still has his fleet credits and we have to assume he will eventually be able to spend them on what he wants.

    But suppose Skippy doesn't want to leave his fleet. His fleet doesn't want to provision the ship Skippy wants, they want to provision something different.

    Skippy stops contributing because they aren't building what Skippy wants. Projects start moving slower. Generation of fleet credits slows down. Everybody else has burned through the fleet credits they had before, but Skippy's still sitting on a nice little pile of them and he's also sitting on the resources he's been stockpiling because they aren't building what Skippy wants. In particular, Skippy's got a big pile of fleet marks that are not in plentiful supply.

    Skippy cuts a deal. If they'll start HIS project, he'll start kicking in his considerable resources on the other projects as well. Projects start moving quicker, generation of fleet credits speeds up. Once the fleet store has been stocked with his ship, Skippy's able to jump on it sooner because he's got credits banked up and ready to spend where everybody else is still catching up.

    Granted, there are more holes in this scenario than a Romulan at a bat'leth tournament. But the case is the same... Skippy simply has more resources than anybody else because he's been grinding and contributing more, and nobody has the power to take it away from him. If his fleet continues to stonewall him, Skippy goes and forms a new fleet and takes his stockpiles with him. He's been slowed way down, but if he's going to grind one way or the other he may as well grind for his own fleet and have a better shot at what he wants.

    The main thing I see is that this is going to put pressure on very large fleets to downsize. It's also going to create a lot of incentive for fleets to operate democratically. I would expect fleets to campaign and vote for the projects that everybody wants.
    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
  • capnbluddcapnbludd Member Posts: 17 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    Heh and as I've mentioned in other posts about fleets and why I don't want to be in one, fleet politics is a main reason. I play to relax not be stressed with the whole thing as my past experiences have shown me. Advancement should be personal, never controlled by the whims of other players. It is a hassle for officers as well, even the fairest group gets accused if someone perceives a slight against them.

    I've been on both sides of that wall, no fun on either side.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Dec/2008
  • bluegeekbluegeek Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    Thank you for replying! I fear issues with the fleet politics solution. With some fleets being very large, monitoring everyone that contributes, and the only method for recourse being removal from the fleet will create additional problems. And this is for only the baddies that know there is a policy and dont follow it. Many fleets have members that dont pay attention to new policy right away, dont speak english but enjoy a soical group to play with etc. Those guys will just go about a normal day contributing not even knowing what they are doing is not "fair" for the other 400 plus people wanting to earn merits.

    If you have 400 members and 10 keep sucking up all the fleet merits not listening to fleet policy what else can leaders do aside from remove them from the fleet? That will create problems for cryptic with tickets such as "I was in this fleet forever, contributed a ton of resources to the Starbase then they kicked me for helping!"

    We need something in the fleet advancement system to decide how everyone will have a fair shot at contributing and earning fleet merit.

    No doubt about it, when the system launches we can probably expect a "gold rush". But this is assuming that 10 individuals can "carry" a 400 person fleet all the way to T-5 without a break. I'm not sure how realistic that is. As the number of resource sinks and the cost of advancement increases, the harder it will be for fleets to finish projects without mass cooperation.
    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
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    They (Cryptic) should create a Secondary Selection of Slots for Fleets to acquire and use...

    These slots will only be available for Secondary Projects based on the completion of Primary Projects and would not add to the Advancement of Tiers... (this keeps the advancement at a slow pace, but would make many more Large Fleet members happy as they will be able to get the New Shiney's in a reasonable time)

    They would be available to do over and over, thus making it possible for many more members in Large Fleets to get the shiney's and wouldn't make it necessary for members who already have the shiney's, to have to put in resources for something they already have. (though they could if they wanted to)

    So essentially, when a Fleet opens up a Tier One Starship Construction Project and upon it's completion, a Secondary slot becomes available to RE-DO that project...

    Perhaps a small cost of some commodity and/or SBxp's could be used to obtain these Secondary Project Slots and maybe have each MIL/ENG/SCI Tier be able to have up to 2 Secondary Project Slots that could be purchased.

    This way, a Large Fleet can always have a popular project in the pipe-line for all it's members to donate too, as well as having the Four Primary Projects going to advance the Fleets Tier standings.
    STO Member since February 2009.
    I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
    Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
  • red01999red01999 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    capnbludd wrote: »
    Heh and as I've mentioned in other posts about fleets and why I don't want to be in one, fleet politics is a main reason. I play to relax not be stressed with the whole thing as my past experiences have shown me. Advancement should be personal, never controlled by the whims of other players. It is a hassle for officers as well, even the fairest group gets accused if someone perceives a slight against them.

    I've been on both sides of that wall, no fun on either side.

    Bingo for the fleet politics. I have been involved in politics in online organizations, and it is never a fun thing. If they're anything like this in STO, I shudder for the fleet system.

    I can only imagine how many posts there are going to be around the 7 month mark when the fleet leaders no longer need the 50 or so people they've strung along for their starbase. Either the Powers That Be are ignoring everyone's comments about these, are ignorant as to the implications, or intend to watch the players stab each other in the back. Not a fun thought any way you cut it, and their "we intend fleet politics to solve this" attitude is unsettling.
  • latinumbarlatinumbar Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    I seem to recall Heretic mentioning that the internal politics that may result from this system is intentional. It is the disadvantage of very large fleets, and helps to equalize the benefits of being in a small fleet versus a large fleet. Otherwise, everyone will be incentive-ized to join the largest fleets. It's also the reason why there are limitations placed on the number of ships that can be provisioned at one time. He has said before that the "sweet-spot" for fleet size is bewteen 20-50 members.

    Large fleet
    -Good: quick at resource gathering
    -Bad: Politics in distribution of shiny-ies

    Small fleet
    -Good: Less politics
    -Bad: Slower at resource gathering
    _____________________
    Come join the 44th Fleet.
    startrek.44thfleet.com[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    red01999 wrote: »
    Bingo for the fleet politics. I have been involved in politics in online organizations, and it is never a fun thing. If they're anything like this in STO, I shudder for the fleet system.

    I can only imagine how many posts there are going to be around the 7 month mark when the fleet leaders no longer need the 50 or so people they've strung along for their starbase. Either the Powers That Be are ignoring everyone's comments about these, are ignorant as to the implications, or intend to watch the players stab each other in the back. Not a fun thought any way you cut it, and their "we intend fleet politics to solve this" attitude is unsettling.

    I don't really think They believe that letting Rancor and Rage dominate Their new SB System is the way to go...

    My suggestion above your post, could go a long way to diminish this from happening.
    STO Member since February 2009.
    I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
    Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
  • bluegeekbluegeek Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    Like I said, the general effect is going to tend to favor middle-sized fleets and that's how the population is likely to shake out.

    Big fleets might have more resources, but they're going to have to slow down and provision what the majority wants to keep the membership happy. If they don't, they'll lose members to smaller fleets and the fleet sizes will start averaging out more.

    As the big fleets thin out, they'll get more nimble and start reaping the benefits of hitting that "sweet spot" of active players.

    Fact is, Cryptic benefits from averaging out the fleet sizes. Anything that slows down fleet advancement enough to keep people playing, without slowing it down too far and driving them to quit, works in Cryptic's favor.

    The real losers, if any, are likely to be small fleets with few active members. They won't have the resources to advance reasonably quickly, nor the Starbase amenities to attract more players, and will risk losing members to mid-sized fleets that do.
    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
  • dkeith2011dkeith2011 Member Posts: 595 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    I will pass the feedback along, but this is where Fleet Politics will come into play :) Fleet Leaders and Officers will probably want to establish some ground rules about contributions (and ship provisioning once that is unlocked).

    Cheers,

    Brandon =/\=

    Yeah, thats sure to work out well. :rolleyes:
  • doubleohninedoubleohnine Member Posts: 818 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    Send Capt Skippy to me @AGNT009. I may be operating a starship dealership for just such a customer. Interested investors hit me up in game.
    STO: @AGNT009 Since Dec 2010
    Capt. Will Conquest of the U.S.S. Crusader
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    bluegeek wrote: »
    Like I said, the general effect is going to tend to favor middle-sized fleets and that's how the population is likely to shake out.

    Big fleets might have more resources, but they're going to have to slow down and provision what the majority wants to keep the membership happy. If they don't, they'll lose members to smaller fleets and the fleet sizes will start averaging out more.

    As the big fleets thin out, they'll get more nimble and start reaping the benefits of hitting that "sweet spot" of active players.

    Fact is, Cryptic benefits from averaging out the fleet sizes. Anything that slows down fleet advancement enough to keep people playing, without slowing it down too far and driving them to quit, works in Cryptic's favor.

    The real losers, if any, are likely to be small fleets with few active members. They won't have the resources to advance reasonably quickly, nor the Starbase amenities to attract more players, and will risk losing members to mid-sized fleets that do.

    As a 'Solo-with-Alt's' Fleety, I'm actually looking forward to this system hitting Holodeck...

    I plan on playing this game till either It or Myself, die... ...(preferably neither anytime soon) ;)

    So this will give me a Very-Long-Term Goal, to continue to play the game.
    :D
    STO Member since February 2009.
    I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
    Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
  • jtoney3448jtoney3448 Member Posts: 642 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    Simple solution is that everyone gets the same amount of merits etc when something completes. If you contribute you get say 10% more. Having it based solely on contributions will only breed this type of infighting and lead to strife and discord in the fleets.

    Fleets arent just for those who contribute everything its for those who log in with the time and effort they can afford. Casual people will be left way behind.

    Make it worth it for everyone or whats the point.
  • johnynormusjohnynormus Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    I will pass the feedback along, but this is where Fleet Politics will come into play :) Fleet Leaders and Officers will probably want to establish some ground rules about contributions (and ship provisioning once that is unlocked).

    Cheers,

    Brandon =/\=


    Ground rules are useless with out the tools provided by the developers to enforce them. Its like we have ground rules that new members can't take items directly from the bank. We also have tab tools to enforce this in the bank settings.

    Your development team needs to do a better job to enable us as fleet leaders to establish ground rules.

    Cheers

    Johny
  • tankalot42otankalot42o Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    what if your in a small fleet and a donation "cap" is implimented? and all ur members reach thier cap and it isnt enough to start the project?

    this will hinder the growth of the star base for smaller fleets
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    join date: Jan. 2012
  • jkstocbrjkstocbr Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    I am hoping that after the first few projects are filled, the players that contributed the most are likely to start to run short on resources quickly, then giving opportunities to other players. Once the Starbase is in the higher tiers it is likely that all members will start to run low.
  • bubblygumsworthbubblygumsworth Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    Maybe it can be set up so fleet marks are not given out until the current upgrade has been completed. Once the upgrade is completed the fleet marks will be divided equally between those who have contributed (no matter how much or little you contributed, it is still a team effort).

    :P

    I dont know... my idea might suck haha.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    I drink, I vote, and I PvP!
  • crypticvyper#7920 crypticvyper Member Posts: 47 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    In another MMO I play, when you build your guild city, it is expected that all guild members contribute with either materials or in game currency.. it doesn't matter really how much as dependant on your time online and your character needs, However when something is upgraded in your guild city, everyone that's a member of that guild gains the benefits of that upgrade, not just a select few.. Now with the Fleet Bank system showing who deposits what and how much, it could be left with the Fleet Leader to determine where the slack is in his fleet and deal with it appropriately, but NO fleet members should be shafted with the Starbase / Fleet Store system... All characters in a fleet should gain the benefits ... If not, what is the purpose of having a Fleet Store anyways.. if only a select few in a fleet can buy ships and extras and the rest can't, IMHO that is un-Trek like.. It would be better if the items were put into the C-Store because it would be the same deal, sans the player restrictions of "contributing to the fleet".

    Fleet politics should deal with those who aren't contributing by looking at the fleet bank logs of who is participating and who is not.. and those not be talked to by the fleet leaders or expelled from said fleet to prevent them from accessing items that the rest of the fleet members have contributed to. In no way should a select few members within a fleet have access to content meant for the entire fleet.
    _______________________________________________

    STO Forum Account Creation Date: June 9, 2008 (Perpetual Entertainment at the time)

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Pestalence_XC
    Proud member of Xenocorp

    "Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead." - Kyle Reese, 'Terminator'
  • alloverthemap2alloverthemap2 Member Posts: 1 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    Ground rules are useless with out the tools provided by the developers to enforce them. Its like we have ground rules that new members can't take items directly from the bank. We also have tab tools to enforce this in the bank settings.

    Your development team needs to do a better job to enable us as fleet leaders to establish ground rules.

    Cheers

    Johny

    I have to second this. Saying that it's going to be all a matter of fleet politics is glib and unhelpful.

    Give fleets the tools they need to set and enforce policy. Not doing so is just irresponsible.
  • wolfpacknzwolfpacknz Member Posts: 783 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    It also leads to false illusion by in the end making people who want to contribute but can't because eveything is full, look like they are not doing anything for the fleet base itself. Not the players fault, just poor implimentation of what should have been a good concept.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    ***Disenchanted***
    Real Join Date: Monday, 17 May 2010
  • sparhawksparhawk Member Posts: 796 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    Ground rules are useless with out the tools provided by the developers to enforce them. Its like we have ground rules that new members can't take items directly from the bank. We also have tab tools to enforce this in the bank settings.

    Your development team needs to do a better job to enable us as fleet leaders to establish ground rules.

    Cheers

    Johny

    This.
    In another MMO I play, when you build your guild city, it is expected that all guild members contribute with either materials or in game currency.. it doesn't matter really how much as dependant on your time online and your character needs, However when something is upgraded in your guild city, everyone that's a member of that guild gains the benefits of that upgrade, not just a select few.. Now with the Fleet Bank system showing who deposits what and how much, it could be left with the Fleet Leader to determine where the slack is in his fleet and deal with it appropriately, but NO fleet members should be shafted with the Starbase / Fleet Store system... All characters in a fleet should gain the benefits ... If not, what is the purpose of having a Fleet Store anyways.. if only a select few in a fleet can buy ships and extras and the rest can't, IMHO that is un-Trek like.. It would be better if the items were put into the C-Store because it would be the same deal, sans the player restrictions of "contributing to the fleet".

    Fleet politics should deal with those who aren't contributing by looking at the fleet bank logs of who is participating and who is not.. and those not be talked to by the fleet leaders or expelled from said fleet to prevent them from accessing items that the rest of the fleet members have contributed to. In no way should a select few members within a fleet have access to content meant for the entire fleet.

    Also this.

    I'm pretty much an lone wolf and even I can see the current setup is ripe for a Lord of the Flies type scenario. Once any equipment useable by an individual player is unlocked by an fleet (weapons, ships, etc.), the item in question should be permanently available for purchase in unlimited quantities by all fleet members. At worst it should unlock an individual project/task for an fleet member to requisition the specific item they want that is always available.
  • darren0kitlordarren0kitlor Member Posts: 36 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    Simplest solution:
    A player can only contribute to two projects per day (but unlimited contributions to those projects).

    With a total of five ongoing fleet projects possible, no single player can dominate all projects and fleets will need to coordinate more on how to accomplish a particular project, instead of a resource free-for-all.

    Quick, dirty, simple.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • johnynormusjohnynormus Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    I just went on tribble. There is a new permission to donate to fleet projects. I like the step in the right direction however a little more flexibility is needed please. Could we have a setting for just fleet marks and one for everything else. Ideally though one permission for each component be it marks, boff points, data samples, dilithium etc.?
  • aelfwin1aelfwin1 Member Posts: 2,896 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    daveyny wrote: »
    They (Cryptic) should create a Secondary Selection of Slots for Fleets to acquire and use...

    These slots will only be available for Secondary Projects based on the completion of Primary Projects and would not add to the Advancement of Tiers... (this keeps the advancement at a slow pace, but would make many more Large Fleet members happy as they will be able to get the New Shiney's in a reasonable time)

    They would be available to do over and over, thus making it possible for many more members in Large Fleets to get the shiney's and wouldn't make it necessary for members who already have the shiney's, to have to put in resources for something they already have. (though they could if they wanted to).

    I'd support something like this .
    There needs to be some kind of "balance" mechanism in place , so fleets can both progress with the building of the base , and also be able to work on projects (or on the cases of larger fleets -- multiple projects) at the same time .

    If Cryptic relies on Fleet Leaders to decide between either Base Progression or Fleet Equipment (weapons & ships) , someone(s) are going to end up unhappy .
Sign In or Register to comment.