It's an "apt" analogy because just by changing the terms involved, it's exactly the same situation in STO.
Let's say you play with your best friend in a Fleet. Nearby is another Fleet, with ten friends playing together. Both Fleets are T1. It costs 1000 units of resources to attain T2. This means you and your buddy need to contribute 500 units each. The ten guys nearby just need to contribute 100 units each. Let's say everybody earns 10 units/hour. It'll take you and your buddy 50 hours of work each, and it'll take those guys nearby just 10 hours of work each.
You want the costs to scale per person. You want your Fleet to be upgraded for 200 units, and the Fleet nearby to be upgraded for 1000 units. This is what you consider "fair" - because it's in game units as opposed to money?
It's an "apt" analogy because just by changing the terms involved, it's exactly the same situation in STO.
Let's say you play with your best friend in a Fleet. Nearby is another Fleet, with ten friends playing together. Both Fleets are T1. It costs 1000 units of resources to attain T2. This means you and your buddy need to contribute 500 units each. The ten guys nearby just need to contribute 100 units each. Let's say everybody earns 10 units/hour. It'll take you and your buddy 50 hours of work each, and it'll take those guys nearby just 10 hours of work each.
You want the costs to scale per person. You want your Fleet to be upgraded for 200 units, and the Fleet nearby to be upgraded for 1000 units. This is what you consider "fair" - because it's in game units as opposed to money?
No it's not, you can't make an analogy between a real life situation and a game mechanic in that way, to begin with they do not share the same physical parameters. A day in STO does not equate to 24 hours in real time for example, in fact if one goes by Starfleet Academy there is never a night at all.
Scaling is the way to go, though I think it should only occur if you have a minimum of 5 players. You are right in saying that Solo fleets should not get any benefits, the aim was not for a personal base.
Your talk of "fairness" is irrelevant as it there is no need for fairness because it causes no damage to the bigger fleet for the smaller fleet to get things done in the same period of time, I don't know how I can make this anymore clearer for you but small fleets being able to complete things at the same rate as larger ones does not take away resources or anything else from larger fleets. Simply put the do not inhabit the same axis.
However I would argue that solo players should be able to visit Fleet bases and buy goods from them in exchange for resources. This already happens on an informal basis but I would like to see it formally implemented without someone having to join a fleet to do it. I would like to see an invite function and a Fleet Marks to Fleet Provisions exchange mechanism. If not this then there should be a provision for Solo players to access fleet rewards at their homeworld/HQ by converting FM's.
If we want to talk about balance or fairness we need to ensure that end rewards like Fleet weapons are accessible to anyone whether they wish to be in a fleet or not.
In games like DDO players who are not in a guild will be routinely offered to be invited to a guild airship for buffs before a quest starts, the current fleet system in STO doesn't encourage anywhere near that kind of friendliness to outsiders.
Scaling is the way to go, though I think it should only occur if you have a minimum of 5 players. You are right in saying that Solo fleets should not get any benefits, the aim was not for a personal base.
I think you have some good ideas, but let me set my tricorder to scan for Unintended Consequences Related To Scaling... there we go.
I'm in a fleet right now that stands at nearly 60 members, yet I'd say maybe a fifth of that are still active. We carry a lot of old members that haven't been around for months because hey maybe they'll come back someday. Do we get penalized and set to 60 member fleet scales because we're not attentively cleaning out the roster?
OK, so we set scaling to active fleet members. So now those of us with alts get penalized if we ever bring them out to play, and there's a greater onus on those of us who are active to do more in fleet activity.
OK, so let's go with active fleet member accounts. Now you've tilted it the other way with regards to alts and put even more pressure on the active members to do fleet activity.
And I haven't even touched what happens with regards to adding new members. How many fleets will hesitate to recruit or start adding members before they complete Tier V? There's no incentive to add new members with regards to fleet advancement, in fact if they're not as active in fleet advancement you're actually penalizing those working on advancement.
Small fleets should be given a better shake at advancement, but I remain skeptical that scaling is the way to go.
Let me say that I am not in favor of scaling project requirements on the basis that:
1) It introduces complexity that requires significant dev resources to implement and also possibly runs counter to Cryptic's design intentions for the system.
2) It introduces a new mechanic that could break or require further balancing.
3) It could be perceived as unfair, and the solution might still be sufficiently unsatisfactory that it's not worth the cost to implement it.
4) It further complicates STO's economic model
Otherwise, I feel there is no harm in addressing ways to help smaller fleets to complete projects that they will otherwise not complete. Other than possible monetization issues on Cryptic's end, large fleets don't necessarily lose out if small fleets get some kind of assistance.
Project non-completion and stalled fleet progression is not in anyone's best interests. If people lose interest in fleet advancement entirely, that ultimately hurts the game.
And let's not forget that fleets don't start out big and that there is a limit as to how big a fleet can get. It's not feasible for everyone to join the biggest fleets, even if we wanted to. There are factors working against the growth of small fleets, including recruitment issues, that should be considered.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I think you have some good ideas, but let me set my tricorder to scan for Unintended Consequences Related To Scaling... there we go.
I'm in a fleet right now that stands at nearly 60 members, yet I'd say maybe a fifth of that are still active. We carry a lot of old members that haven't been around for months because hey maybe they'll come back someday. Do we get penalized and set to 60 member fleet scales because we're not attentively cleaning out the roster?
OK, so we set scaling to active fleet members. So now those of us with alts get penalized if we ever bring them out to play, and there's a greater onus on those of us who are active to do more in fleet activity.
OK, so let's go with active fleet member accounts. Now you've tilted it the other way with regards to alts and put even more pressure on the active members to do fleet activity.
And I haven't even touched what happens with regards to adding new members. How many fleets will hesitate to recruit or start adding members before they complete Tier V? There's no incentive to add new members with regards to fleet advancement, in fact if they're not as active in fleet advancement you're actually penalizing those working on advancement.
Small fleets should be given a better shake at advancement, but I remain skeptical that scaling is the way to go.
These are all valid concerns, but I see no other way to offer all players equality.
With regards to basing it on active players, whether you use alts or not is irrelevant it would be account / faction based not character based.
The other option is for players to flag themselves as inactive or on sabbatical as it were.
There is no need for incentivization in recruiting fleet members and it's largely irrelevant as no matter the fleet size you will always achieve the tiers with the same number of hours accrued per individual in fleet. The whole point here is the size of the fleet is meaningless.
I think there are solutions for most of the issues around scaling however the big question is whether Cryptic can find an implement them and whether in terms of financial gain it's worthwhile to do so.
Otherwise, I feel there is no harm in addressing ways to help smaller fleets to complete projects that they will otherwise not complete. Other than possible monetization issues on Cryptic's end, large fleets don't necessarily lose out if small fleets get some kind of assistance.
Project non-completion and stalled fleet progression is not in anyone's best interests. If people lose interest in fleet advancement entirely, that ultimately hurts the game.
And let's not forget that fleets don't start out big and that there is a limit as to how big a fleet can get. It's not feasible for everyone to join the biggest fleets, even if we wanted to. There are factors working against the growth of small fleets, including recruitment issues, that should be considered.
I'm not so sure there are any issues of monetization. I do however agree scaling would take up dev time and as I said in the previous reply of the other post it comes down whether it's worth doing for Cryptic.
I cannot stress more the importance of the two points you make here though, firstly that people losing interest in such an important end-game content module is hurting the game, it is in fact one of the main reason why I don't play much anymore.
Secondly that recruitment issue for small fleets is seriously adding to the hamstringing of their development which is also another reason for people like myself giving up hope with the Fleet system.
I think we need to find a way to address this whether it be through scaling or not we have to make it worthwhile to start a fleet and rewarding to pursue progression in small fleets.
Another thing we need to do is to give Solo players the chance to access fleet rewards, I think it's a really bad business model and gaming model to have end-game rewards that are totally unobtainable for a whole section of the playing population. Either offering Fleet Mark trade in for provisions at Fed/Klingon homeworld or offering Fleets the chance to invite solo players to the shop is important to keep that sizable demographic with something else to look forward to in a game starved of endgame content. Whilst this does occur in an informal way open to abuse at the moment, it would be best to have this formalized and in fact should cost little development time to do so.
These are all valid concerns, but I see no other way to offer all players equality.
Equality's a noble goal, but something about the road to hell and good intentions comes to mind.
With regards to basing it on active players, whether you use alts or not is irrelevant it would be account / faction based not character based.
The other option is for players to flag themselves as inactive or on sabbatical as it were.
There is no need for incentivization in recruiting fleet members and it's largely irrelevant as no matter the fleet size you will always achieve the tiers with the same number of hours accrued per individual in fleet. The whole point here is the size of the fleet is meaningless.
It has less to do with incentives and more to do with disincentives. Every member added has to pull an equal amount of the fleet advancement work. Maybe you're lucky and you get a guy with a zillion fleet marks to spend, on the other hand you could wind up with someone who doesn't care much for advancement and now that's more work for everyone else in the fleet. Now you start having to weigh adding new members versus how much more work they're willing to do and how much more work you're willing to do.
As for inactive flags, what if someone just walks away from the fleet for a while? Maybe you could give the fleet leader power to set those flags, but that's another can of worms there.
EDIT: The big thing is to minimize the potential politics involved in fleet advancement. The current system isn't that great, but scaling would have its own dangers as well.
Equality's a noble goal, but something about the road to hell and good intentions comes to mind.
It has less to do with incentives and more to do with disincentives. Every member added has to pull an equal amount of the fleet advancement work. Maybe you're lucky and you get a guy with a zillion fleet marks to spend, on the other hand you could wind up with someone who doesn't care much for advancement and now that's more work for everyone else in the fleet. Now you start having to weigh adding new members versus how much more work they're willing to do and how much more work you're willing to do.
As for inactive flags, what if someone just walks away from the fleet for a while? Maybe you could give the fleet leader power to set those flags, but that's another can of worms there.
EDIT: The big thing is to minimize the potential politics involved in fleet advancement. The current system isn't that great, but scaling would have its own dangers as well.
Well the disincentives should be mitigated by some kind of balancing algorithm that tots up time investment by individuals. But you are right there is no easy way of doing any of this. It is however possible in any mathematical system to achieve input parity it's just how complex one has to make it.
As I said before it all comes down to whether Cryptic wishes to expend development time and that is based really on the financial return and player retention anything they implement would generate. Even though I advocate a scaling system, even I am skeptical about the time investment / financial reward curve and therefore I deem it unlikely that they would institute such a byzantine structure at this time.
However as Bluegeek has said something has to be done, so if they don't go for the more complex over arching solution they must still come up with other solutions.
One possibility might be a special Recruitment channel.
Another possibility might be a way to alert Fleets that a given individual is looking for a fleet. Maybe allow players to set an "LFF" flag that's visible in sector space and/or social zones and to set a special message to tell prospective fleets about what kind of fleet they're interested in.
Or some other way, whatever will be fair to the majority.
They could just make the Fleet window work like "looking for fleet" if the player isn't a mamber already. Or even adding a "join fleet", "create fleet" options to the fleet creation npc would have sense.
It would list all the fleets in alphabetic order with some aditional info once you click one, a search function wouldnt hurt too. There should also be a big shiny button to send your aplication to join.
This may have changed, im not sure, im a member of same fleet for some time but from what i remember ther was no way to appy. You had to pm someone from the fleet and hope hes not afk or something and have rights to invite. It would be so much easier if you could just appy to join a fleet at any time.
They could just make the Fleet window work like "looking for fleet" if the player isn't a mamber already. Or even adding a "join fleet", "create fleet" options to the fleet creation npc would have sense.
It would list all the fleets in alphabetic order with some aditional info once you click one, a search function wouldnt hurt too. There should also be a big shiny button to send your aplication to join.
This may have changed, im not sure, im a member of same fleet for some time but from what i remember ther was no way to appy. You had to pm someone from the fleet and hope hes not afk or something and have rights to invite. It would be so much easier if you could just appy to join a fleet at any time.
This UI change would only be helpful if there was any good reason to join a new fleet or small fleet that is below T3.
This UI change would only be helpful if there was any good reason to join a new fleet or small fleet that is below T3.
Indeed, now that I think about it, this idea wouldn’t help much. But at least every fleet struggling because of low number of members or not would have that "chance" of getting randoms willing to join just because they like the fleet name. That’s the reason I joined feet I’m in. I had no clue if its big or small or even active. Seen someone recruiting, liked the fleet name, pm him.
The looking for fleet channel is probably the easiest thing to do. But could be hard to keep track of and annoying for readers and people that recruit.
Dunno maybe option to set a short recruit message in the fleet window and a check box next to it allowing the message to be turned on/off by every fleet member. It would just appear above player head and stay there all the time until you turn it off.
If its turned on anyone who right click the player would have an option to apply to the fleet.
Just noticed I gave same idea I quoted just in a bit different form, writing on forums after 12h shift isn’t a good idea I’ll just take my leave and get some sleep -.-
Scaling is the way to go, though I think it should only occur if you have a minimum of 5 players. You are right in saying that Solo fleets should not get any benefits, the aim was not for a personal base.
Scaling where only those of 5 players and above isn't going to solve anything.
For starters, what about legimate fleets of friends of 2, 3, or 4 players? Those players shouldn't be punished for having a small fleet.
Second, it's not going to deter soloists. Since it's now free to create accounts, it's not all that hard for a soloist to create 4 mule accounts and bring it to the minimum of five players. So creating a minimum isn't going to help, in fact, it's more of a negative since it's taking up valuable server space for accounts that aren't going to be played.
If anything Cryptic should collect Soloist / Very Small fleets (under 5 players), put them under an co-op umbrella, and have them work towards a community Starbase. That way, players who don't want to start a fleet or join a large one, could still see the same benefits.
Scaling is the way to go, though I think it should only occur if you have a minimum of 5 players. You are right in saying that Solo fleets should not get any benefits, the aim was not for a personal base.
"Scaling" is the most ridiculously obvious way for large fleets to exploit in a way that would benefit them more than the current system. You could just kick everyone out/splinter the fleets into smaller sub-fleets when a progression project comes up to lower the upgrade requirements and once it's done, invite everyone back in to reap the rewards, until the next progression project comes up and rinse/repeat.
Scaling where only those of 5 players and above isn't going to solve anything.
For starters, what about legimate fleets of friends of 2, 3, or 4 players? Those players shouldn't be punished for having a small fleet.
Second, it's not going to deter soloists. Since it's now free to create accounts, it's not all that hard for a soloist to create 4 mule accounts and bring it to the minimum of five players. So creating a minimum isn't going to help, in fact, it's more of a negative since it's taking up valuable server space for accounts that aren't going to be played.
If anything Cryptic should collect Soloist / Very Small fleets (under 5 players), put them under an co-op umbrella, and have them work towards a community Starbase. That way, players who don't want to start a fleet or join a large one, could still see the same benefits.
I think you need to have all 5 in a team at the same time, so you'd need 5 pc's to do it.
Alsp the reason why I say 5 is because that is the minimum limit Cryptic set if Cryptic were happy to go lower I don't see a problem.
With regards to you later point I agree with this but it would just be easier have the facility available at Earth / Qo'Nos though the idea of a community starbase is a good one, especially if you can only access the shops after reaching personal FM thresholds or something along those lines.
As I said before having end game rewards that are unobtainable to soloists and the like is simply bad design.
"Scaling" is the most ridiculously obvious way for large fleets to exploit in a way that would benefit them more than the current system. You could just kick everyone out/splinter the fleets into smaller sub-fleets when a progression project comes up to lower the upgrade requirements and once it's done, invite everyone back in to reap the rewards, until the next progression project comes up and rinse/repeat.
This would make no difference as if you kick the players the fleet will still take the same 10 months to Teir 5, this "exploit" is irreverent as it wouldn't work. You scale based on player input not fleet size.
The point here is you can have a 5 man fleet, ah 50 man fleet a 500 man fleet you can't get to Teir 5 any quicker than 10 months.
However as we've already concluded scaling would likely not be introduced because of the development time required and potentially poor ROI.
They could just make the Fleet window work like "looking for fleet" if the player isn't a mamber already. Or even adding a "join fleet", "create fleet" options to the fleet creation npc would have sense.
It would list all the fleets in alphabetic order with some aditional info once you click one, a search function wouldnt hurt too. There should also be a big shiny button to send your aplication to join.
This may have changed, im not sure, im a member of same fleet for some time but from what i remember ther was no way to appy. You had to pm someone from the fleet and hope hes not afk or something and have rights to invite. It would be so much easier if you could just appy to join a fleet at any time.
Not a terrible idea, but listing fleets in any non-customizable order at all is not fair.
People would simply name their fleets something like "A111111111111" to get to the top of the list and nobody would ever see "Zeta-Zero Fleet".
It would be better to give people the option to search for a fleet based on fleet size, whether they have a website, open membership, etc. It would benefit everybody.
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
No it's not, you can't make an analogy between a real life situation and a game mechanic in that way, to begin with they do not share the same physical parameters.
Wait, what? You quoted me when I was not using an analogy.
These are all valid concerns, but I see no other way to offer all players equality.
There are two kinds of equality. Equality of outcome, and equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome is inapplicable to a game - this would mean someone who plays for 5 minutes a day gets the same results as someone who grinds for 20 hours a day.
Equality of opportunity from a supplier would be a lack of bias towards any particular group of people.
If one person rents a video for $2.50, it costs $2.50 per person.
If ten people rent a video for $2.50, it costs $0.25 per person.
The supplier has set the same price for everyone. They have not given a bonus or penalty to anyone or shown any bias.
Scaling to size means that the sum total individual efforts will be worth more or less depending on how many people are working together, a strictly non-egalitarian penalty for cooperation. Scaling to time means a choice (less work and more waiting, or more work and less waiting) but not an advantage.
There are two kinds of equality. Equality of outcome, and equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome is inapplicable to a game - this would mean someone who plays for 5 minutes a day gets the same results as someone who grinds for 20 hours a day.
No the point here is 5 playing for one hour each is equal to 30 players playing for 1 hour each, the individuals all play for the same amount of time (equal) the fleet they contribute towards receives the same progress.
No the point here is 5 playing for one hour each is equal to 30 players playing for 1 hour each, the individuals all play for the same amount of time (equal) the fleet they contribute towards receives the same progress.
That is blatantly unfair and biased. The efforts of those 30 people is worth only 1/6th the efforts of those 5 people. One hour of their time only generates 1/6th the XP the latter group gets.
This is asking to be exempt from the consequences of your choices. You want to avoid whatever disadvantage you see from being in or creating a large Fleet, but want the innate advantage that comes from many people working towards a common cause.
One person working to buy something should take ten times as long as ten people working to buy that same something. (This factor is actually capped in STO - more people than necessary will not result in faster progression.)
Division of labor is the entire point of people working together. It is the basis of trade, our economy, and our civilization. Tasks insurmountable for one individual is made possible by the cooperation of many.
(The adage of "too many cooks" doesn't refer to collaboration, but what happens when people work at cross-purposes.)
I've been in small guilds in other MMOs, including WoW. This is actually the first large guild I've been a part of. I have heard people complain about it being too difficult or slow to advance, but until now I have never heard anyone suggest that our small guilds (usually <30) should be able to make progress on par with giant guilds (usually >300). That idea wouldn't fly anywhere else, why is it suddenly considered a valid idea here?
The problem right now is that it's too difficult to advance, but many people seem to be taking the opportunity to also request a bonus. The solution to the issue with difficulty is scaling costs to time. Scaling costs to size is just plain getting an advantage to progression.
"Scaling" is the most ridiculously obvious way for large fleets to exploit in a way that would benefit them more than the current system. You could just kick everyone out/splinter the fleets into smaller sub-fleets when a progression project comes up to lower the upgrade requirements and once it's done, invite everyone back in to reap the rewards, until the next progression project comes up and rinse/repeat.
Post #250. A scaling system that is not exploitable in this fashion.
That is blatantly unfair and biased. The efforts of those 30 people is worth only 1/6th the efforts of those 5 people. One hour of their time only generates 1/6th the XP the latter group gets.
Post #250. A scaling system that avoids this problem by giving the 30 people a base that can serve the needs of 30 people, while the 5 people get a base that can serve the needs of 5 people.
"Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
That is blatantly unfair and biased. The efforts of those 30 people is worth only 1/6th the efforts of those 5 people. One hour of their time only generates 1/6th the XP the latter group gets.
This is asking to be exempt from the consequences of your choices. You want to avoid whatever disadvantage you see from being in or creating a large Fleet, but want the innate advantage that comes from many people working towards a common cause.
One person working to buy something should take ten times as long as ten people working to buy that same something. (This factor is actually capped in STO - more people than necessary will not result in faster progression.)
Division of labor is the entire point of people working together. It is the basis of trade, our economy, and our civilization. Tasks insurmountable for one individual is made possible by the cooperation of many.
(The adage of "too many cooks" doesn't refer to collaboration, but what happens when people work at cross-purposes.)
I've been in small guilds in other MMOs, including WoW. This is actually the first large guild I've been a part of. I have heard people complain about it being too difficult or slow to advance, but until now I have never heard anyone suggest that our small guilds (usually <30) should be able to make progress on par with giant guilds (usually >300). That idea wouldn't fly anywhere else, why is it suddenly considered a valid idea here?
The problem right now is that it's too difficult to advance, but many people seem to be taking the opportunity to also request a bonus. The solution to the issue with difficulty is scaling costs to time. Scaling costs to size is just plain getting an advantage to progression.
You're still not getting it. It's not a bonus that 5 players can access the same fleet provision as 30 in the same amount of time. There is no bonus there, there is no advantage, the 5 aren't getting special powers and as individuals they are working just as hard as other individuals in the bigger fleet.
My point here is to reward the work of individuals not their collective work which is simply iniquitous.
Once again you are using real world analogies that have no place in the game.
hat I propose is to do away completely with resource costs for Fleet XP and only have costs for construction of assets and costs of buying things from the shop. The actual fleet XP would accrue for every minute you are in a fleet action, alongside this I would want greater variety in fleet actions, though of course you could simply accrue fleet XP for play time alone. Though that would go against Cryptics belief that you should do fleet events for fleet rewards. Having said that they broke their own rule on that so why not.
Even of you are a solo player you should be able to accrue XP which will allow you to access the community fleet holdings. this would be personal to you.
You still have to spend time in game you still have customers coming in and paying for things.
Post #250. A scaling system that is not exploitable in this fashion.
Post #250. A scaling system that avoids this problem by giving the 30 people a base that can serve the needs of 30 people, while the 5 people get a base that can serve the needs of 5 people.
You're still not getting it. It's not a bonus that 5 players can access the same fleet provision as 30 in the same amount of time. There is no bonus there, there is no advantage, the 5 aren't getting special powers and as individuals they are working just as hard as other individuals in the bigger fleet.
No, you don't seem to get it. By any frame of reference this is would be considered a bonus.
The 30 people are each individually earning 16.7% that those 5 individuals are earning for exactly the same amount of work. How is that not a massive bonus to the work of those 5 individuals? Each hour of their work is worth 6 times that of the others!
My point here is to reward the work of individuals not their collective work which is simply iniquitous.
Scaling cost by size is iniquitous. If one project generates 50 provisions, then the 5 people each get 10 provisions, but those 30 people each individually doing the same amount of work only get 1.67 provisions each. How is that in any way equitable or fair?
Once again you are using real world analogies that have no place in the game.
Oh, it's your turn to say "oh, that part of reality doesn't apply here" without any sort of justification?
30 should be six times more than 5. This applies for DPS, wealth, shield strength, hull strength, absolutely everything else in the game - but not for Fleet contributions?
Very Small: 20% resource cost, 200% time requirement, 20% provisions
Small: 40% resource cost, 150% time requirement, 40% provisions
Medium: 60% resource cost, 125% time requirement, 60% provisions
Large: 80% resource cost, 110% time requirement, 80% provisions
Very Large: 100% resource cost, 100% time requirement, 100% provisions
If not for the unnecessarily complicated "upgrade/downgrade" aspect, the above would just be cost/reward scaling. With the "upgrade/downgrade" aspect, it becomes a cost/reward scaling system with additional prerequisites and penalties for choosing projects.
Nobody would argue that this gives a particular benefit to anyone. It's only a straight scaling of costs to size that unfairly rewards the work of those in smaller Fleets.
No, you don't seem to get it. By any frame of reference this is would be considered a bonus.
The 30 people are each individually earning 16.7% that those 5 individuals are earning for exactly the same amount of work. How is that not a massive bonus to the work of those 5 individuals? Each hour of their work is worth 6 times that of the others!
Scaling cost by size is iniquitous. If one project generates 50 provisions, then the 5 people each get 10 provisions, but those 30 people each individually doing the same amount of work only get 1.67 provisions each. How is that in any way equitable or fair?
Oh, it's your turn to say "oh, that part of reality doesn't apply here" without any sort of justification?
30 should be six times more than 5. This applies for DPS, wealth, shield strength, hull strength, absolutely everything else in the game - but not for Fleet contributions?
You do realize that system does not scale by size?
If not for the unnecessarily complicated "upgrade/downgrade" aspect, the above would just be cost/reward scaling. With the "upgrade/downgrade" aspect, it becomes a cost/reward scaling system with additional prerequisites and penalties for choosing projects.
Nobody would argue that this gives a particular benefit to anyone. It's only a straight scaling of costs to size that unfairly rewards the work of those in smaller Fleets.
Oh dear, let me try this again for you...
why are you comparing the means when the only thing of value is the end product, each individual in the 30 man fleet is doing no more work than an individual in the 5 man fleet.
In the current system the individuals in the 5 man fleet have to as individuals do much more work than the individuals in the 30 man fleet to make the same progress. The larger fleet has the bonus, that is were the bonus lies, what I propose is to redress that bonus.
Therefore individuals in a small fleet put in just as much work as individuals in the large fleet for the same time scaled reward that unlike the current system would remove the bonus large fleets currently enjoy.
There is no justification for real world analogies in Star Trek Online, If this game was set to reflect real life then I could see it but we buy lockboxes with Zen that pop ships out of them... the idea that real world measurements have any relevance to this game is frankly nonsensical. It is entirely irrelevant that in the real world we have economies of scale and division of labour no such rules of economics need exist in this game and indeed if it was the case the game wouldn't be playable as we'd need 1000's of players working industrial fabricators just to build ships let alone fly them.
With regards to provisions this is simply wrong provisions would be generated by individuals through game-time so no they wont divide like that at all, 5 players get 1 provision each, 30 players get one provision each.
Just because the system in #250 does not scale by size does not mean it is not a good idea worth backing. I like the idea that no matter what size fleet your in your 1 hour is equal to someone else one hour in terms of contribution to progression. It damages no one and benefits all. That doesn't mean that alternatives like #250 is just as good if not better, I have no real bias towards the solution I offer, which is actually pretty exotic or alien to the way the current system works... probably not practical within Cryptics time / reward curve.
It is still worth debating. What I am not sure with regards to yourself is why you are so against small fleets having a perceived advantage, yet you have no problem with large fleets having an advantage which is the current system.
With regards to provisions this is simply wrong provisions would be generated by individuals through game-time so no they wont divide like that at all, 5 players get 1 provision each, 30 players get one provision each.
Provisions are generated by projects.
This alone means that you are not talking about costs scaling to Fleet size, but also scaling the rewards.
What I am sure with regards to yourself is why you are so against small fleets having a perceived advantage, yet you have no problem with large fleets having an advantage which is the current system.
The system as implemented gives no bonuses to larger Fleets, in fact it restricts larger Fleets by limiting the number of simultaneous projects that can be run. What gives larger numbers an advantage is the same bit of reality you appear to reject as being applicable to STO Fleets.
30 is six times more than 5.
30 ships will deal six times more DPS than 5 ships.
30 ships will deal six times more shields than 5 ships.
30 ships will deal six times more hull than 5 ships.
30 players will have six times more EC than 5 players.
30 players will have six times more Dilithium than 5 players.
30 players will have six times more time than 5 players.
30 man hours is six times more work completed than 5 man hours.
When every individual is equal, 30 will always have an advantage over 5 unless the 5 are given a bonus. This is simple math.
Scaling costs by size without scaling time and rewards means giving a bonus to smaller numbers, which is equivalent to penalizing larger groups. I have no problem with facing reality and accepting the concept of "numerical superiority", but I have a problem with any particular group being granted an advantage just because they keep complaining.
This alone means that you are not talking about costs scaling to Fleet size, but also scaling the rewards.
The system as implemented gives no bonuses to larger Fleets, in fact it restricts larger Fleets by limiting the number of simultaneous projects that can be run. What gives larger numbers an advantage is the same bit of reality you appear to reject as being applicable to STO Fleets.
30 is six times more than 5.
30 ships will deal six times more DPS than 5 ships.
30 ships will deal six times more shields than 5 ships.
30 ships will deal six times more hull than 5 ships.
30 players will have six times more EC than 5 players.
30 players will have six times more Dilithium than 5 players.
30 players will have six times more time than 5 players.
30 man hours is six times more work completed than 5 man hours.
When every individual is equal, 30 will always have an advantage over 5 unless the 5 are given a bonus. This is simple math.
Scaling costs by size without scaling time and rewards means giving a bonus to smaller numbers, which is equivalent to penalizing larger groups.
Yes what I am saying is provisions should be rewarded to individuals via time played I find the idea of provisioning projects to be flawed and a vector for potential abuse as they stand it causes problems with fleet politics. I would prefer to avoid that and instead give individuals provisions not pool them.
The reality you talk of is not relevant this is about time in game and reward not DPS. 5 Vs 10 in a PVP you both play for the same period of time and both receive the same rewards at the end regardless of the 5 man team getting their TRIBBLE handed to them. The irony of your example above is it proves my point. 15 players playing PVP regardless of what side you're on you play for the same amount of time and receive the same rewards. Indeed 14 Vs 1 would still yield the same individual rewards.
I understand you are in a mega-fleet and don't want anything to effect the position of large fleets but honestly I cannot see why giving small fleets a chance or indeed as you say giving them an advantage will have any effect at all on large fleets, because it will simply have no effect.
I think you need to have all 5 in a team at the same time, so you'd need 5 pc's to do it.
Also the reason why I say 5 is because that is the minimum limit Cryptic set if Cryptic were happy to go lower I don't see a problem.
Actually you don't. A decent computer actually can do up to 3 STO instances. And Second, you can easily hire people to start a Fleet, add the mules, and those who helped you start a fleet can go on their merry way. So such a system is easily subverted.
With regards to you later point I agree with this but it would just be easier have the facility available at Earth / Qo'Nos though the idea of a community starbase is a good one, especially if you can only access the shops after reaching personal FM thresholds or something along those lines.
As I said before having end game rewards that are unobtainable to soloists and the like is simply bad design.
I agree, I made posts where I suggested that fleets could have an option to have a HUB as their headquarters than a Starbase. Since most of the resources are already available, it would cut down on a fleet's resources. And really would've been optimal for small fleets.
And Starbase goods aren't really unobtainable, they can get it, at a high cost of somehow earning Fleet Marks to buy a Fleet ship and the Advanced / Elite gear. But yes, it would've been better to think about such people in that regards.
Actually you don't. A decent computer actually can do up to 3 STO instances. And Second, you can easily hire people to start a Fleet, add the mules, and those who helped you start a fleet can go on their merry way. So such a system is easily subverted.
I agree, I made posts where I suggested that fleets could have an option to have a HUB as their headquarters than a Starbase. Since most of the resources are already available, it would cut down on a fleet's resources. And really would've been optimal for small fleets.
And Starbase goods aren't really unobtainable, they can get it, at a high cost of somehow earning Fleet Marks to buy a Fleet ship and the Advanced / Elite gear. But yes, it would've been better to think about such people in that regards.
Indeed it makes no sense to have large portions of the player base unable to access the majority of end-game items especially with the loss of the STF weapons and stores.
You do realize that system does not scale by size?
Either you didn't read it or didn't understand it. That system scales by size - small fleets have the ability to pay less, which most people would agree is scaling by size.
If not for the unnecessarily complicated "upgrade/downgrade" aspect, the above would just be cost/reward scaling.
It's not "unnecessarily complicated." It's necessary in order to allow fleets to change their size without abandoning all progress. A more draconian solution would be to disallow all aize changes, but that would cause a lot of unhappiness.
Nobody would argue that this gives a particular benefit to anyone.
I'm arguing that the system gives significant benefit to small fleets.
It's only a straight scaling of costs to size that unfairly rewards the work of those in smaller Fleets.
The system is designed to create a situation whereby:
5 players put in a fixed amount of work (say, 1000 hours each over 10 months) and get a starbase with a capacity throughput that can support 5 players.
100 players put in a fixed amount of work (say, 1000 hours each over 10 months) and get a stabase with a capacity throughput that can support 100 players.
If you think that's unfair, then there's something incredibly wrong with your definitions.
"Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
Either you didn't read it or didn't understand it. That system scales by size - small fleets have the ability to pay less, which most people would agree is scaling by size.
It's not "unnecessarily complicated." It's necessary in order to allow fleets to change their size without abandoning all progress. A more draconian solution would be to disallow all aize changes, but that would cause a lot of unhappiness.
I'm arguing that the system gives significant benefit to small fleets.
The system is designed to create a situation whereby:
5 players put in a fixed amount of work (say, 1000 hours each over 10 months) and get a starbase with a capacity throughput that can support 5 players.
100 players put in a fixed amount of work (say, 1000 hours each over 10 months) and get a stabase with a capacity throughput that can support 100 players.
If you think that's unfair, then there's something incredibly wrong with your definitions.
Yes which seems fine to me and a lot more plausible within Cryptics current framework than mine but I see the same thing at the base that one players 1000 hours is worth the same as another's regardless of fleet size over same time period / cost value, The question is how does one implement this in STO. You seem to have though about it far more than I.
Comments
It's an "apt" analogy because just by changing the terms involved, it's exactly the same situation in STO.
Let's say you play with your best friend in a Fleet. Nearby is another Fleet, with ten friends playing together. Both Fleets are T1. It costs 1000 units of resources to attain T2. This means you and your buddy need to contribute 500 units each. The ten guys nearby just need to contribute 100 units each. Let's say everybody earns 10 units/hour. It'll take you and your buddy 50 hours of work each, and it'll take those guys nearby just 10 hours of work each.
You want the costs to scale per person. You want your Fleet to be upgraded for 200 units, and the Fleet nearby to be upgraded for 1000 units. This is what you consider "fair" - because it's in game units as opposed to money?
No it's not, you can't make an analogy between a real life situation and a game mechanic in that way, to begin with they do not share the same physical parameters. A day in STO does not equate to 24 hours in real time for example, in fact if one goes by Starfleet Academy there is never a night at all.
Scaling is the way to go, though I think it should only occur if you have a minimum of 5 players. You are right in saying that Solo fleets should not get any benefits, the aim was not for a personal base.
Your talk of "fairness" is irrelevant as it there is no need for fairness because it causes no damage to the bigger fleet for the smaller fleet to get things done in the same period of time, I don't know how I can make this anymore clearer for you but small fleets being able to complete things at the same rate as larger ones does not take away resources or anything else from larger fleets. Simply put the do not inhabit the same axis.
However I would argue that solo players should be able to visit Fleet bases and buy goods from them in exchange for resources. This already happens on an informal basis but I would like to see it formally implemented without someone having to join a fleet to do it. I would like to see an invite function and a Fleet Marks to Fleet Provisions exchange mechanism. If not this then there should be a provision for Solo players to access fleet rewards at their homeworld/HQ by converting FM's.
If we want to talk about balance or fairness we need to ensure that end rewards like Fleet weapons are accessible to anyone whether they wish to be in a fleet or not.
In games like DDO players who are not in a guild will be routinely offered to be invited to a guild airship for buffs before a quest starts, the current fleet system in STO doesn't encourage anywhere near that kind of friendliness to outsiders.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
I think you have some good ideas, but let me set my tricorder to scan for Unintended Consequences Related To Scaling... there we go.
I'm in a fleet right now that stands at nearly 60 members, yet I'd say maybe a fifth of that are still active. We carry a lot of old members that haven't been around for months because hey maybe they'll come back someday. Do we get penalized and set to 60 member fleet scales because we're not attentively cleaning out the roster?
OK, so we set scaling to active fleet members. So now those of us with alts get penalized if we ever bring them out to play, and there's a greater onus on those of us who are active to do more in fleet activity.
OK, so let's go with active fleet member accounts. Now you've tilted it the other way with regards to alts and put even more pressure on the active members to do fleet activity.
And I haven't even touched what happens with regards to adding new members. How many fleets will hesitate to recruit or start adding members before they complete Tier V? There's no incentive to add new members with regards to fleet advancement, in fact if they're not as active in fleet advancement you're actually penalizing those working on advancement.
Small fleets should be given a better shake at advancement, but I remain skeptical that scaling is the way to go.
1) It introduces complexity that requires significant dev resources to implement and also possibly runs counter to Cryptic's design intentions for the system.
2) It introduces a new mechanic that could break or require further balancing.
3) It could be perceived as unfair, and the solution might still be sufficiently unsatisfactory that it's not worth the cost to implement it.
4) It further complicates STO's economic model
Otherwise, I feel there is no harm in addressing ways to help smaller fleets to complete projects that they will otherwise not complete. Other than possible monetization issues on Cryptic's end, large fleets don't necessarily lose out if small fleets get some kind of assistance.
Project non-completion and stalled fleet progression is not in anyone's best interests. If people lose interest in fleet advancement entirely, that ultimately hurts the game.
And let's not forget that fleets don't start out big and that there is a limit as to how big a fleet can get. It's not feasible for everyone to join the biggest fleets, even if we wanted to. There are factors working against the growth of small fleets, including recruitment issues, that should be considered.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
These are all valid concerns, but I see no other way to offer all players equality.
With regards to basing it on active players, whether you use alts or not is irrelevant it would be account / faction based not character based.
The other option is for players to flag themselves as inactive or on sabbatical as it were.
There is no need for incentivization in recruiting fleet members and it's largely irrelevant as no matter the fleet size you will always achieve the tiers with the same number of hours accrued per individual in fleet. The whole point here is the size of the fleet is meaningless.
I think there are solutions for most of the issues around scaling however the big question is whether Cryptic can find an implement them and whether in terms of financial gain it's worthwhile to do so.
I'm not so sure there are any issues of monetization. I do however agree scaling would take up dev time and as I said in the previous reply of the other post it comes down whether it's worth doing for Cryptic.
I cannot stress more the importance of the two points you make here though, firstly that people losing interest in such an important end-game content module is hurting the game, it is in fact one of the main reason why I don't play much anymore.
Secondly that recruitment issue for small fleets is seriously adding to the hamstringing of their development which is also another reason for people like myself giving up hope with the Fleet system.
I think we need to find a way to address this whether it be through scaling or not we have to make it worthwhile to start a fleet and rewarding to pursue progression in small fleets.
Another thing we need to do is to give Solo players the chance to access fleet rewards, I think it's a really bad business model and gaming model to have end-game rewards that are totally unobtainable for a whole section of the playing population. Either offering Fleet Mark trade in for provisions at Fed/Klingon homeworld or offering Fleets the chance to invite solo players to the shop is important to keep that sizable demographic with something else to look forward to in a game starved of endgame content. Whilst this does occur in an informal way open to abuse at the moment, it would be best to have this formalized and in fact should cost little development time to do so.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
Equality's a noble goal, but something about the road to hell and good intentions comes to mind.
It has less to do with incentives and more to do with disincentives. Every member added has to pull an equal amount of the fleet advancement work. Maybe you're lucky and you get a guy with a zillion fleet marks to spend, on the other hand you could wind up with someone who doesn't care much for advancement and now that's more work for everyone else in the fleet. Now you start having to weigh adding new members versus how much more work they're willing to do and how much more work you're willing to do.
As for inactive flags, what if someone just walks away from the fleet for a while? Maybe you could give the fleet leader power to set those flags, but that's another can of worms there.
EDIT: The big thing is to minimize the potential politics involved in fleet advancement. The current system isn't that great, but scaling would have its own dangers as well.
Well the disincentives should be mitigated by some kind of balancing algorithm that tots up time investment by individuals. But you are right there is no easy way of doing any of this. It is however possible in any mathematical system to achieve input parity it's just how complex one has to make it.
As I said before it all comes down to whether Cryptic wishes to expend development time and that is based really on the financial return and player retention anything they implement would generate. Even though I advocate a scaling system, even I am skeptical about the time investment / financial reward curve and therefore I deem it unlikely that they would institute such a byzantine structure at this time.
However as Bluegeek has said something has to be done, so if they don't go for the more complex over arching solution they must still come up with other solutions.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
They could just make the Fleet window work like "looking for fleet" if the player isn't a mamber already. Or even adding a "join fleet", "create fleet" options to the fleet creation npc would have sense.
It would list all the fleets in alphabetic order with some aditional info once you click one, a search function wouldnt hurt too. There should also be a big shiny button to send your aplication to join.
This may have changed, im not sure, im a member of same fleet for some time but from what i remember ther was no way to appy. You had to pm someone from the fleet and hope hes not afk or something and have rights to invite. It would be so much easier if you could just appy to join a fleet at any time.
This UI change would only be helpful if there was any good reason to join a new fleet or small fleet that is below T3.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
Indeed, now that I think about it, this idea wouldn’t help much. But at least every fleet struggling because of low number of members or not would have that "chance" of getting randoms willing to join just because they like the fleet name. That’s the reason I joined feet I’m in. I had no clue if its big or small or even active. Seen someone recruiting, liked the fleet name, pm him.
The looking for fleet channel is probably the easiest thing to do. But could be hard to keep track of and annoying for readers and people that recruit.
Dunno maybe option to set a short recruit message in the fleet window and a check box next to it allowing the message to be turned on/off by every fleet member. It would just appear above player head and stay there all the time until you turn it off.
If its turned on anyone who right click the player would have an option to apply to the fleet.
Just noticed I gave same idea I quoted just in a bit different form, writing on forums after 12h shift isn’t a good idea I’ll just take my leave and get some sleep -.-
Scaling where only those of 5 players and above isn't going to solve anything.
For starters, what about legimate fleets of friends of 2, 3, or 4 players? Those players shouldn't be punished for having a small fleet.
Second, it's not going to deter soloists. Since it's now free to create accounts, it's not all that hard for a soloist to create 4 mule accounts and bring it to the minimum of five players. So creating a minimum isn't going to help, in fact, it's more of a negative since it's taking up valuable server space for accounts that aren't going to be played.
If anything Cryptic should collect Soloist / Very Small fleets (under 5 players), put them under an co-op umbrella, and have them work towards a community Starbase. That way, players who don't want to start a fleet or join a large one, could still see the same benefits.
"Scaling" is the most ridiculously obvious way for large fleets to exploit in a way that would benefit them more than the current system. You could just kick everyone out/splinter the fleets into smaller sub-fleets when a progression project comes up to lower the upgrade requirements and once it's done, invite everyone back in to reap the rewards, until the next progression project comes up and rinse/repeat.
Raptr profile
I think you need to have all 5 in a team at the same time, so you'd need 5 pc's to do it.
Alsp the reason why I say 5 is because that is the minimum limit Cryptic set if Cryptic were happy to go lower I don't see a problem.
With regards to you later point I agree with this but it would just be easier have the facility available at Earth / Qo'Nos though the idea of a community starbase is a good one, especially if you can only access the shops after reaching personal FM thresholds or something along those lines.
As I said before having end game rewards that are unobtainable to soloists and the like is simply bad design.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
This would make no difference as if you kick the players the fleet will still take the same 10 months to Teir 5, this "exploit" is irreverent as it wouldn't work. You scale based on player input not fleet size.
The point here is you can have a 5 man fleet, ah 50 man fleet a 500 man fleet you can't get to Teir 5 any quicker than 10 months.
However as we've already concluded scaling would likely not be introduced because of the development time required and potentially poor ROI.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
Not a terrible idea, but listing fleets in any non-customizable order at all is not fair.
People would simply name their fleets something like "A111111111111" to get to the top of the list and nobody would ever see "Zeta-Zero Fleet".
It would be better to give people the option to search for a fleet based on fleet size, whether they have a website, open membership, etc. It would benefit everybody.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Hang on, I thought when we invited people to our base and they used our shops, they were buying from our unlocks and provisions. Is that not the case?
There are two kinds of equality. Equality of outcome, and equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome is inapplicable to a game - this would mean someone who plays for 5 minutes a day gets the same results as someone who grinds for 20 hours a day.
Equality of opportunity from a supplier would be a lack of bias towards any particular group of people.
If one person rents a video for $2.50, it costs $2.50 per person.
If ten people rent a video for $2.50, it costs $0.25 per person.
The supplier has set the same price for everyone. They have not given a bonus or penalty to anyone or shown any bias.
Scaling to size means that the sum total individual efforts will be worth more or less depending on how many people are working together, a strictly non-egalitarian penalty for cooperation. Scaling to time means a choice (less work and more waiting, or more work and less waiting) but not an advantage.
This cap already exists, because there are only 3 simultaneous 20 hour projects that can be run at the same time.
A 500 man Fleet won't be faster than a 100 man Fleet if 100 players are all you need to launch projects the moment they're ready.
No the point here is 5 playing for one hour each is equal to 30 players playing for 1 hour each, the individuals all play for the same amount of time (equal) the fleet they contribute towards receives the same progress.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
That is blatantly unfair and biased. The efforts of those 30 people is worth only 1/6th the efforts of those 5 people. One hour of their time only generates 1/6th the XP the latter group gets.
This is asking to be exempt from the consequences of your choices. You want to avoid whatever disadvantage you see from being in or creating a large Fleet, but want the innate advantage that comes from many people working towards a common cause.
One person working to buy something should take ten times as long as ten people working to buy that same something. (This factor is actually capped in STO - more people than necessary will not result in faster progression.)
Division of labor is the entire point of people working together. It is the basis of trade, our economy, and our civilization. Tasks insurmountable for one individual is made possible by the cooperation of many.
(The adage of "too many cooks" doesn't refer to collaboration, but what happens when people work at cross-purposes.)
I've been in small guilds in other MMOs, including WoW. This is actually the first large guild I've been a part of. I have heard people complain about it being too difficult or slow to advance, but until now I have never heard anyone suggest that our small guilds (usually <30) should be able to make progress on par with giant guilds (usually >300). That idea wouldn't fly anywhere else, why is it suddenly considered a valid idea here?
The problem right now is that it's too difficult to advance, but many people seem to be taking the opportunity to also request a bonus. The solution to the issue with difficulty is scaling costs to time. Scaling costs to size is just plain getting an advantage to progression.
Post #250. A scaling system that is not exploitable in this fashion.
Post #250. A scaling system that avoids this problem by giving the 30 people a base that can serve the needs of 30 people, while the 5 people get a base that can serve the needs of 5 people.
You're still not getting it. It's not a bonus that 5 players can access the same fleet provision as 30 in the same amount of time. There is no bonus there, there is no advantage, the 5 aren't getting special powers and as individuals they are working just as hard as other individuals in the bigger fleet.
My point here is to reward the work of individuals not their collective work which is simply iniquitous.
Once again you are using real world analogies that have no place in the game.
hat I propose is to do away completely with resource costs for Fleet XP and only have costs for construction of assets and costs of buying things from the shop. The actual fleet XP would accrue for every minute you are in a fleet action, alongside this I would want greater variety in fleet actions, though of course you could simply accrue fleet XP for play time alone. Though that would go against Cryptics belief that you should do fleet events for fleet rewards. Having said that they broke their own rule on that so why not.
Even of you are a solo player you should be able to accrue XP which will allow you to access the community fleet holdings. this would be personal to you.
You still have to spend time in game you still have customers coming in and paying for things.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
Yes this is a very good idea I back post #250
#2311#2700#2316#2500
The 30 people are each individually earning 16.7% that those 5 individuals are earning for exactly the same amount of work. How is that not a massive bonus to the work of those 5 individuals? Each hour of their work is worth 6 times that of the others!
Scaling cost by size is iniquitous. If one project generates 50 provisions, then the 5 people each get 10 provisions, but those 30 people each individually doing the same amount of work only get 1.67 provisions each. How is that in any way equitable or fair?
Oh, it's your turn to say "oh, that part of reality doesn't apply here" without any sort of justification?
30 should be six times more than 5. This applies for DPS, wealth, shield strength, hull strength, absolutely everything else in the game - but not for Fleet contributions?
You do realize that system does not scale by size?
If not for the unnecessarily complicated "upgrade/downgrade" aspect, the above would just be cost/reward scaling. With the "upgrade/downgrade" aspect, it becomes a cost/reward scaling system with additional prerequisites and penalties for choosing projects.
Nobody would argue that this gives a particular benefit to anyone. It's only a straight scaling of costs to size that unfairly rewards the work of those in smaller Fleets.
Oh dear, let me try this again for you...
why are you comparing the means when the only thing of value is the end product, each individual in the 30 man fleet is doing no more work than an individual in the 5 man fleet.
In the current system the individuals in the 5 man fleet have to as individuals do much more work than the individuals in the 30 man fleet to make the same progress. The larger fleet has the bonus, that is were the bonus lies, what I propose is to redress that bonus.
Therefore individuals in a small fleet put in just as much work as individuals in the large fleet for the same time scaled reward that unlike the current system would remove the bonus large fleets currently enjoy.
There is no justification for real world analogies in Star Trek Online, If this game was set to reflect real life then I could see it but we buy lockboxes with Zen that pop ships out of them... the idea that real world measurements have any relevance to this game is frankly nonsensical. It is entirely irrelevant that in the real world we have economies of scale and division of labour no such rules of economics need exist in this game and indeed if it was the case the game wouldn't be playable as we'd need 1000's of players working industrial fabricators just to build ships let alone fly them.
With regards to provisions this is simply wrong provisions would be generated by individuals through game-time so no they wont divide like that at all, 5 players get 1 provision each, 30 players get one provision each.
Just because the system in #250 does not scale by size does not mean it is not a good idea worth backing. I like the idea that no matter what size fleet your in your 1 hour is equal to someone else one hour in terms of contribution to progression. It damages no one and benefits all. That doesn't mean that alternatives like #250 is just as good if not better, I have no real bias towards the solution I offer, which is actually pretty exotic or alien to the way the current system works... probably not practical within Cryptics time / reward curve.
It is still worth debating. What I am not sure with regards to yourself is why you are so against small fleets having a perceived advantage, yet you have no problem with large fleets having an advantage which is the current system.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
This alone means that you are not talking about costs scaling to Fleet size, but also scaling the rewards.
The system as implemented gives no bonuses to larger Fleets, in fact it restricts larger Fleets by limiting the number of simultaneous projects that can be run. What gives larger numbers an advantage is the same bit of reality you appear to reject as being applicable to STO Fleets.
30 is six times more than 5.
30 ships will deal six times more DPS than 5 ships.
30 ships will deal six times more shields than 5 ships.
30 ships will deal six times more hull than 5 ships.
30 players will have six times more EC than 5 players.
30 players will have six times more Dilithium than 5 players.
30 players will have six times more time than 5 players.
30 man hours is six times more work completed than 5 man hours.
When every individual is equal, 30 will always have an advantage over 5 unless the 5 are given a bonus. This is simple math.
Scaling costs by size without scaling time and rewards means giving a bonus to smaller numbers, which is equivalent to penalizing larger groups. I have no problem with facing reality and accepting the concept of "numerical superiority", but I have a problem with any particular group being granted an advantage just because they keep complaining.
Yes what I am saying is provisions should be rewarded to individuals via time played I find the idea of provisioning projects to be flawed and a vector for potential abuse as they stand it causes problems with fleet politics. I would prefer to avoid that and instead give individuals provisions not pool them.
The reality you talk of is not relevant this is about time in game and reward not DPS. 5 Vs 10 in a PVP you both play for the same period of time and both receive the same rewards at the end regardless of the 5 man team getting their TRIBBLE handed to them. The irony of your example above is it proves my point. 15 players playing PVP regardless of what side you're on you play for the same amount of time and receive the same rewards. Indeed 14 Vs 1 would still yield the same individual rewards.
I understand you are in a mega-fleet and don't want anything to effect the position of large fleets but honestly I cannot see why giving small fleets a chance or indeed as you say giving them an advantage will have any effect at all on large fleets, because it will simply have no effect.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
Actually you don't. A decent computer actually can do up to 3 STO instances. And Second, you can easily hire people to start a Fleet, add the mules, and those who helped you start a fleet can go on their merry way. So such a system is easily subverted.
I agree, I made posts where I suggested that fleets could have an option to have a HUB as their headquarters than a Starbase. Since most of the resources are already available, it would cut down on a fleet's resources. And really would've been optimal for small fleets.
And Starbase goods aren't really unobtainable, they can get it, at a high cost of somehow earning Fleet Marks to buy a Fleet ship and the Advanced / Elite gear. But yes, it would've been better to think about such people in that regards.
Indeed it makes no sense to have large portions of the player base unable to access the majority of end-game items especially with the loss of the STF weapons and stores.
#2311#2700#2316#2500
Either you didn't read it or didn't understand it. That system scales by size - small fleets have the ability to pay less, which most people would agree is scaling by size.
It's not "unnecessarily complicated." It's necessary in order to allow fleets to change their size without abandoning all progress. A more draconian solution would be to disallow all aize changes, but that would cause a lot of unhappiness.
I'm arguing that the system gives significant benefit to small fleets.
The system is designed to create a situation whereby:
5 players put in a fixed amount of work (say, 1000 hours each over 10 months) and get a starbase with a capacity throughput that can support 5 players.
100 players put in a fixed amount of work (say, 1000 hours each over 10 months) and get a stabase with a capacity throughput that can support 100 players.
If you think that's unfair, then there's something incredibly wrong with your definitions.
Yes which seems fine to me and a lot more plausible within Cryptics current framework than mine but I see the same thing at the base that one players 1000 hours is worth the same as another's regardless of fleet size over same time period / cost value, The question is how does one implement this in STO. You seem to have though about it far more than I.
#2311#2700#2316#2500