1) Alliance System: A group fo Small Fleets working together to level up their Starbases, which equates to the efforts of a large or mega fleet.
1-Alt: Or instead, small fleets uniting under the banner of an NPC fleet and they work together in a co-op.
2) The Fleet Umbrella: A Large Fleet apprentices a small fleet (like some large fleets have recruitment fleets) and they mutally assist one another, where members of large fleets can earn fleet marks by donating to the small fleet's projects and the small fleet benefits by getting access to the Larger fleet services (of course the smaller fleet has to get their own provisions).
3) HuB Bases: Small Fleets choose to move from the fleet Starbase to a Hub (DS9, ESD, K7, SB39, or more) and instead of constructing, they simply unlock new abilities.
And suggestions of Fleet Projects scaling with size is also a valid possibility.
Thanks Perhaps the difference is, I look at it from the terms of manhours. The idea I had would give those groups with less manpower a break on the cost, but increase the amount of time it takes.
To me this seems fair, less resources = more time. More resources = less time.
And that, is why it works so well. each side gains and looses. the small group that generates less, gets things done, and then waits for the time to pass. the large group generates more (taking some time) but waits less for it to complete
The current system doesn't reward man hours, it rewards size, your idea, rewards man hours
Existing missions that grant FM's are limited. We need more kinds of content that earn fleet marks, even if they don't reward as many.
This right here is the big problem. If it wasn't for this, then everything else the devs said to justify removing the FM reward would be fine. After all, post-patch Foundry missions are one of the best sources of dilithium and there is a reasonable game design basis for limiting reward synergy in high-payout areas. If you don't, those areas develop a competitive advantage and draw players away from other content.
I think the answer to this problem may actually lie in an old bug. Some of you probably recall how certain missions did (and a handful still do!) register as completed when a teammate finishes the mission... even if you didn't meet the criteria. In some extreme cases, they will even register if any player in the same zone completes the mission.
Let's use this to our advantage.
It works like this... we set up background logic (now that we know from the Foundry dil rewards that this is technically feasible its easier on players - especially new players - than a wrapper mission) that monitors the following items for completion:
Episodes
STFs
PVE instances (might require re-examination of Fleet Action daily wrapper FM rewards to avoid this becoming the new "one stop shop")
Whenever it detects that you have completed a targeted item, the logic waits a minute (to allow for server lag or slow click-throughs) and checks if anyone on your team completed the same mission. The logic then provides a reward of 10*(# of completions minus 1) to the player.
In other words, if you are soloing you get nothing. If you are playing with others you get up to 40 fleet marks depending on how many people you are playing with - a bit more if you are doing it during Fleet Hour.
At this point, the logic goes onto a cooldown to prevent farming - one hour is probably about right.
This would eliminate the "content gap" for fleet marks, and a fairly aggressive cooldown would mean that almost all content was equally valuable in terms of FM generation. It also encourages certain behaviors that I believe are healthy to fleet growth and development:
By rewarding players from team-playing episodes, it encourages veterans to play episodes with new players.
It doesn't devalue the fleet-oriented PVE content from Season 6, since those missions will reward their intrinsic FM reward on top of the incentive logic.
Since non-fleet players still sometimes play in groups or participate in PVE content that auto-groups them, this logic will help new players build up an initial nest-egg of fleet marks -- this provides an incentive for fleet to recruit new players and helps new players build up an initial store of fleet credit upon being recruited.
This approach reduces the pressure on the devs to develop Fleet Mark-specific content, allowing them to focus on content likely to appeal to both fleet- and non-fleet players.
That's my thoughts on the matter. I think if something like this addresses the 'content gap' for Fleet Mark generation, the other issues may actually self-resolve.
TL;DR we know from bugs that the game can monitor other players' mission completion states. Use this to create background logic that rewards you for playing as part of a team instead of playing solo.
TL;DR we know from bugs that the game can monitor other players' mission completion states. Use this to create background logic that rewards you for playing as part of a team instead of playing solo.
The only problem with this, is it puts the fleets that are spread out over multiple time zones or countries at a disadvantage. We have a player from Australia who plays with us when he's on, then we go to bed and he plays on. he would have a VERY limited window of time to play with his fleet. He likes us, knows us and prefers us over others so moving to another fleet isn't an option.
This assumes that you mean "fleet" when you say "team" if not, well then the point would be invalid.
The only problem with this, is it puts the fleets that are spread out over multiple time zones or countries at a disadvantage. We have a player from Australia who plays with us when he's on, then we go to bed and he plays on. he would have a VERY limited window of time to play with his fleet. He likes us, knows us and prefers us over others so moving to another fleet isn't an option.
This assumes that you mean "fleet" when you say "team" if not, well then the point would be invalid.
I did mean "team" - I think that it's important for players to acquire at least some fleet marks before they join a fleet (unless they join one right out the gate because they joined to play with a friend or something) so that they have a "dowry" to attract recruiters and build an initial account of fleet credit.
Having said that, I agree with you about how time zones makes things tough. My fleet has players on the U.S. East and West coasts, plus players in Denmark, so we struggle with this too. That was another factor in my suggestion that this reward be derived from any team play, not just with fleetmates.
The problem with fleet alliances is that their are many technical and political details that have to be worked out. Who leads the alliance? Who decides what projects are slotted? Who has the power to kick a fleet out of the alliance? How is the progress of the fleets joining the alliance combined? Are fleets in different tiers allowed in the same alliance? What happens to a fleet's progress if it leaves or is kicked from the alliance?
2) The Fleet Umbrella: A Large Fleet apprentices a small fleet (like some large fleets have recruitment fleets) and they mutally assist one another, where members of large fleets can earn fleet marks by donating to the small fleet's projects and the small fleet benefits by getting access to the Larger fleet services (of course the smaller fleet has to get their own provisions).
I actually like this idea. I would add a new type of project, where the large fleet gets provisions and the small fleet gets XP or an upgrade. The large fleet would sponsor the small fleet, and the small fleet would become a client of the large fleet. The client fleet can then slot a sponsored project, to which both fleets can contribute. Regardless of which fleet a player belongs to, he will get fleet credit by contributing to the project. When the project completes, the client fleet gets XP or an upgrade and the sponsor fleet gets provisions. This helps small fleets progress while also helping large fleets get fleet credits and provisions.
As a member of a small fleet myself, we aren't able to field 3 people, let alone 5. It is a small fleet of family members who all do different things.
I understand that it will take longer to grind my fleet up, and I am perfectly fine with that. However, I do not do STFs or fleet actions or events, so now with the removal of IOR, I am forced to grind FMs through Nukara and Defera. 3-5 at a time is just brutal. I don't mind so much the grind, but at least make the goal attainable. 5 at a time with 2 people will take weeks to fill even the smallest project.
I understand them removing IOR from the foundry, but I do not understand their reasoning. They could have instead of removing it because they felt it had too many rewards, they could have easily made the reward selectable and you could only choose one. That however, is potentially derailing the topic, so I digress from that.
My suggestion is to just simply add a mission that can be accomplished solo and rewards around 20-25 FM, and add more FMs the bigger the group of fleet mates. make it a 30 minute CD if you must, or even an hour. You could even replace the FM mission if your ops at the starbase that gives you 5 every 20 hours (joke) with this.
Small fleets will then have the potential to grind for FMs, and larger fleets will be able to grind it faster. Everybody wins.
I would just like to see some tradeoff like capping fleet member count to like 10 or something and for that all the amounts needed for the projects be reduced to 1/3rd.
New special project. Takes 1 week, minimal Fleet Marks, decent number of Fleet Credits, and some other resources. Rewards 1,000 exp to all 3 categories.
Small Fleets take longer but can still get there.
Interesting idea, might work.
@ Gavin: Again, I'm NOT saying your idea is bad. My point was that it can be summed up as "make the process easier". Which seems like something that is unlikely to get implemented. Although there have been several changes along those lines already.
I am starting this thread to address one issue that keeps coming up and is a part of why people are upset about losing Fleet Mark rewards for Foundry missions
This is not about the Foundry. It's not even entirely about Fleet Marks.
It's about helping Small Fleets to make progress and not get stalled out. It's about not devaluing small fleets in favor of large ones.
What can Cryptic do to help Small Fleets that aren't equipped for the Grind?
We in small fleets have a number of issues and we don't like the answer to "go join a bigger fleet".
Fleet Marks and other requirements are too high for small fleets.
There aren't sufficient ways for a small number of people to gather a sufficient amount of the resources that Fleet Holdings require.
Featured Projects cost too much for small fleets to participate in, especially when there are so many Dilithium sinks in the game that siphon off available resources.
Small fleets can't always field 5-Man teams.
Small fleets that are focused on other kinds of gameplay than the normal FM missions are out of luck.
Existing missions that grant FM's are limited. We need more kinds of content that earn fleet marks, even if they don't reward as many.
I can think of a few suggestions off the top of my head...
1. How about designing some FM and other PvE missions around 3-Man teams?
2. How about giving small fleets an alternate path of progression? Some way to build smaller holdings with fewer requirements?
3. How about developing a "Scenario Builder" that lets players put together playable team-based content with a few clicks and separate that from story-driven Foundry content? Reward those with a small amount of FM's.
4. How about making a way for Foundry authors to build missions specifically designed for team play and make Fleet Marks and other rewards scale according to number of players and how long they each played?
Please post suggestions to improve small fleet progression here.
Wow, I'm a Fleet Leader for two Fleets one on the Fed.side & our sister Fleet on the KDF. The Fed. one is small & the KDF is even smaller. After reading your opening post all I could think is wow, you took the words right out of my mouth. I could not agree more. It's been tough running these two small Fleets & even harder still getting more like minded people to not only join but get together to do the "grind" that keeps getting increasingly harder in order to complete these projects. Thank you & I can only hope that Cryptic is hearing what is being said here. A bunch of really great ideas here.
I think the best solution is to allow semi-merging.
Make a new organizational group, call it something like a Task Force, Task Group, Sector Group, or whatever. Said group will be composed of multiple fleets basing out of one starbase.
Functionally it'll work like this: The fleet stays "independent" in most respects. They have their own fleet chat (add a new chat channel for the group). They'll have their own bank, uniforms, calender, and the rest. However, they'll share a single starbase (and possibly romulan embassy and other potential future holdings).
Each fleet has their own provisioning. The provisioning projects generate xp for the fleet AND for the total group. Once the group has enough XP it can do upgrades, the upgrades can be contributed to by all the fleets, and once completed they're unlocked for the starbase which the entire group of fleets share equally.
The net result would be several small fleets working together to build a starbase and to share it's facilities. However, they'd all still be responsible for their own provisioning (so one fleet can't leech off the rest), and they'd all still have separate banks, uniforms, identities, and everything.
Limit the ability to form/join the groups to fleets under a certain size, say maybe 75-100 members, and cap their size as long as they're part of the group. With a max total of five member fleets. That would give them the same potential as large fleets in terms of generating resources for starbase construction. It would also be impossible for multiple large (100+) fleets to merge and super-charge their construction times.
In the end, large fleets continue on as they have been. Small fleets pool their resources to build a starbase, but retain their own fleet identity.
2. How about giving small fleets an alternate path of progression? Some way to build smaller holdings with fewer requirements?
Unfortunately, the only way to do this and avoid some people taking advantage of such an approach, would be to 'lock' the population of the fleet to a member range.
In other words; if your fleet has 30 individuals in it, then your fleet population gets locked into a range of let's say 25-50 members and the progression requirements are scaled accordingly. If you want more than 50 members then I see two options:
1. disband the fleet and start a new one...not ideal.
2. purchase the fleets way into a higher tier. The purchase price would be the difference between what the fleet has put in and what it would have put in had it been in the higher tier, plus a modest fee.
I don't see any other practical way to do it that would be fair and would not take a huge amount of developer effort.
It may be harsh, but I largely agree with the sentiment that if your fleet is too small to get it done, then you should join a larger fleet or just not stress it.
I do sympathize, the fleet I am in is suffering the same issues other small fleets are. We can't seem to get to tier three and I want the fleet defiant...sad panda.
Extremely simple solution to several issues: I have Finished the Rep system and Purschased all the Gear sets ect. I have no need to go to New romulas, Tau Dewa, Raise Epoh's do SFT's. The only thing I can do with Omega and Romulan Marks is convert to Dil. How about let me convert them to FM. Then players like me are back doing mini missions on New Romulas, Back raising Ephoh's, Back doing Tau Dewa Daily missions. Beacuse once players finish the Rep system and buy the gear they want all that work the Dev's did creating New Romulas is for naught beacuse players will have no reason to go there. So allow me to convert OM and RM to FM and I will be back on New Romulas scanning raidation, spraying bugs and taking water samples again.
Is it the lack of gear or lack of fluff that people in small fleets are upset about? "
I think it more an issue a small fleet has large requirements per individual to advance over a long time frame to get same stuff a larger fleet has an easier time getting. I believe when you can see and measure progress you more interested when compaeing a fleet project take 1-day to fill compared to smaller fleet that takes 12-15 days to move along. Some folks toss there hand up in the air and say "why bother."
with a coalition mechanism smaller fleets can have access to gear but at higher cost when pruchased from larger fleet instead of using its own resources.
This is why I think the various options proposed for sliders affecting the time and cost are important. And I don't see it as just a small fleet issue. Big fleets need ways to get provisions faster. Bigger cost for more bang for the bigger fleets, and smaller easier to accomplish bite-sized projects for the small ones. Whether in discrete levels as part of my suggestion, or in an actual slider as others have proposed. I think this--at a minimum--is universally accepted as a good idea without much potential for exploiting.
TL;DR we know from bugs that the game can monitor other players' mission completion states. Use this to create background logic that rewards you for playing as part of a team instead of playing solo.
I said a similar thing without the math. To me this one is a no-brainer. Fleets are social constructs, the mechanics in some way should reward you for teaming with your fleetmates. If not, then what is the point?
@ Gavin: Again, I'm NOT saying your idea is bad. My point was that it can be summed up as "make the process easier". Which seems like something that is unlikely to get implemented. Although there have been several changes along those lines already.
Actually I'm in total agreement with the proposed project idea, though not too sure on the costs/reward.
I'm not sure that's enough though. I think the problem needs a wholistic response, and it needs to be something that works with both large and small fleets, not just "buff the lil guys". Something that covers rewards for play, costs, and flexibility.
Nearly all the other proposals amount to "reduce the cost", which I think might be either a dead end or at worst a trap. Meaning the devs do reduce the cost but not enough. Now they say "we already did reduce the cost and that didn't solve it". This one for a mission with reasonable costs that helps all areas but is small, I think this is a good solution that doesn't hit the trap of reduced cost.
@ all the proposals for coalitions: I think they are good ideas but bad solutions. First, not every fleet knows people outside their group or wants to. So big coalitions vs small coalitions and we end up with the exact same problem as big fleet vs small fleet. To me this is at best a bandaid not a cure. Second, it requires a lot of additional codework, reducing the likelihood of implementation. Third, it amounts to nothing but a "buff these guys but not those guys". I just can't see it working.
Now, I think there is a place of coalitions, but not in paying for progress, rather in earning awards for mission completion that can be used to pay for fleet projects (specifically fleet marks but certainly other possibilities as well). And this mechanic, as mentioned by Ashtaku is already in the game. Increasing the ability to earn rewards via teamplay is brilliant. I really hope some version of this gets implemented as long as it's not "mandatory team mission with higher reward" which is the exact opposite as encouraging teaming, that is punishing soloing.
The only thing I can do with Omega and Romulan Marks is convert to Dil. How about let me convert them to FM.
That sounds brilliant! I don't know about you guys, but I have over 150k Dil ore just sitting there waiting to be refined. My rep system is maxed, so Omega/Rom marks are usless to me.
I think the best solution is to allow semi-merging.
Make a new organizational group, call it something like a Task Force, Task Group, Sector Group, or whatever. Said group will be composed of multiple fleets basing out of one starbase.
Functionally it'll work like this: The fleet stays "independent" in most respects. They have their own fleet chat (add a new chat channel for the group). They'll have their own bank, uniforms, calender, and the rest. However, they'll share a single starbase (and possibly romulan embassy and other potential future holdings).
Each fleet has their own provisioning. The provisioning projects generate xp for the fleet AND for the total group. Once the group has enough XP it can do upgrades, the upgrades can be contributed to by all the fleets, and once completed they're unlocked for the starbase which the entire group of fleets share equally.
The net result would be several small fleets working together to build a starbase and to share it's facilities. However, they'd all still be responsible for their own provisioning (so one fleet can't leech off the rest), and they'd all still have separate banks, uniforms, identities, and everything.
Limit the ability to form/join the groups to fleets under a certain size, say maybe 75-100 members, and cap their size as long as they're part of the group. With a max total of five member fleets. That would give them the same potential as large fleets in terms of generating resources for starbase construction. It would also be impossible for multiple large (100+) fleets to merge and super-charge their construction times.
In the end, large fleets continue on as they have been. Small fleets pool their resources to build a starbase, but retain their own fleet identity.
Several people have proposed coalitions, but have you thought about the exact mechanics of how it would work? I reiterate what I said before.
The problem with fleet alliances is that their are many technical and political details that have to be worked out. Who leads the alliance? Who decides what projects are slotted? Who has the power to kick a fleet out of the alliance? How is the progress of the fleets joining the alliance combined? Are fleets in different tiers allowed in the same alliance? What happens to a fleet's progress if it leaves or is kicked from the alliance?
That's why I think shared projects is a better solution than coalitions. Each project is a temporary partnership that ends when the project is finished. You can team up with different fleets for each project if you want. There will be no issues about coalition leadership and kicking fleets out of the coalition. Also, the devs won't have to figure out how to merge existing progress for fleets joining the coalition.
Several people have proposed coalitions, but have you thought about the exact mechanics of how it would work? I reiterate what I said before.
That's why I think shared projects is a better solution than coalitions. Each project is a temporary partnership that ends when the project is finished. You can team up with different fleets for each project if you want. There will be no issues about coalition leadership and kicking fleets out of the coalition. Also, the devs won't have to figure out how to merge existing progress for fleets joining the coalition.
I've given it some thought, but it's by no means a fully-formed proposal. I'm sure there's things I'm not thinking of, and there's some things I can't address without knowing about internal information only cryptic has access to.
That said:
What I'm proposing is, I guess, somewhere in between the typical coalition/merger ideas and what you suggest by just collaborating on projects. Basically I think what would work best is collaborating on projects but on a (theoretically) permanent basis.
I suggest all fleets retain their independence and individual identity. Like I said, uniforms, fleet chat, ect should all remain as is. Provisions and provisioning projects remaining discreet to the fleet, so that each fleet is still working towards themselves.
The only thing I'm suggesting be brought together are the upgrades and upgrade projects (like the tailor, or security officer, in addition to things like the shipyard). All experience earned would be pooled, and then the member fleets can all contribute to these big projects, so they can all advance the starbase.
I would imagine that the upgrades be done in order what was available soonest, which would be determined by XP, which would mean each fleet would "vote" by completing certain projects individually for XP and provisions. If the fleets do engineering projects most often, for example, engineering upgrades would be available sooner.
The biggest problem that I foresee is the one you mention: politics and and/or fleets getting kicked or whatever. This could potentially be solved by making things automatic, and not having a leader or controlling fleet for the coalition. Make a script to start the next upgrade automatically based on what comes available first, so no one has to start the next upgrade project. With that change there's no need for a PC leader, and no one can be kicked. If there's no leader, there's no need for politics. If you find you don't like your fellow coalition members, you can effectively ignore them just by turning off the coalition chat.
Another question is, what happens when a fleet leaves? Either they retain all the unlocked starbase options their coalition unlocked, or they don't. I see valid arguments to either side. On one hand, if you helped contribute to something and then leave and lose it that will suck. On the other, that's exactly what happens if you leave a fleet now. If you choose to leave and the game says you don't keep those unlocks, then you have to consider that when you choose. I'm not really fussed with either option.
The other big question is what happens when fleets form up. Namely, all of the potential member fleets likely have different tiers in their current star base. It would have to be decided what tiers the joint base starts with. There's a ton of options, from starting from scratch, to taking the highest levels of the pre-existing bases, to some fixed starting point (all coalitions start at tier I, II, or III). Which of these options is best, I don't know.
Most of the other concerns I think are cryptic-centric. Like, how hard would this be to implement, and mesh with the existing fleet system as we know it. And, beyond that, whether they think it's worth the time and effort involved.
I do think something needs to be done, I think things are going to become increasingly unfriendly for the smaller fleets. Other than some form of collaboration, I think most proposals will either be exploitable or give an even bigger advantage to large fleets. For example, if you reduce costs for small fleets, large fleets can kick members to artificially reduce their size to start/complete projects, then invite back members once complete. If you reduce costs across the board, then things get even easier for large fleets. If you introduce some form of collaboration, but limit that collaboration to smaller fleets, then you provide the tools for smaller fleets to help themselves while letting larger fleets carry on.
Why is this even being debated? cryptic has more or less said multible times small fleets can die in a fire, why would they change it now?
Because if we can give them a mechanic to make small fleets work, they can potentially make more money off of it.
Right now people who don't want to be in a big fleet are simply not buying fleet gear or ships. Given the right mechanic for fleet progression, they will.
Whether they buy the 4 components off the AH or off the zen store, Cryptic still gets their $20 for each ship sold. Whether they buy dilithium or grind it, they are now spending it not selling it, reducing availability and thus increasing zen sales to cryptic.
I would imagine that the upgrades be done in order what was available soonest, which would be determined by XP, which would mean each fleet would "vote" by completing certain projects individually for XP and provisions. If the fleets do engineering projects most often, for example, engineering upgrades would be available sooner.
The biggest problem that I foresee is the one you mention: politics and and/or fleets getting kicked or whatever. This could potentially be solved by making things automatic, and not having a leader or controlling fleet for the coalition. Make a script to start the next upgrade automatically based on what comes available first, so no one has to start the next upgrade project. With that change there's no need for a PC leader, and no one can be kicked. If there's no leader, there's no need for politics. If you find you don't like your fellow coalition members, you can effectively ignore them just by turning off the coalition chat.
The problem I have with automatic upgrades is that it removes the ability of individual fleets to decide what they want to slot. The reason why I proposed shared projects is that it retains most of the autonomy that the individual fleets have now. I think the biggest reason why small fleets don't want to merge or join a large fleet is that they want to retain that autonomy.
The other big question is what happens when fleets form up. Namely, all of the potential member fleets likely have different tiers in their current star base. It would have to be decided what tiers the joint base starts with. There's a ton of options, from starting from scratch, to taking the highest levels of the pre-existing bases, to some fixed starting point (all coalitions start at tier I, II, or III). Which of these options is best, I don't know.
Another advantage of shared projects is that there is no need to decide how to merge the starbases and embassies. Each fleet keeps their current progress.
Small fleets are intended, by design, to not have such a big starbase. It is as simple as that.
While Cryptic has said that building the starbase is intended by design to be very hard for small fleets, I doubt this was their goal rather than a side effect of making it hard for large fleets. I doubt they sat in a meeting discussing how to make things as hard as possible for small fleets. Rather, they could not find a solution that simultaneously meets all of the following objectives:
1. It should be challenging for large fleets to build the starbase: it should require a lot of resources and take them a long time.
2. It should be equally challenging for small fleets to build the starbase rather than much, much harder.
3. The system should not be exploitable in a way that allows large fleets to rush through starbase construction.
Failing to find a solution that meets all three objectives, they decided to sacrifice objective number 2. I think that is what they mean when they said building the starbase is intended "by design" to be hard for small fleets. However, just because Cryptic could not find a solution, that does not mean that a solution does not exist. What many players are trying to do is to present Cryptic with a solution that meets all three objectives.
I'd rather have a simple option to merge two fleets and add their commitments together so that the new starbase is a sum of the resources spent to the old ones. Simple, clean, and making people form bigger fleets.
To me, this is not so simple. What exactly do you mean by "the new starbase is a sum of the resources spent to [sic] the old ones"? What is your exact algorithm for merging the progress of multiple starbases? One difficulty is how to merge starbases at different tiers. Also, depending on how exactly you do the merge, it might be exploitable to rush through starbase construction. For example, if you are simply going to add together the XP, then players can just create many, many fleets to generate XP at tier 0, and then merge all the fleets.
The problem I have with automatic upgrades is that it removes the ability of individual fleets to decide what they want to slot. The reason why I proposed shared projects is that it retains most of the autonomy that the individual fleets have now. I think the biggest reason why small fleets don't want to merge or join a large fleet is that they want to retain that autonomy.
I'm all for autonomy, but they have to weigh giving up a little autonomy with potentially easing the burden of building up a starbase.
I see a couple problems with shared projects. One is, they would have to find another fleet with which to share with. And, if it's only for the duration of the project, they would have to repeatedly track down people with which to share with. That would add a lot of leadership overhead, even more if you figure most fleets would be at different tiers and working on different projects.
The second problem is more one of lore or story. For a coalition or similar group, you just say multiple fleets are basing out of one starbase. But, if the fleets have their own holdings, how do you explain the mechanics of sharing projects? When, likely, only some fleets are doing so. If an upgrade requires X resources for one starbase, how does it still only require X resources when you're upgrading two, three, or more starbases at the same time?
Also, there'd still have to be some limiting factor. If you let two 500-person fleets share a project, that's not really solving anything as the large fleets will still be moving far faster.
I see a couple problems with shared projects. One is, they would have to find another fleet with which to share with. And, if it's only for the duration of the project, they would have to repeatedly track down people with which to share with. That would add a lot of leadership overhead, even more if you figure most fleets would be at different tiers and working on different projects.
I don't think it's a lot of overahead. The way I envision it is that there would be a channel for this. I'm assuming that a leader or officer can log on once a day to look for other fleets on the channel. If shared projects are implemented, I think the channel will be popular enough that you will be able to find other fleets in the same tier working on the same project, especially for XP projects.
The second problem is more one of lore or story. For a coalition or similar group, you just say multiple fleets are basing out of one starbase. But, if the fleets have their own holdings, how do you explain the mechanics of sharing projects? When, likely, only some fleets are doing so. If an upgrade requires X resources for one starbase, how does it still only require X resources when you're upgrading two, three, or more starbases at the same time?
I'm not really interested in the story aspect behind the mechanics.
Also, there'd still have to be some limiting factor. If you let two 500-person fleets share a project, that's not really solving anything as the large fleets will still be moving far faster.
I already discussed a cap on the number of contributors here:
I have a proposal to correct the massive imbalance of Star Base / Embassy project costs according to fleet sizes. While it should be an advantage to have a larger fleet in order to complete the projects, it shouldn't be a massive impediment (just shy of penalty) for smaller fleets to be able to complete their projects as well. What I am suggesting is to convert the costs of the projects to an Economies of Scale schedule:
y=mx+b
y= project completion cost
m= variable cost (cost dependent on, and multiplied by, fleet size)
x= number of members in a fleet
b= Fixed cost (base cost)
This method would have a base cost that is fixed, no matter the fleet size, and then a variable cost based of the number of fleet members. This makes it possible for smaller fleets to be able to complete missions in a more realistic manner while giving benefits for larger fleet sizes. It will also reward proper fleet maintenance, such as purging long term inactive members from fleet rosters.
Example:
Three fleets start a project : Practice Tactical Exercises II
Red Shirt Army Fleet has 20 members in its fleet roster
This Space for Rent Fleet has 200 members in its roster
Really Zoggin' 'Uge Fleet has 2,000 members in its roster
Under the Economies of Scale technique:
The amount of Tactical DOFFS required to complete the project might look like
1m(x) + 10
Red Shirt Army Fleet: 1(20) + 10 = 30 DOFFS
30/20 = 1.5 DOFFs/member
This Space for Rent Fleet: 1(200)+ 10 DOFFS = 210 DOFFS,
210/200= 1.05 DOFFs/member
This method would allow smaller fleets to be able to progress at a realistic manner while reducing the cost-per-member required contribution advantage of being a larger fleet.
And what is to stop a large fleet from trivially exploiting this by reducing its size temporarily while it slots projects?
An easy workaround I have always supported: Charge dilithium for entry to fleets. A fairly nominal fee, but enough to deter abuse, say around 4000 dil. Fair players would see this fee maybe once or twice in their entire toon career.
Small fleets are intended, by design, to not have such a big starbase. It is as simple as that.
That is exactly the opposite of what Dan Stahl said.
If that was the design, then it would have been a lot easier for Cryptic to design fleet progression around Tier limitations.
Instead, they chose to allow small fleets the option to max out their starbases. By definition their intention is to allow small fleets to have big starbases.
I am not arguing that small fleets shouldn't take longer to do the job. We understood that going in.
The problem is stalled-out progression that's limited by the availability of Fleet Marks. Dilithium is obtainable in many different ways and it's possible to at least keep a trickle of it flowing in. Fleet Marks are (now) available by only two means:
1. Playing a limited number of 5-20 man missions with poor FM rewards.
2. Exchanging CXP for FM.
For me, with limited time to play STO, that means I need to spend all of my time DOFFing and/or playing team missions designed for 5 players or more, which for me pretty much means hassling with queues and PUGging.
Now, given that Cryptic can't implement anything that allows large fleets to exploit and breeze through Holdings, there is one thing Cryptic could do that would help:
Award Fleet Marks for all team-play; scale the reward according to the number of players (2 or more) participating. This reward would be capped by the maximum number of players that can join a team. A reward of 10 FM's for two players up to 25 FM's for five players would be reasonable.
The team-play reward should also apply to team-played qualifying Foundry content, thus expanding the number of available missions. But I could certainly live with it if they just did it for all of the Cryptic-authored missions and increased the replay value for those.
That would get the Fleet Marks flowing in a non-game-breaking way.
I still think there could be an alternative path of progress that helps small fleets but is less optimal for larger ones that would tend to follow the normal path.
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
And what is to stop a large fleet from trivially exploiting this by reducing its size temporarily while it slots projects?
The number of fleet members determined to be in the fleet can be based on a weighted moving average over set period of time, say over a two month period. There is no way to stop some exploiting 100% of the time, but this way would not be as beneficial for a large fleet to use.
Comments
1) Alliance System: A group fo Small Fleets working together to level up their Starbases, which equates to the efforts of a large or mega fleet.
1-Alt: Or instead, small fleets uniting under the banner of an NPC fleet and they work together in a co-op.
2) The Fleet Umbrella: A Large Fleet apprentices a small fleet (like some large fleets have recruitment fleets) and they mutally assist one another, where members of large fleets can earn fleet marks by donating to the small fleet's projects and the small fleet benefits by getting access to the Larger fleet services (of course the smaller fleet has to get their own provisions).
3) HuB Bases: Small Fleets choose to move from the fleet Starbase to a Hub (DS9, ESD, K7, SB39, or more) and instead of constructing, they simply unlock new abilities.
And suggestions of Fleet Projects scaling with size is also a valid possibility.
And that, is why it works so well. each side gains and looses. the small group that generates less, gets things done, and then waits for the time to pass. the large group generates more (taking some time) but waits less for it to complete
The current system doesn't reward man hours, it rewards size, your idea, rewards man hours
This right here is the big problem. If it wasn't for this, then everything else the devs said to justify removing the FM reward would be fine. After all, post-patch Foundry missions are one of the best sources of dilithium and there is a reasonable game design basis for limiting reward synergy in high-payout areas. If you don't, those areas develop a competitive advantage and draw players away from other content.
I think the answer to this problem may actually lie in an old bug. Some of you probably recall how certain missions did (and a handful still do!) register as completed when a teammate finishes the mission... even if you didn't meet the criteria. In some extreme cases, they will even register if any player in the same zone completes the mission.
Let's use this to our advantage.
It works like this... we set up background logic (now that we know from the Foundry dil rewards that this is technically feasible its easier on players - especially new players - than a wrapper mission) that monitors the following items for completion:
Whenever it detects that you have completed a targeted item, the logic waits a minute (to allow for server lag or slow click-throughs) and checks if anyone on your team completed the same mission. The logic then provides a reward of 10*(# of completions minus 1) to the player.
In other words, if you are soloing you get nothing. If you are playing with others you get up to 40 fleet marks depending on how many people you are playing with - a bit more if you are doing it during Fleet Hour.
At this point, the logic goes onto a cooldown to prevent farming - one hour is probably about right.
This would eliminate the "content gap" for fleet marks, and a fairly aggressive cooldown would mean that almost all content was equally valuable in terms of FM generation. It also encourages certain behaviors that I believe are healthy to fleet growth and development:
That's my thoughts on the matter. I think if something like this addresses the 'content gap' for Fleet Mark generation, the other issues may actually self-resolve.
TL;DR we know from bugs that the game can monitor other players' mission completion states. Use this to create background logic that rewards you for playing as part of a team instead of playing solo.
The only problem with this, is it puts the fleets that are spread out over multiple time zones or countries at a disadvantage. We have a player from Australia who plays with us when he's on, then we go to bed and he plays on. he would have a VERY limited window of time to play with his fleet. He likes us, knows us and prefers us over others so moving to another fleet isn't an option.
This assumes that you mean "fleet" when you say "team" if not, well then the point would be invalid.
I did mean "team" - I think that it's important for players to acquire at least some fleet marks before they join a fleet (unless they join one right out the gate because they joined to play with a friend or something) so that they have a "dowry" to attract recruiters and build an initial account of fleet credit.
Having said that, I agree with you about how time zones makes things tough. My fleet has players on the U.S. East and West coasts, plus players in Denmark, so we struggle with this too. That was another factor in my suggestion that this reward be derived from any team play, not just with fleetmates.
I proposed a similar idea here, but instead of a permanent or semi-permanent alliance, each shared project would form a temporary partnership.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=553181
The problem with fleet alliances is that their are many technical and political details that have to be worked out. Who leads the alliance? Who decides what projects are slotted? Who has the power to kick a fleet out of the alliance? How is the progress of the fleets joining the alliance combined? Are fleets in different tiers allowed in the same alliance? What happens to a fleet's progress if it leaves or is kicked from the alliance?
I actually like this idea. I would add a new type of project, where the large fleet gets provisions and the small fleet gets XP or an upgrade. The large fleet would sponsor the small fleet, and the small fleet would become a client of the large fleet. The client fleet can then slot a sponsored project, to which both fleets can contribute. Regardless of which fleet a player belongs to, he will get fleet credit by contributing to the project. When the project completes, the client fleet gets XP or an upgrade and the sponsor fleet gets provisions. This helps small fleets progress while also helping large fleets get fleet credits and provisions.
I understand that it will take longer to grind my fleet up, and I am perfectly fine with that. However, I do not do STFs or fleet actions or events, so now with the removal of IOR, I am forced to grind FMs through Nukara and Defera. 3-5 at a time is just brutal. I don't mind so much the grind, but at least make the goal attainable. 5 at a time with 2 people will take weeks to fill even the smallest project.
I understand them removing IOR from the foundry, but I do not understand their reasoning. They could have instead of removing it because they felt it had too many rewards, they could have easily made the reward selectable and you could only choose one. That however, is potentially derailing the topic, so I digress from that.
My suggestion is to just simply add a mission that can be accomplished solo and rewards around 20-25 FM, and add more FMs the bigger the group of fleet mates. make it a 30 minute CD if you must, or even an hour. You could even replace the FM mission if your ops at the starbase that gives you 5 every 20 hours (joke) with this.
Small fleets will then have the potential to grind for FMs, and larger fleets will be able to grind it faster. Everybody wins.
@ Gavin: Again, I'm NOT saying your idea is bad. My point was that it can be summed up as "make the process easier". Which seems like something that is unlikely to get implemented. Although there have been several changes along those lines already.
My character Tsin'xing
Wow, I'm a Fleet Leader for two Fleets one on the Fed.side & our sister Fleet on the KDF. The Fed. one is small & the KDF is even smaller. After reading your opening post all I could think is wow, you took the words right out of my mouth. I could not agree more. It's been tough running these two small Fleets & even harder still getting more like minded people to not only join but get together to do the "grind" that keeps getting increasingly harder in order to complete these projects. Thank you & I can only hope that Cryptic is hearing what is being said here. A bunch of really great ideas here.
Make a new organizational group, call it something like a Task Force, Task Group, Sector Group, or whatever. Said group will be composed of multiple fleets basing out of one starbase.
Functionally it'll work like this: The fleet stays "independent" in most respects. They have their own fleet chat (add a new chat channel for the group). They'll have their own bank, uniforms, calender, and the rest. However, they'll share a single starbase (and possibly romulan embassy and other potential future holdings).
Each fleet has their own provisioning. The provisioning projects generate xp for the fleet AND for the total group. Once the group has enough XP it can do upgrades, the upgrades can be contributed to by all the fleets, and once completed they're unlocked for the starbase which the entire group of fleets share equally.
The net result would be several small fleets working together to build a starbase and to share it's facilities. However, they'd all still be responsible for their own provisioning (so one fleet can't leech off the rest), and they'd all still have separate banks, uniforms, identities, and everything.
Limit the ability to form/join the groups to fleets under a certain size, say maybe 75-100 members, and cap their size as long as they're part of the group. With a max total of five member fleets. That would give them the same potential as large fleets in terms of generating resources for starbase construction. It would also be impossible for multiple large (100+) fleets to merge and super-charge their construction times.
In the end, large fleets continue on as they have been. Small fleets pool their resources to build a starbase, but retain their own fleet identity.
Unfortunately, the only way to do this and avoid some people taking advantage of such an approach, would be to 'lock' the population of the fleet to a member range.
In other words; if your fleet has 30 individuals in it, then your fleet population gets locked into a range of let's say 25-50 members and the progression requirements are scaled accordingly. If you want more than 50 members then I see two options:
1. disband the fleet and start a new one...not ideal.
2. purchase the fleets way into a higher tier. The purchase price would be the difference between what the fleet has put in and what it would have put in had it been in the higher tier, plus a modest fee.
I don't see any other practical way to do it that would be fair and would not take a huge amount of developer effort.
It may be harsh, but I largely agree with the sentiment that if your fleet is too small to get it done, then you should join a larger fleet or just not stress it.
I do sympathize, the fleet I am in is suffering the same issues other small fleets are. We can't seem to get to tier three and I want the fleet defiant...sad panda.
This is why I think the various options proposed for sliders affecting the time and cost are important. And I don't see it as just a small fleet issue. Big fleets need ways to get provisions faster. Bigger cost for more bang for the bigger fleets, and smaller easier to accomplish bite-sized projects for the small ones. Whether in discrete levels as part of my suggestion, or in an actual slider as others have proposed. I think this--at a minimum--is universally accepted as a good idea without much potential for exploiting.
I said a similar thing without the math. To me this one is a no-brainer. Fleets are social constructs, the mechanics in some way should reward you for teaming with your fleetmates. If not, then what is the point?
Actually I'm in total agreement with the proposed project idea, though not too sure on the costs/reward.
I'm not sure that's enough though. I think the problem needs a wholistic response, and it needs to be something that works with both large and small fleets, not just "buff the lil guys". Something that covers rewards for play, costs, and flexibility.
Nearly all the other proposals amount to "reduce the cost", which I think might be either a dead end or at worst a trap. Meaning the devs do reduce the cost but not enough. Now they say "we already did reduce the cost and that didn't solve it". This one for a mission with reasonable costs that helps all areas but is small, I think this is a good solution that doesn't hit the trap of reduced cost.
@ all the proposals for coalitions: I think they are good ideas but bad solutions. First, not every fleet knows people outside their group or wants to. So big coalitions vs small coalitions and we end up with the exact same problem as big fleet vs small fleet. To me this is at best a bandaid not a cure. Second, it requires a lot of additional codework, reducing the likelihood of implementation. Third, it amounts to nothing but a "buff these guys but not those guys". I just can't see it working.
Now, I think there is a place of coalitions, but not in paying for progress, rather in earning awards for mission completion that can be used to pay for fleet projects (specifically fleet marks but certainly other possibilities as well). And this mechanic, as mentioned by Ashtaku is already in the game. Increasing the ability to earn rewards via teamplay is brilliant. I really hope some version of this gets implemented as long as it's not "mandatory team mission with higher reward" which is the exact opposite as encouraging teaming, that is punishing soloing.
Several people have proposed coalitions, but have you thought about the exact mechanics of how it would work? I reiterate what I said before.
That's why I think shared projects is a better solution than coalitions. Each project is a temporary partnership that ends when the project is finished. You can team up with different fleets for each project if you want. There will be no issues about coalition leadership and kicking fleets out of the coalition. Also, the devs won't have to figure out how to merge existing progress for fleets joining the coalition.
I've given it some thought, but it's by no means a fully-formed proposal. I'm sure there's things I'm not thinking of, and there's some things I can't address without knowing about internal information only cryptic has access to.
That said:
What I'm proposing is, I guess, somewhere in between the typical coalition/merger ideas and what you suggest by just collaborating on projects. Basically I think what would work best is collaborating on projects but on a (theoretically) permanent basis.
I suggest all fleets retain their independence and individual identity. Like I said, uniforms, fleet chat, ect should all remain as is. Provisions and provisioning projects remaining discreet to the fleet, so that each fleet is still working towards themselves.
The only thing I'm suggesting be brought together are the upgrades and upgrade projects (like the tailor, or security officer, in addition to things like the shipyard). All experience earned would be pooled, and then the member fleets can all contribute to these big projects, so they can all advance the starbase.
I would imagine that the upgrades be done in order what was available soonest, which would be determined by XP, which would mean each fleet would "vote" by completing certain projects individually for XP and provisions. If the fleets do engineering projects most often, for example, engineering upgrades would be available sooner.
The biggest problem that I foresee is the one you mention: politics and and/or fleets getting kicked or whatever. This could potentially be solved by making things automatic, and not having a leader or controlling fleet for the coalition. Make a script to start the next upgrade automatically based on what comes available first, so no one has to start the next upgrade project. With that change there's no need for a PC leader, and no one can be kicked. If there's no leader, there's no need for politics. If you find you don't like your fellow coalition members, you can effectively ignore them just by turning off the coalition chat.
Another question is, what happens when a fleet leaves? Either they retain all the unlocked starbase options their coalition unlocked, or they don't. I see valid arguments to either side. On one hand, if you helped contribute to something and then leave and lose it that will suck. On the other, that's exactly what happens if you leave a fleet now. If you choose to leave and the game says you don't keep those unlocks, then you have to consider that when you choose. I'm not really fussed with either option.
The other big question is what happens when fleets form up. Namely, all of the potential member fleets likely have different tiers in their current star base. It would have to be decided what tiers the joint base starts with. There's a ton of options, from starting from scratch, to taking the highest levels of the pre-existing bases, to some fixed starting point (all coalitions start at tier I, II, or III). Which of these options is best, I don't know.
Most of the other concerns I think are cryptic-centric. Like, how hard would this be to implement, and mesh with the existing fleet system as we know it. And, beyond that, whether they think it's worth the time and effort involved.
I do think something needs to be done, I think things are going to become increasingly unfriendly for the smaller fleets. Other than some form of collaboration, I think most proposals will either be exploitable or give an even bigger advantage to large fleets. For example, if you reduce costs for small fleets, large fleets can kick members to artificially reduce their size to start/complete projects, then invite back members once complete. If you reduce costs across the board, then things get even easier for large fleets. If you introduce some form of collaboration, but limit that collaboration to smaller fleets, then you provide the tools for smaller fleets to help themselves while letting larger fleets carry on.
Because if we can give them a mechanic to make small fleets work, they can potentially make more money off of it.
Right now people who don't want to be in a big fleet are simply not buying fleet gear or ships. Given the right mechanic for fleet progression, they will.
Whether they buy the 4 components off the AH or off the zen store, Cryptic still gets their $20 for each ship sold. Whether they buy dilithium or grind it, they are now spending it not selling it, reducing availability and thus increasing zen sales to cryptic.
The problem I have with automatic upgrades is that it removes the ability of individual fleets to decide what they want to slot. The reason why I proposed shared projects is that it retains most of the autonomy that the individual fleets have now. I think the biggest reason why small fleets don't want to merge or join a large fleet is that they want to retain that autonomy.
Another advantage of shared projects is that there is no need to decide how to merge the starbases and embassies. Each fleet keeps their current progress.
While Cryptic has said that building the starbase is intended by design to be very hard for small fleets, I doubt this was their goal rather than a side effect of making it hard for large fleets. I doubt they sat in a meeting discussing how to make things as hard as possible for small fleets. Rather, they could not find a solution that simultaneously meets all of the following objectives:
1. It should be challenging for large fleets to build the starbase: it should require a lot of resources and take them a long time.
2. It should be equally challenging for small fleets to build the starbase rather than much, much harder.
3. The system should not be exploitable in a way that allows large fleets to rush through starbase construction.
Failing to find a solution that meets all three objectives, they decided to sacrifice objective number 2. I think that is what they mean when they said building the starbase is intended "by design" to be hard for small fleets. However, just because Cryptic could not find a solution, that does not mean that a solution does not exist. What many players are trying to do is to present Cryptic with a solution that meets all three objectives.
To me, this is not so simple. What exactly do you mean by "the new starbase is a sum of the resources spent to [sic] the old ones"? What is your exact algorithm for merging the progress of multiple starbases? One difficulty is how to merge starbases at different tiers. Also, depending on how exactly you do the merge, it might be exploitable to rush through starbase construction. For example, if you are simply going to add together the XP, then players can just create many, many fleets to generate XP at tier 0, and then merge all the fleets.
I'm all for autonomy, but they have to weigh giving up a little autonomy with potentially easing the burden of building up a starbase.
I see a couple problems with shared projects. One is, they would have to find another fleet with which to share with. And, if it's only for the duration of the project, they would have to repeatedly track down people with which to share with. That would add a lot of leadership overhead, even more if you figure most fleets would be at different tiers and working on different projects.
The second problem is more one of lore or story. For a coalition or similar group, you just say multiple fleets are basing out of one starbase. But, if the fleets have their own holdings, how do you explain the mechanics of sharing projects? When, likely, only some fleets are doing so. If an upgrade requires X resources for one starbase, how does it still only require X resources when you're upgrading two, three, or more starbases at the same time?
Also, there'd still have to be some limiting factor. If you let two 500-person fleets share a project, that's not really solving anything as the large fleets will still be moving far faster.
I don't think it's a lot of overahead. The way I envision it is that there would be a channel for this. I'm assuming that a leader or officer can log on once a day to look for other fleets on the channel. If shared projects are implemented, I think the channel will be popular enough that you will be able to find other fleets in the same tier working on the same project, especially for XP projects.
I'm not really interested in the story aspect behind the mechanics.
I already discussed a cap on the number of contributors here:
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=553181
I have a proposal to correct the massive imbalance of Star Base / Embassy project costs according to fleet sizes. While it should be an advantage to have a larger fleet in order to complete the projects, it shouldn't be a massive impediment (just shy of penalty) for smaller fleets to be able to complete their projects as well. What I am suggesting is to convert the costs of the projects to an Economies of Scale schedule:
y=mx+b
y= project completion cost
m= variable cost (cost dependent on, and multiplied by, fleet size)
x= number of members in a fleet
b= Fixed cost (base cost)
This method would have a base cost that is fixed, no matter the fleet size, and then a variable cost based of the number of fleet members. This makes it possible for smaller fleets to be able to complete missions in a more realistic manner while giving benefits for larger fleet sizes. It will also reward proper fleet maintenance, such as purging long term inactive members from fleet rosters.
Example:
Three fleets start a project : Practice Tactical Exercises II
Red Shirt Army Fleet has 20 members in its fleet roster
This Space for Rent Fleet has 200 members in its roster
Really Zoggin' 'Uge Fleet has 2,000 members in its roster
Under the Economies of Scale technique:
The amount of Tactical DOFFS required to complete the project might look like
1m(x) + 10
Red Shirt Army Fleet: 1(20) + 10 = 30 DOFFS
30/20 = 1.5 DOFFs/member
This Space for Rent Fleet: 1(200)+ 10 DOFFS = 210 DOFFS,
210/200= 1.05 DOFFs/member
Really Zoggin' 'Uge Fleet: 1(2000)+ 10 DOFFS = 2,010 DOFFS,
2,010/2,000 = 1.005 DOFFS/ member
For the amount of dilithium required
1000m(x) + 10000
Red Shirt Army Fleet: 1000(20) + 10000 = 30,000 Dil'
30,000/20 = 1,500 Dil'/member
This Space for Rent Fleet: 1000(200)+ 10000 Dil' = 210,000 Dil',
210,000/200= 1,050 Dil'/member
Really Zoggin' 'Uge Fleet: 1000(2000)+ 10000 Dil' = 2,010,000 Dil',
2,010,000/2,000 = 1,005 Dil'/ member
This method would allow smaller fleets to be able to progress at a realistic manner while reducing the cost-per-member required contribution advantage of being a larger fleet.
An easy workaround I have always supported: Charge dilithium for entry to fleets. A fairly nominal fee, but enough to deter abuse, say around 4000 dil. Fair players would see this fee maybe once or twice in their entire toon career.
That is exactly the opposite of what Dan Stahl said.
If that was the design, then it would have been a lot easier for Cryptic to design fleet progression around Tier limitations.
Instead, they chose to allow small fleets the option to max out their starbases. By definition their intention is to allow small fleets to have big starbases.
I am not arguing that small fleets shouldn't take longer to do the job. We understood that going in.
The problem is stalled-out progression that's limited by the availability of Fleet Marks. Dilithium is obtainable in many different ways and it's possible to at least keep a trickle of it flowing in. Fleet Marks are (now) available by only two means:
1. Playing a limited number of 5-20 man missions with poor FM rewards.
2. Exchanging CXP for FM.
For me, with limited time to play STO, that means I need to spend all of my time DOFFing and/or playing team missions designed for 5 players or more, which for me pretty much means hassling with queues and PUGging.
Now, given that Cryptic can't implement anything that allows large fleets to exploit and breeze through Holdings, there is one thing Cryptic could do that would help:
Award Fleet Marks for all team-play; scale the reward according to the number of players (2 or more) participating. This reward would be capped by the maximum number of players that can join a team. A reward of 10 FM's for two players up to 25 FM's for five players would be reasonable.
The team-play reward should also apply to team-played qualifying Foundry content, thus expanding the number of available missions. But I could certainly live with it if they just did it for all of the Cryptic-authored missions and increased the replay value for those.
That would get the Fleet Marks flowing in a non-game-breaking way.
I still think there could be an alternative path of progress that helps small fleets but is less optimal for larger ones that would tend to follow the normal path.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
The number of fleet members determined to be in the fleet can be based on a weighted moving average over set period of time, say over a two month period. There is no way to stop some exploiting 100% of the time, but this way would not be as beneficial for a large fleet to use.