For a 10 man fleet that equates to 50k FM, 50k dilith, 100 doffs, 50k commodities per person
For a 100 man fleet that equates to 5k FM, 5k dilith, 10 doffs, 5k commodities per person.
How exactly are those two sets of numbers identical?
^^ This! This is the reason we need some way to have the fleet system scale according to how many members are in a fleet, (and just as important) ACTIVELY contributing to fleet projects.
^^ This! This is the reason we need some way to have the fleet system scale according to how many members are in a fleet, (and just as important) ACTIVELY contributing to fleet projects.
Say the Fleet leader in that example wants to personally bring the Starbase to T2.
Without scaling, if he was in a 10 man fleet, he pays 500k FM, 500k Dilith, 1k doffs, 500k commodities. If he was in a 100 man fleet, he still pays 500k FM, 500k Dilith, 1k doffs, 500k commodities.
If any amount of scaling existed he would have to pay more because he successfully recruited many members. If he was in a "one-man" fleet consisting of 10 alts, they would all be "active" but his costs and work will still increase.
No scaling of any sort can exist without being unfairly advantageous to small Fleets. Scaling does not "equalize" in any way, it only provides advantage. The "unfairness" being complained about is the entire point of teamwork. "Many hands make light work."
Say the Fleet leader in that example wants to personally bring the Starbase to T2.
Without scaling, if he was in a 10 man fleet, he pays 500k FM, 500k Dilith, 1k doffs, 500k commodities. If he was in a 100 man fleet, he still pays 500k FM, 500k Dilith, 1k doffs, 500k commodities.
If any amount of scaling existed he would have to pay more because he successfully recruited many members. If he was in a "one-man" fleet consisting of 10 alts, they would all be "active" but his costs and work will still increase.
No scaling of any sort can exist without being unfairly advantageous to small Fleets. Scaling does not "equalize" in any way, it only provides advantage. The "unfairness" being complained about is the entire point of teamwork. "Many hands make light work."
You're making the assumption that scaling would be on a character level, not an account one. You're also assuming that starbase costs would scale up over what they currently are.
Let me remind you all there is a SOLO Fed fleet(if you can call a 1 man operation a fleet??) which is in the process of upgrading to a T4 - yes tier FOUR starbase.
So what is all this small base BS??
Of course in my 400+ person KDF fleet we are finished T5 Fab and the T5 upgrade is away and on CD - and the T5 shipyard is about 40 days out. But this is just the nature of the system.
It's like saying a factory with 10 employees should be able to produce the same as 400 - and if they 10 person factory can't then the Guberment should step in and make things equal.
I don't quite understand why it matters to some of you if small fleets get discounted projects or whatever help the powers that be deem fitting?
If you are happy in your mega fleet and are all beavering away levelling up then you have something you all worked for and can be proud of the achievement.
Giving smaller fleets a helping hand or the odd nod does not devalue your own achievement in any way does it? You still did the work, you still rallied the team to get the job done and you still have all the stuff you set out to get. Kudos is deserved. You can get your fleet ships and buffs and all is right with your universe yes?
However, whilst a tiny fleet of course has the option to jack it all in and join a bigger one why should they have to just in order to have a realistic chance of getting top tier ships or perks?
Are you seriously suggesting that despite the fact that they will still have to pay for those perks when they get to the required level - (no-one as far as I can tell is suggesting they should be discounted), and in spite of the fact that even with discounted projects each member of a small fleet will have probably contributed far more resources than individual members of a large fleet (simple maths) that they are somehow less entitled than you are to access endgame content?
Locking a fair proportion of users out of endgame (or at least the goodies) is also bad business.
Let me remind you all there is a SOLO Fed fleet(if you can call a 1 man operation a fleet??) which is in the process of upgrading to a T4 - yes tier FOUR starbase.
With how many alts?
I'm sure there are also 300+ people fleets who haven't made it past T1. Outliers are outliers.
Of course in my 400+ person KDF fleet we are finished T5 Fab and the T5 upgrade is away and on CD - and the T5 shipyard is about 40 days out. But this is just the nature of the system.
And we're back to "my fleet won't be able to prove how superior we are, so fleets that arent as cool as we are don't matter".
It's like saying a factory with 10 employees should be able to produce the same as 400 - and if they 10 person factory can't then the Guberment should step in and make things equal.
Sound kind of like communism to me.
1) You seem to be forgetting that the Federation operates under an economy very near to the ideals of communism.
2) So long as Starbases are mechanisms for attainment of gear, equality of access must happen.
I guess the easiest way would be to have fleets share project costs or exp gained by those projects. I would be no different then having all those players join up in a large fleet while keeping their own fleet the way they want them to be.
Ofc such a sharing must slso keep the member cap. Basically it would be like forming meta-fleets. Although there are possibly easier ways this just shows that there is in fact a simple solution and that cryptic just doesnt care.
I really wonder why some companies/people seem to need things going really bad before acting but i guess its just an intrinsic human thing
You're making the assumption that scaling would be on a character level, not an account one.
True, but irrelevant - my friend has a guild in Guild Wars 2. All of us in the peer group who own GW2 are in it, but he's the actually the only active player. Many Fleets have similar situations here where they have non-contributing, semi-active members they wouldn't kick out. The issue can exists with more than one account in the Fleet.
I don't quite understand why it matters to some of you if small fleets get discounted projects or whatever help the powers that be deem fitting?
What the "powers that be" has deemed fitting is to block out smaller fleets from higher tier holdings via a soft cap. The alternative they had discarded in favor of that was to lock out higher tier holdings entirely.
Someone asking for "discounted projects" is asking for a bonus other people do not get. Everyone else joins a large Fleet for the benefits (:o), they want to stay in a small Fleet and still have all the benefits of being in a large Fleet.
They want to refuse to do something and still gain the rewards associated with the action they rejected.
As a reminder, do not respond to offensive posts -- Report them. ~Bluegeek
As it stands the powers that be were going to put a hard cap in the game, so you had to have X members of your fleet to hit Tier Y. Instead they decided to let any sized fleet make it to T5, but they'd have to pay the same cost as everyone else.
The very idea of cost/member is flawed, because a Fleet is a entity itself, not just a collection of characters. The Fleet works on a project, and the Fleet enjoys the fruits of that labor. Not everyone in a fleet contributes the same amount yet everyone gets the same benefit. So every Fleet pays the same amount.
1) You seem to be forgetting that the Federation operates under an economy very near to the ideals of communism.
No it's not. It doesn't even have an economy, all needs are provided for by replicators and no one pays taxes or provides resources to the collective.
2) So long as Starbases are mechanisms for attainment of gear, equality of access must happen.
Everyone does have equal access to fleet gear right now, just as much as everyone has equal access to MACO, Omega and New Rom gear. If you aren't willing to do what it takes to get it, then you won't have it.
Asking for a discount because you have fewer resources is an inherently selfish concept.
Try all you might to spin it that way but it is still nonsense.
It is very likely that whilst it cost my fleet the exact same amount of resources to get to tier * as yours that unless you are also in an (effectively) two man fleet then I contributed far more to achieve that goal than you did yourself.
Quite how that equates to me wanting to pay less for access to the same endgame content is beyond me.
Neither do you answer the first point I made ...why does it matter so much to you that I be denied the right to BUY endgame gear just because I fail to see the attraction of some mega fleet?
I know that there are probably some really cool fleets out there where I would feel at home. However, I choose to spend my time (and my money) in this game, all I ask is that I am allowed to play on a level playing field whilst playing the game in a way that makes me happy and comfortable.
The only way to gain access to the new endgame gear is via the fleet mechanism. As long as it is then I am expected to either kowtow and join a mega fleet or I pay a small fortune to level up our fleet ....just to have the right to BUY the same stuff as you. Why? .... being part of a large group? Say it ain't so! It sounds so silly in black and white but that seems like the top and bottom of it to me.
I am too long in the tooth and far too much of a cranky old git to jump through ANYONES hoops in order that I might give them my time or my money.
Let me remind you all there is a SOLO Fed fleet(if you can call a 1 man operation a fleet??) which is in the process of upgrading to a T4 - yes tier FOUR starbase.
I'd love to know how much money he spent doing it. Fleet marks were not a problem back when we had "use console, receive 1440 dilithium and 50 fleet marks".
At the end of the day, the question in most need of an answer is: "How do we alter the system in such a way as to fix the disparity between what members in large fleets have to contribute and what members in small fleets have to contribute to reach the same goal?"
That's the problem in a nutshell: People in small fleets have to spend more per project than people in large fleets. Why? With more members in large fleets, the cost of upgrades is spread out among a larger pool of contributors while the inverse is true for small fleets.
A sliding scale or proportioned system would simply be abused by large fleets, who would start bleeding members in order to circumvent the higher costs associated with their member count. At the same time, small fleets would stop growing to avoid those costs altogether. I can't see a way to reconcile a system like this that wouldn't end up with all fleets opting to stay--or get--small.
Try as I might, I simply cannot figure out how to do this in any meaningful way that levels the playing field.
Try as I might, I simply cannot figure out how to do this in any meaningful way that levels the playing field.
The one that keeps sticking in my mind is to move all the gear, ship, et al fleet rewards to tier 1 and 2 and flood tier 4 and 5 with more vanity items instead. Smaller fleets don't get to show off as much, but they still get all the basics their members want. The bigger fleets get show-off prestige items like bigger bases, artworks, special uniforms, etc etc.
I guess the easiest way would be to have fleets share project costs or exp gained by those projects. I would be no different then having all those players join up in a large fleet while keeping their own fleet the way they want them to be.
Ofc such a sharing must slso keep the member cap. Basically it would be like forming meta-fleets. Although there are possibly easier ways this just shows that there is in fact a simple solution and that cryptic just doesnt care.
I really wonder why some companies/people seem to need things going really bad before acting but i guess its just an intrinsic human thing
At the end of the day, the question in most need of an answer is: "How do we alter the system in such a way as to fix the disparity between what members in large fleets have to contribute and what members in small fleets have to contribute to reach the same goal?"
That's the problem in a nutshell: People in small fleets have to spend more per project than people in large fleets. Why? With more members in large fleets, the cost of upgrades is spread out among a larger pool of contributors while the inverse is true for small fleets.
A sliding scale or proportioned system would simply be abused by large fleets, who would start bleeding members in order to circumvent the higher costs associated with their member count. At the same time, small fleets would stop growing to avoid those costs altogether. I can't see a way to reconcile a system like this that wouldn't end up with all fleets opting to stay--or get--small.
Try as I might, I simply cannot figure out how to do this in any meaningful way that levels the playing field.
There were already several proposed solutions in this and other threads:
1. Shared projects
2. Fleet coalitions
3. Attaching small fleets to large fleets
However, people would rather argue about the inherent fairness of "equal cost per fleet" vs. "equal cost per person" than discuss alternatives that Cryptic might consider.
I do understand what you are saying and for the most part I do agree.
I actually hate being in the position whereby I even condone advocating a 'leg up'. I can understand given the significant investment in time and money that people who have gained these achievements feel that any 'discount' would be unfair to them.
What 'they' are failing to understand is that when the cost in time and resources falls on one or two people then it becomes prohibitive....excessively so.
Their answer is suck it up and join a large fleet.
My response is to say that is unacceptable. Something of an impasse!
I do think Cryptic were asking for trouble by tying so much endgame gear to the fleet mechanism so they only have themselves to blame trying to sort it out ....if they even bother.
If there were ( and I think there should be) an alternative method to get the same end game gear (change the aesthetic, call it something else I don't care as long as it is equally competitive) then I would have no problem. All I want is the same access to gear as others ..... I find it ludicrous that there is a barrier of hundreds of dollars for the right to spend money.
It might well be unfair to large fleets to discount projects for smaller. However it is equally unfair when the burden of huge resources fall on one or two individuals.
i didnt feel like reading the posts before this lol... so if my idea is already stated, than take it as im in support of said idea lol..
ok, i think its super easy to balance fleet progression with fleet size..
simply put, say for every 10 members in a fleet, the supplies needed to complete fleet projects..
so im just throwing numbers out. but say you want to do an engineering project.. lets say that project needs engineering personel, dilithium, fleet marks, and lets say self seeling stem bolts
ok so heres a little chart i guess crude but effective..
* hmmm, well the numbers didnt line up, and i wasnt able to make them line up, but you should be able to get the point..
and so on and so forth. now these numbers are just to prove the point.. obviously it would be up to cryptic to define the percentages of increase.. but this way it makes it fair and keeps everyone working together..
As an example, would you consider paying 50% less FMs and Dilithium for a project and in turn wait 40 hours instead of 20 for the project to complete? The completion cooldown right now is the same for everyone, regardless of fleet size. It's the time involved in gathering the necessary resources that's a pain for smaller fleets.
Yes, definitely so.
As things stand I can't ever see us managing to get to tier five (well not this side of 2020!)
If something appears unachievable then there is a chance I might lose interest and just go do something else.
I won't ever join a larger fleet because I should not have to. It should not be a prerequisite to content.
I am happy to stump up for the stuff I want and I do. There comes a point however when you realise the insanity of throwing hundreds if not thousands of dollars at something in order to have the same fun as everyone else and the right to spend more money.
Please don't post angry or insulting responses -- These are against forum rules
Mod hat off...
In my mind the real issue is less about costs and more about stalled projects. Sliding scales don't fully address the stalled projects issue. When you can't finish a project, it blocks working on something else and you can't move forward.
A more balanced variety of projects and the ability to shuffle the actively queued projects would help everybody, not just small fleets.
The one resource that small fleets were at a disadvantage in getting was fleet marks, and that basically came down to the way FM's were removed from the IOR before they were increased in other missions.
I can't even really say that small fleets are gated out from getting FM's because there is content still available that can be played solo and rewards FM's (Defera, Nukara). Not to mention the CXP conversion and the Fleet marks added to PvP wrappers. The situation could be better, but I think I can live with it for now.
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
Which is the proposal the rest of us were batting around, since it is completely fair to everyone while still significantly benefiting small fleet. Then you came in and called us "selfish and self absorbed" for insisting that any changes or additions should be fair and not arbitrarily benefit a particular group of players.
I won't ever join a larger fleet because I should not have to. It should not be a prerequisite to content.
"Should not" according to you. According to Blizzard, CCP, ANet, Turbine, or PWI you definetely "should" be a part of a major guild, and they will "lock content" to encourage that. (By "lock content" of course, it means provide benefits to large guilds that are not available to independents.)
In my mind the real issue is less about costs and more about stalled projects. Sliding scales don't fully address the stalled projects issue. When you can't finish a project, it blocks working on something else and you can't move forward.
They're inherently linked however. The lower the costs the less likely a project is to stall. Simply by lowering costs in proportion to extending duration (according to the sample ratio I provided), the actual time it takes for a smaller Fleet to gain new Fleet holdings won't change (which appears to be a key concern for Cryptic), but the amount of stalling and work involved will significantly decrease.
What 'they' are failing to understand is that when the cost in time and resources falls on one or two people then it becomes prohibitive....excessively so.
No we are quite aware of the issue of a 2 person fleet trying to get to T5. That's why people like myself and DarkJeff have offered a number of ideas on how to fix this fairly.
All I want is the same access to gear as others
Gear is gated in every MMO out there. I'm not sure why you think this one should somehow be different. In fact in most MMO's if you want the best gear you're required to join a fairly large and active guild because trying to PUG your way to the end game gear is harder then getting to T5 as a 3 person fleet.
I think Cryptic should rethink how long they expect average-size fleets to take to reach each Tier and make adjustments to the project requirements accordingly.
Things are the way they are because Cryptic has basically said "we expect the very large fleets to take x months to reach Tier 5" and they have created the whole system around that paradigm.
They have made adjustments in earnings for fleet marks and for dilithium, but they haven't done much to change the projects themselves and I'm not so sure that they've changed the way they think about how long a starbase should take to be built.
I don't want to build Deep Space Rome in a day, I just want it to feel less like a pointless grind that isn't going anywhere. What does it hurt if the mega-fleets happen to complete their projects just a little bit faster and cheaper than they can now?
I would welcome the idea of projects with lower resource costs and much longer completion times. As long as the clock is ticking, it feels like something is happening.
As far as fleet content goes, I understand why they want people to play in teams. What I don't get is why we're stuck on the 5-man rule? Why isn't there more content designed for say a 3-man team?
Granted I don't have a lot of experience with a wide variety of MMO's, but it seems like it's harder to form a 5-man team and get a solid group of players. If there was 3-man content, it would be more likely that a small fleet's members are available for a team at any given time. The rewards don't have to be the same, just don't gate that content.
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
Comments
^^ This! This is the reason we need some way to have the fleet system scale according to how many members are in a fleet, (and just as important) ACTIVELY contributing to fleet projects.
[/SIGPIC]
Without scaling, if he was in a 10 man fleet, he pays 500k FM, 500k Dilith, 1k doffs, 500k commodities. If he was in a 100 man fleet, he still pays 500k FM, 500k Dilith, 1k doffs, 500k commodities.
If any amount of scaling existed he would have to pay more because he successfully recruited many members. If he was in a "one-man" fleet consisting of 10 alts, they would all be "active" but his costs and work will still increase.
No scaling of any sort can exist without being unfairly advantageous to small Fleets. Scaling does not "equalize" in any way, it only provides advantage. The "unfairness" being complained about is the entire point of teamwork. "Many hands make light work."
You're making the assumption that scaling would be on a character level, not an account one. You're also assuming that starbase costs would scale up over what they currently are.
So what is all this small base BS??
Of course in my 400+ person KDF fleet we are finished T5 Fab and the T5 upgrade is away and on CD - and the T5 shipyard is about 40 days out. But this is just the nature of the system.
It's like saying a factory with 10 employees should be able to produce the same as 400 - and if they 10 person factory can't then the Guberment should step in and make things equal.
Sound kind of like communism to me.
If you are happy in your mega fleet and are all beavering away levelling up then you have something you all worked for and can be proud of the achievement.
Giving smaller fleets a helping hand or the odd nod does not devalue your own achievement in any way does it? You still did the work, you still rallied the team to get the job done and you still have all the stuff you set out to get. Kudos is deserved. You can get your fleet ships and buffs and all is right with your universe yes?
However, whilst a tiny fleet of course has the option to jack it all in and join a bigger one why should they have to just in order to have a realistic chance of getting top tier ships or perks?
Are you seriously suggesting that despite the fact that they will still have to pay for those perks when they get to the required level - (no-one as far as I can tell is suggesting they should be discounted), and in spite of the fact that even with discounted projects each member of a small fleet will have probably contributed far more resources than individual members of a large fleet (simple maths) that they are somehow less entitled than you are to access endgame content?
Locking a fair proportion of users out of endgame (or at least the goodies) is also bad business.
This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies . ~Bluegeek
With how many alts?
I'm sure there are also 300+ people fleets who haven't made it past T1. Outliers are outliers.
And we're back to "my fleet won't be able to prove how superior we are, so fleets that arent as cool as we are don't matter".
1) You seem to be forgetting that the Federation operates under an economy very near to the ideals of communism.
2) So long as Starbases are mechanisms for attainment of gear, equality of access must happen.
3) Keep the politics outside, thank you.
Ofc such a sharing must slso keep the member cap. Basically it would be like forming meta-fleets. Although there are possibly easier ways this just shows that there is in fact a simple solution and that cryptic just doesnt care.
I really wonder why some companies/people seem to need things going really bad before acting but i guess its just an intrinsic human thing
What the "powers that be" has deemed fitting is to block out smaller fleets from higher tier holdings via a soft cap. The alternative they had discarded in favor of that was to lock out higher tier holdings entirely.
Someone asking for "discounted projects" is asking for a bonus other people do not get. Everyone else joins a large Fleet for the benefits (:o), they want to stay in a small Fleet and still have all the benefits of being in a large Fleet.
They want to refuse to do something and still gain the rewards associated with the action they rejected.
As it stands the powers that be were going to put a hard cap in the game, so you had to have X members of your fleet to hit Tier Y. Instead they decided to let any sized fleet make it to T5, but they'd have to pay the same cost as everyone else.
The very idea of cost/member is flawed, because a Fleet is a entity itself, not just a collection of characters. The Fleet works on a project, and the Fleet enjoys the fruits of that labor. Not everyone in a fleet contributes the same amount yet everyone gets the same benefit. So every Fleet pays the same amount.
No it's not. It doesn't even have an economy, all needs are provided for by replicators and no one pays taxes or provides resources to the collective.
Everyone does have equal access to fleet gear right now, just as much as everyone has equal access to MACO, Omega and New Rom gear. If you aren't willing to do what it takes to get it, then you won't have it.
Try all you might to spin it that way but it is still nonsense.
It is very likely that whilst it cost my fleet the exact same amount of resources to get to tier * as yours that unless you are also in an (effectively) two man fleet then I contributed far more to achieve that goal than you did yourself.
Quite how that equates to me wanting to pay less for access to the same endgame content is beyond me.
Neither do you answer the first point I made ...why does it matter so much to you that I be denied the right to BUY endgame gear just because I fail to see the attraction of some mega fleet?
I know that there are probably some really cool fleets out there where I would feel at home. However, I choose to spend my time (and my money) in this game, all I ask is that I am allowed to play on a level playing field whilst playing the game in a way that makes me happy and comfortable.
The only way to gain access to the new endgame gear is via the fleet mechanism. As long as it is then I am expected to either kowtow and join a mega fleet or I pay a small fortune to level up our fleet ....just to have the right to BUY the same stuff as you. Why? .... being part of a large group? Say it ain't so! It sounds so silly in black and white but that seems like the top and bottom of it to me.
I am too long in the tooth and far too much of a cranky old git to jump through ANYONES hoops in order that I might give them my time or my money.
This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies . ~Bluegeek
I'd love to know how much money he spent doing it. Fleet marks were not a problem back when we had "use console, receive 1440 dilithium and 50 fleet marks".
That's the problem in a nutshell: People in small fleets have to spend more per project than people in large fleets. Why? With more members in large fleets, the cost of upgrades is spread out among a larger pool of contributors while the inverse is true for small fleets.
A sliding scale or proportioned system would simply be abused by large fleets, who would start bleeding members in order to circumvent the higher costs associated with their member count. At the same time, small fleets would stop growing to avoid those costs altogether. I can't see a way to reconcile a system like this that wouldn't end up with all fleets opting to stay--or get--small.
Try as I might, I simply cannot figure out how to do this in any meaningful way that levels the playing field.
The one that keeps sticking in my mind is to move all the gear, ship, et al fleet rewards to tier 1 and 2 and flood tier 4 and 5 with more vanity items instead. Smaller fleets don't get to show off as much, but they still get all the basics their members want. The bigger fleets get show-off prestige items like bigger bases, artworks, special uniforms, etc etc.
go join a bigger fleet
my small fleet is having no issues progressing
I already suggested sharing projects in this thread:
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?p=8102281
Unfortunately, it seems only a few people agree with me.
There were already several proposed solutions in this and other threads:
1. Shared projects
2. Fleet coalitions
3. Attaching small fleets to large fleets
However, people would rather argue about the inherent fairness of "equal cost per fleet" vs. "equal cost per person" than discuss alternatives that Cryptic might consider.
I do understand what you are saying and for the most part I do agree.
I actually hate being in the position whereby I even condone advocating a 'leg up'. I can understand given the significant investment in time and money that people who have gained these achievements feel that any 'discount' would be unfair to them.
What 'they' are failing to understand is that when the cost in time and resources falls on one or two people then it becomes prohibitive....excessively so.
Their answer is suck it up and join a large fleet.
My response is to say that is unacceptable. Something of an impasse!
I do think Cryptic were asking for trouble by tying so much endgame gear to the fleet mechanism so they only have themselves to blame trying to sort it out ....if they even bother.
If there were ( and I think there should be) an alternative method to get the same end game gear (change the aesthetic, call it something else I don't care as long as it is equally competitive) then I would have no problem. All I want is the same access to gear as others ..... I find it ludicrous that there is a barrier of hundreds of dollars for the right to spend money.
It might well be unfair to large fleets to discount projects for smaller. However it is equally unfair when the burden of huge resources fall on one or two individuals.
ok, i think its super easy to balance fleet progression with fleet size..
simply put, say for every 10 members in a fleet, the supplies needed to complete fleet projects..
so im just throwing numbers out. but say you want to do an engineering project.. lets say that project needs engineering personel, dilithium, fleet marks, and lets say self seeling stem bolts
ok so heres a little chart i guess crude but effective..
* hmmm, well the numbers didnt line up, and i wasnt able to make them line up, but you should be able to get the point..
players eng. doff. dilithium. fleet marks.. sssb.
10 6 3k 100 150
20 8 6k 200 300
30 10 9k 300 450
40 12 12k 400 600
and so on and so forth. now these numbers are just to prove the point.. obviously it would be up to cryptic to define the percentages of increase.. but this way it makes it fair and keeps everyone working together..
Yes, definitely so.
As things stand I can't ever see us managing to get to tier five (well not this side of 2020!)
If something appears unachievable then there is a chance I might lose interest and just go do something else.
I won't ever join a larger fleet because I should not have to. It should not be a prerequisite to content.
I am happy to stump up for the stuff I want and I do. There comes a point however when you realise the insanity of throwing hundreds if not thousands of dollars at something in order to have the same fun as everyone else and the right to spend more money.
Please don't post angry or insulting responses -- These are against forum rules
Mod hat off...
In my mind the real issue is less about costs and more about stalled projects. Sliding scales don't fully address the stalled projects issue. When you can't finish a project, it blocks working on something else and you can't move forward.
A more balanced variety of projects and the ability to shuffle the actively queued projects would help everybody, not just small fleets.
The one resource that small fleets were at a disadvantage in getting was fleet marks, and that basically came down to the way FM's were removed from the IOR before they were increased in other missions.
I can't even really say that small fleets are gated out from getting FM's because there is content still available that can be played solo and rewards FM's (Defera, Nukara). Not to mention the CXP conversion and the Fleet marks added to PvP wrappers. The situation could be better, but I think I can live with it for now.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
"Should not" according to you. According to Blizzard, CCP, ANet, Turbine, or PWI you definetely "should" be a part of a major guild, and they will "lock content" to encourage that. (By "lock content" of course, it means provide benefits to large guilds that are not available to independents.)
The reason is simple - on average, members of a large guild will stay longer and spend more.
They're inherently linked however. The lower the costs the less likely a project is to stall. Simply by lowering costs in proportion to extending duration (according to the sample ratio I provided), the actual time it takes for a smaller Fleet to gain new Fleet holdings won't change (which appears to be a key concern for Cryptic), but the amount of stalling and work involved will significantly decrease.
No we are quite aware of the issue of a 2 person fleet trying to get to T5. That's why people like myself and DarkJeff have offered a number of ideas on how to fix this fairly.
Gear is gated in every MMO out there. I'm not sure why you think this one should somehow be different. In fact in most MMO's if you want the best gear you're required to join a fairly large and active guild because trying to PUG your way to the end game gear is harder then getting to T5 as a 3 person fleet.
This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies . ~Bluegeek
Things are the way they are because Cryptic has basically said "we expect the very large fleets to take x months to reach Tier 5" and they have created the whole system around that paradigm.
They have made adjustments in earnings for fleet marks and for dilithium, but they haven't done much to change the projects themselves and I'm not so sure that they've changed the way they think about how long a starbase should take to be built.
I don't want to build Deep Space Rome in a day, I just want it to feel less like a pointless grind that isn't going anywhere. What does it hurt if the mega-fleets happen to complete their projects just a little bit faster and cheaper than they can now?
I would welcome the idea of projects with lower resource costs and much longer completion times. As long as the clock is ticking, it feels like something is happening.
As far as fleet content goes, I understand why they want people to play in teams. What I don't get is why we're stuck on the 5-man rule? Why isn't there more content designed for say a 3-man team?
Granted I don't have a lot of experience with a wide variety of MMO's, but it seems like it's harder to form a 5-man team and get a solid group of players. If there was 3-man content, it would be more likely that a small fleet's members are available for a team at any given time. The rewards don't have to be the same, just don't gate that content.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
http://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/10052253
Why are you not rejoicing?