Fleet leader system aint broken, no need to fix it... If someone's fleet goes **** up because someone else was stupidly immature then that's their own fault for promoting someone they don't trust... And that explanation is WAY overcomplicated...
The fleet leader system did need fixing. Promoting the wrong person is just part of the problem, and I'd tend to agree that's there own fault. The real problem is accounts can be TRIBBLE and fleets stolen, which is what happened with the caspian fleet mentioned several times in this thread.
What we really need here is some clarity on exactly how this new system will work, instead of having to try to decode the patch notes. Some of this sounds like a cluster **** to say the least, but it might not be, we are all just guessing based on unclear patch notes.
I'm still trying to understand the fleet change. I've re-read that section a half-dozen times now. So let me see if I get this straight:
Because Caspian Division was run by a douchebag, you're going to COMPLETELY PARALYZE a large fleet that has to boot a fleet admiral? NO ONE can be promoted or kicked for TWO WEEKS?
And what happens if the leader being booted has a friend... or an alt character at the same rank? You're going to stick a large fleet into a perpetual kick/rescue griefing loop?
Caspian wasn't run by a douchebag. We had someone "hack" into an old inactive fleet leader account, demote then kick everyone within a matter of minutes during the wee hours of the morning. As the system is setup at present this can happen to any fleet regardless of size.
I know what happened to us was largely publicized so everyone thinks this just happened to us and only us. After being in contact with Cryptic we were told this is a widely growing problem and I for one am glad Cryptic is taking steps to ensure this doesn't happen to any other fleet.
The main concern I have with these patch notes is the way they are written it sounds like the kick/rescue system might apply to normal members. If this is the case this is a DISASTROUS idea for large fleets. We are regularly bumping up against the 500 member limit for fleets and have to go through the roster and remove inactive members. Different fleets may have different standards for activity, for us its 60 days, but regardless all the large fleets do this.
As long as all fleet leaders cannot be demoted and kicked by 1 TRIBBLE account as they can be now then there is no need to make it a pain in the *** to kick normal members. If a leaders account is TRIBBLE they can kick all the rank 6 and belows but once another leader gets online they can deal with the TRIBBLE account and reinvite people. Maybe its not perfect but any other option is going to make the normal operations of a fleet very difficult.
The issue that has been raised about fleet leaders with multiple alts being able to rescue themselves is another problem that needs to be addressed.
So a "leader" with malicious intent could reset the permissions so non-leaders can kick leaders... does that also put the kicked leader into a temporary hold status, or does it outright remove them?
So a "leader" with malicious intent could reset the permissions so non-leaders can kick leaders... does that also put the kicked leader into a temporary hold status, or does it outright remove them?
No, the permission setting only allow you to change for your own rank and below. So rank 6 could be given permission to kick others at rank 6, but. They still wouldn't be able to affect rank 7.
So does this mean that they finally fixed the fx on the D'kyr's warp ring. Currently the ship skins don't go on the ring and it makes most of them look utterly stupid.
Caspian might have been the "loudest" of the fleets that have been affected by malicious intent, but we certainly were not the only. If you think that these changes are being implemented because of the loss of one fleet, you are sorely misinformed.
Also, Caspian's problems were not brought on by an irate fleet leader. They were caused when one of our older, retired fleet members who had leadership status had their account TRIBBLE. I don't care who you are or how secure you think you are, every one of us is vulnerable to the ill intent of malcontents with computer skills.
So, if you would like to revel in your smugness of how you don't need these changes and they are trivial to you, you are welcome to. I would just try not to be spouting nonsense about situations it is obvious you know nothing about.
I once again match my character. Behold the power of PINK!
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
Also, Caspian's problems were not brought on by an irate fleet leader. They were caused when one of our older, retired fleet members who had leadership status had their account TRIBBLE. I don't care who you are or how secure you think you are, every one of us is vulnerable to the ill intent of malcontents with computer skills.
In other words, this "solution" actually makes it worse, by making it impossible to remove a deceased leader: Any attempt to remove that leader puts your entire fleet on lockdown for two weeks per leader alt removed. Should that leader actually BE maliciously TRIBBLE, he will be able to stop you from removing him and further extend the time in which your fleet is stuck in lockdown by kicking one of your other leaders. Furthermore, he can grief the fleet by kicking every normal member, then putting the entire fleet on lockdown this way, rendering it impossible for those new members to use the fleet.
I think that what is clearly confusing about the Fleet Leadership notes is the terminology being used. Currently, on Holodeck, to "Kick" a player is to remove them completely from the fleet roster. Which leaves an event politely stating that [character name] has left the fleet.
For these changes, I think it simply means to demote a player from Full Leadership to Provisional Leadership? Be that through the inactivity of a Leader or through choice by another co-Leader. This, IMO, makes more sense.
As for the automatic demotion due to inactivity, it is currently 90-days (or 3 months) on Holodeck. These changes would double that to 180 days (or 6 months). Clearly there has been feedback - not necessarily in these forums - of the opinion that 90 days was too strict a mechanic. I disagree and feel 90 days was about right.
What to do about co-Leaders who are determined by others to be unstable and not good for the roster? I think that kicking out completely that player resolves any concern for provisional waiting periods being too short. One can simply choose to re-invite that player back at lower Fleet rank should a cooling off period prove successful. But I suppose that depends more upon the democratic make-up of a fleet roster as to how one returns and in what capacity. Cryptic and GM's shouldn't need to be concerned with those choices on the player's part.
The only part that has me concerned is that should a Single Leader fleet have their leader flagged as inactive, the first player to login is automatically handed the Fleet Leader position. I realize this is an effort to move things along for some fleets. But can this player simply respond, "Thanks. But, no thanks."? So on and so forth until another player agrees to accept it?
(/\) Exploring Star Trek Online Since July 2008 (/\)
No, the permission setting only allow you to change for your own rank and below. So rank 6 could be given permission to kick others at rank 6, but. They still wouldn't be able to affect rank 7.
I'm currently ingame to look at the permissions... There is only a permission to "kick any member from the fleet", with the mouseover mentioning nothing about only lower ranks. That means I can give Recruits the permission to kick Leaders (and anyone else in the fleet) if I wanted to do so. The permissions that affect only lower ranks are for promoting and demoting.
So the question remains: what happens if someone of a lower rank manages to get the permission to kick a Leader? Does the fleet go into the 2-week holding pattern, or does the Leader get automatically removed since the person doing the kicking isn't at the Leader rank? Is it possible to then kick all the leaders while bypassing the 2-week holding pattern?
I'm currently ingame to look at the permissions... There is only a permission to "kick any member from the fleet", with the mouseover mentioning nothing about only lower ranks. That means I can give Recruits the permission to kick Leaders (and anyone else in the fleet) if I wanted to do so. The permissions that affect only lower ranks are for promoting and demoting.
The wording of the permissions are a bit misleading, if not outright false.
The way permissions works for kicking is that members with a rank that permits them to "Remove from Fleet", only have the option to remove other players in the Roster that is ranked below (and only below) them. If you were to give a recruit the ability to kick other players, she would only be able to do so with players of a lower rank, which would be nobody (if "recruit" is the entry level rank).
Similarly, someone just promoted to the highest possible rank can't directly kick anyone of their peers, just members with a lower rank than herself. A demotion would have to take place before a top ranking member would be able to be kicked.
As for the automatic demotion due to inactivity, it is currently 90-days (or 3 months) on Holodeck. These changes would double that to 180 days (or 6 months). Clearly there has been feedback - not necessarily in these forums - of the opinion that 90 days was too strict a mechanic. I disagree and feel 90 days was about right.
its 30 days currently, not 90.
90 is too long, 180 is silly. extending the time and making the claim leadership automatic will cause problems for my fleet as it will necessitate a reworking of the fleet structure. Our current rank setup has 1 point of weakness, me. All these leadership changes will create additional complexity, confusion, and several points of weakness.
And yes, the D'Kyr's warp ring now changes color when you use an applicable shield.
And the D'Kyr is now on the Odyssey's separation tech, you can separate while moving.
But... now the warp ring does not stay horizontal after launching the Tal'Kyr, it returns to its pre-launch position... Canonically it is supposed to stay in it's retracted state... Fix please?
Oh, and also, the engine trail effects are still not in the right place. I didn't test every set, but the reman set for sure was still wrong. As I recall the MACO set was wrong as well. One of the trails on the edge doesn't show at all. Might be the effect on the shields not the engine? Either way, it looks really bad.
I once again match my character. Behold the power of PINK!
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
90 is too long, 180 is silly. extending the time and making the claim leadership automatic will cause problems for my fleet as it will necessitate a reworking of the fleet structure. Our current rank setup has 1 point of weakness, me. All these leadership changes will create additional complexity, confusion, and several points of weakness.
30? I stand corrected then. But we agree that 180 days is too lenient if it's to be a formal fleet mechanic.
(/\) Exploring Star Trek Online Since July 2008 (/\)
But... now the warp ring does not stay horizontal after launching the Tal'Kyr, it returns to its pre-launch position... Canonically it is supposed to stay in it's retracted state... Fix please?
Edit: Upon further research, I can't seem to find any good evidence one way or the other which way the warp ring is suppose to be... Anybody?
Maybee the info is on the same page, with nice pictures ...
The only screen where u see the ring lowered is in the docked stage as in the picture ..
"When the warp drive was not in use, the ship's annular-warp nacelle was dropped into the vertical position; when the engines were powered down, or preparing to launch its auxiliary craft, the nacelle was folded horizontally into the primary hull."
Apparently this was seen in 3 different episodes of enterprise
"The D'Kyr-type starship docked at the station in "Bounty" had its "warp ring" tucked in the lower position. In "Impulse", the Seleya appears to have its warp drive partially recessed as well, as does the damaged Tal'Kir in "Future Tense". "
As for the other screen shots, there are several on there where it shows combat with or without a tal'kyr docked where it shows the ring up, and not lowered, which obviously takes place when not traveling at warp.
So without doing a review of the mentioned episodes and others featuring the vessel, it would seem that the ring is lowered when launching the support craft, and when docked, but is up when in normal flight or combat.
So in essence, screenshots would prove as much in this case as only a certified tech manual could prove more.
I'm imagining how Bad-TRIBBLE a Reman PC must be...
<Reman PC Keyboard> "...You touch My ENTER button and I'll bite yer fingers off and shove um up yer nose!
Then I'll use my mental telepathy to make um wiggle!! ..."
<chuckle>
Just too funny.!!! But would that make the Fed PC supportive of other PC's in the house, and Klin PC's try to be all bashing on "enemy PC's, and ranting at how honourable their hard drives are?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Maybee the info is on the same page, with nice pictures ...
The only screen where u see the ring lowered is in the docked stage as in the picture ..
"When the warp drive was not in use, the ship's annular-warp nacelle was dropped into the vertical position; when the engines were powered down, or preparing to launch its auxiliary craft, the nacelle was folded horizontally into the primary hull."
Apparently this was seen in 3 different episodes of enterprise
"The D'Kyr-type starship docked at the station in "Bounty" had its "warp ring" tucked in the lower position. In "Impulse", the Seleya appears to have its warp drive partially recessed as well, as does the damaged Tal'Kir in "Future Tense". "
As for the other screen shots, there are several on there where it shows combat with or without a tal'kyr docked where it shows the ring up, and not lowered, which obviously takes place when not traveling at warp.
So without doing a review of the mentioned episodes and others featuring the vessel, it would seem that the ring is lowered when launching the support craft, and when docked, but is up when in normal flight or combat.
So in essence, screenshots would prove as much in this case as only a certified tech manual could prove more.
Hehe yeah, funny thing is it was a picture on that page that had me confused, this one:
My only issues with the fleet leader adjustment are the cases where one person has many alts as fleet leaders.
Can a fleet leader with multiple characters just change character and rescue themselves? One issue as a fleet leader that most fleets have is managing alts, why can't the system manage by @handle instead of by character?
I would like to see a consensus provision in fleet leadership, not applicable in our fleet, but if a certain number of different accounts confirm or agree to the kick the 2 week term could be removed. Mostly the reason being is some fleet don't want drama, but you can't control that, sometimes its best to cut off a head clean instead of letting trouble linger.
We still need a fleet provision option on a case by case basis instead of by fleet ranks. Or a whole lot more fleet ranks to make things work safely.
I applaud the fleet leader adjustments. They are a step in the right direction and can help resolve issues of both inactive fleets and hostile fleet takeovers. Killing two birds and perhaps more with one stone. Fist-bump for the dev team. Now all that's left is to implement the change live.
There's a lot that needs clarification from these patch notes, and no clarification seems to be forthcoming. I agree something needed to be done to help secure fleets, but these changes seem overly restrictive and prohibitive. If this 2 week cycle activates in the case of just pure demotion to Tier 6 of fleet ranks or with straight out kicking the leader, then this could take years to kick one leader if they have a lot of alts. And as has been put out there, many leaders of fleets have many alts. All it takes is one hacker to get in and have one of the alts kicked to put the fleet in lockdown for 2 weeks, plus if one of the TRIBBLE accounts toons gets kicked, there are still 5 more that could just revert the changes.
In summary, the biggest issues I see are:
1) 2 weeks is too long of a probationary period, especially if you can only kick one alt at a time.
2) There does not seem to be an ability to kick an entire account's alts and primary at once, which leaves the system as vulnerable to hacks and griefing as always.
3) Kicking and demoting seem to be wrapped into one in the patch notes. If you have to wait 2 weeks to demote a leader's alt (all the while not being able to promote/demote anyone else), big fleet's could get locked into long periods of administrative activity.
When creating a new project, the allegiance selector will no longer list allegiances that are not supported
OK... Ive been saying this since the get go but the Foundry seems a black hole communication wise.
The "allegiance" needs to go or needs reworking entirely.
It prevents us from creating "content" and is a needless roadblock.
It makes people have to "fake" a lot of stuff.
Here is what I mean. Say I am doing a KDF map. You cant have Klingons as enemies. You can have Orions as enemies. So you cant do a House vs House mission. Or suppress a Gorn Uprising. You would have to pick Starfleet and then pick alien and then create a costume to "fake" it. But then your fake Klingons or Gorn would be using phasers and not use Klingon specials like Bathleths or Targs.
It also creates issues where we must have KDF maps and FED maps even though the actual content might be neutral and anyone technically could play it.
Do away with "factions". Simply make it so we the authors tag something as Enemies or Neutral or Friendly rather than the editor using a very narrow predetermined set of enemies.
This is especially constrictive now since we have Romulans forced to be Feds or KDF.
Comments
The fleet leader system did need fixing. Promoting the wrong person is just part of the problem, and I'd tend to agree that's there own fault. The real problem is accounts can be TRIBBLE and fleets stolen, which is what happened with the caspian fleet mentioned several times in this thread.
What we really need here is some clarity on exactly how this new system will work, instead of having to try to decode the patch notes. Some of this sounds like a cluster **** to say the least, but it might not be, we are all just guessing based on unclear patch notes.
I mean, some of the changes are decent....but we need to do this in baby steps.
Caspian wasn't run by a douchebag. We had someone "hack" into an old inactive fleet leader account, demote then kick everyone within a matter of minutes during the wee hours of the morning. As the system is setup at present this can happen to any fleet regardless of size.
I know what happened to us was largely publicized so everyone thinks this just happened to us and only us. After being in contact with Cryptic we were told this is a widely growing problem and I for one am glad Cryptic is taking steps to ensure this doesn't happen to any other fleet.
As long as all fleet leaders cannot be demoted and kicked by 1 TRIBBLE account as they can be now then there is no need to make it a pain in the *** to kick normal members. If a leaders account is TRIBBLE they can kick all the rank 6 and belows but once another leader gets online they can deal with the TRIBBLE account and reinvite people. Maybe its not perfect but any other option is going to make the normal operations of a fleet very difficult.
The issue that has been raised about fleet leaders with multiple alts being able to rescue themselves is another problem that needs to be addressed.
STO Resources: <Ship Comparison - All Tiers + Small Craft + Hangar Pets> <Damage Resistance>
<R&D + Upgrade Costs> <Duty Officer Finder> <Suliban Doff Reqs> <Fleet Costs> <Rep Costs>
<Keybind Tour the Galaxy> <Fleet / Armada Management> <Currency Exchange> <Other STO Links>
No, the permission setting only allow you to change for your own rank and below. So rank 6 could be given permission to kick others at rank 6, but. They still wouldn't be able to affect rank 7.
Also, Caspian's problems were not brought on by an irate fleet leader. They were caused when one of our older, retired fleet members who had leadership status had their account TRIBBLE. I don't care who you are or how secure you think you are, every one of us is vulnerable to the ill intent of malcontents with computer skills.
So, if you would like to revel in your smugness of how you don't need these changes and they are trivial to you, you are welcome to. I would just try not to be spouting nonsense about situations it is obvious you know nothing about.
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
This is supposed to help?
For these changes, I think it simply means to demote a player from Full Leadership to Provisional Leadership? Be that through the inactivity of a Leader or through choice by another co-Leader. This, IMO, makes more sense.
As for the automatic demotion due to inactivity, it is currently 90-days (or 3 months) on Holodeck. These changes would double that to 180 days (or 6 months). Clearly there has been feedback - not necessarily in these forums - of the opinion that 90 days was too strict a mechanic. I disagree and feel 90 days was about right.
What to do about co-Leaders who are determined by others to be unstable and not good for the roster? I think that kicking out completely that player resolves any concern for provisional waiting periods being too short. One can simply choose to re-invite that player back at lower Fleet rank should a cooling off period prove successful. But I suppose that depends more upon the democratic make-up of a fleet roster as to how one returns and in what capacity. Cryptic and GM's shouldn't need to be concerned with those choices on the player's part.
The only part that has me concerned is that should a Single Leader fleet have their leader flagged as inactive, the first player to login is automatically handed the Fleet Leader position. I realize this is an effort to move things along for some fleets. But can this player simply respond, "Thanks. But, no thanks."? So on and so forth until another player agrees to accept it?
So the question remains: what happens if someone of a lower rank manages to get the permission to kick a Leader? Does the fleet go into the 2-week holding pattern, or does the Leader get automatically removed since the person doing the kicking isn't at the Leader rank? Is it possible to then kick all the leaders while bypassing the 2-week holding pattern?
STO Resources: <Ship Comparison - All Tiers + Small Craft + Hangar Pets> <Damage Resistance>
<R&D + Upgrade Costs> <Duty Officer Finder> <Suliban Doff Reqs> <Fleet Costs> <Rep Costs>
<Keybind Tour the Galaxy> <Fleet / Armada Management> <Currency Exchange> <Other STO Links>
The way permissions works for kicking is that members with a rank that permits them to "Remove from Fleet", only have the option to remove other players in the Roster that is ranked below (and only below) them. If you were to give a recruit the ability to kick other players, she would only be able to do so with players of a lower rank, which would be nobody (if "recruit" is the entry level rank).
Similarly, someone just promoted to the highest possible rank can't directly kick anyone of their peers, just members with a lower rank than herself. A demotion would have to take place before a top ranking member would be able to be kicked.
its 30 days currently, not 90.
90 is too long, 180 is silly. extending the time and making the claim leadership automatic will cause problems for my fleet as it will necessitate a reworking of the fleet structure. Our current rank setup has 1 point of weakness, me. All these leadership changes will create additional complexity, confusion, and several points of weakness.
Cheers,
Brandon =/\=
And the D'Kyr is now on the Odyssey's separation tech, you can separate while moving.
But... now the warp ring does not stay horizontal after launching the Tal'Kyr, it returns to its pre-launch position... Canonically it is supposed to stay in it's retracted state... Fix please?
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:D%27Kyr_type_docked_at_Tellarite_station.jpg
Edit: Upon further research, I can't seem to find any good evidence one way or the other which way the warp ring is suppose to be... Anybody?
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
30? I stand corrected then. But we agree that 180 days is too lenient if it's to be a formal fleet mechanic.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/D%27Kyr_type
Maybee the info is on the same page, with nice pictures ...
The only screen where u see the ring lowered is in the docked stage as in the picture ..
"When the warp drive was not in use, the ship's annular-warp nacelle was dropped into the vertical position; when the engines were powered down, or preparing to launch its auxiliary craft, the nacelle was folded horizontally into the primary hull."
Apparently this was seen in 3 different episodes of enterprise
"The D'Kyr-type starship docked at the station in "Bounty" had its "warp ring" tucked in the lower position. In "Impulse", the Seleya appears to have its warp drive partially recessed as well, as does the damaged Tal'Kir in "Future Tense". "
As for the other screen shots, there are several on there where it shows combat with or without a tal'kyr docked where it shows the ring up, and not lowered, which obviously takes place when not traveling at warp.
So without doing a review of the mentioned episodes and others featuring the vessel, it would seem that the ring is lowered when launching the support craft, and when docked, but is up when in normal flight or combat.
So in essence, screenshots would prove as much in this case as only a certified tech manual could prove more.
Just too funny.!!! But would that make the Fed PC supportive of other PC's in the house, and Klin PC's try to be all bashing on "enemy PC's, and ranting at how honourable their hard drives are?
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Hehe yeah, funny thing is it was a picture on that page that had me confused, this one:
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/D%27Kyr_type?file=D%2527Kyr_type%252C_aft_starboard_particle_beam.jpg
Upon closer inspection, the warp ring is up. All this time I thought the ring was down... until I looked closer...
Not that it really matters... Does anybody still think flying a D'Kyr is a good idea? :P
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
Can a fleet leader with multiple characters just change character and rescue themselves? One issue as a fleet leader that most fleets have is managing alts, why can't the system manage by @handle instead of by character?
I would like to see a consensus provision in fleet leadership, not applicable in our fleet, but if a certain number of different accounts confirm or agree to the kick the 2 week term could be removed. Mostly the reason being is some fleet don't want drama, but you can't control that, sometimes its best to cut off a head clean instead of letting trouble linger.
We still need a fleet provision option on a case by case basis instead of by fleet ranks. Or a whole lot more fleet ranks to make things work safely.
Completed Starbase, Embassy, Mine, Spire and No Win Scenario
Nothing to do anymore.
http://dtfleet.com/
Visit our Youtube channel
In summary, the biggest issues I see are:
1) 2 weeks is too long of a probationary period, especially if you can only kick one alt at a time.
2) There does not seem to be an ability to kick an entire account's alts and primary at once, which leaves the system as vulnerable to hacks and griefing as always.
3) Kicking and demoting seem to be wrapped into one in the patch notes. If you have to wait 2 weeks to demote a leader's alt (all the while not being able to promote/demote anyone else), big fleet's could get locked into long periods of administrative activity.
OK... Ive been saying this since the get go but the Foundry seems a black hole communication wise.
The "allegiance" needs to go or needs reworking entirely.
It prevents us from creating "content" and is a needless roadblock.
It makes people have to "fake" a lot of stuff.
Here is what I mean. Say I am doing a KDF map. You cant have Klingons as enemies. You can have Orions as enemies. So you cant do a House vs House mission. Or suppress a Gorn Uprising. You would have to pick Starfleet and then pick alien and then create a costume to "fake" it. But then your fake Klingons or Gorn would be using phasers and not use Klingon specials like Bathleths or Targs.
It also creates issues where we must have KDF maps and FED maps even though the actual content might be neutral and anyone technically could play it.
Do away with "factions". Simply make it so we the authors tag something as Enemies or Neutral or Friendly rather than the editor using a very narrow predetermined set of enemies.
This is especially constrictive now since we have Romulans forced to be Feds or KDF.
yeah the last tribble is now flat as a pancake so they have added a new one too level the server. :-)