test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Another Thread about small fleets and how to fix starbase costs.
iconians
Member Posts: 6,987 Arc User
Yeah, this has been done to death already. This idea has probably even been offered already. But tonight I sat and reflected on how my small fleet is struggling to fulfill costs, and how PWE/Cryptic afflicts the playerbase between wanting to choose between serving themselves or serving their fleets. And I decided to offer some solutions.
1: Limit Fleet Population Numbers. Start with an extremely small fleet of about 20 people. Adjust costs accordingly.
2: Offer larger population number boosts in the form of projects who have a cost equal to what the previous population would cost, x2. If you want to increase population rank, you spill the amount of resources a larger population fleet would up front. This makes it fair and puts everyone on equal footing, resource wise. This prevents exploitation. "I'll just unlock all of the stuff now when it's cheap and then just bump the population number up to the max when everything's already done.", except you'd have to pay the exact amount you would have had to pay before by unlocking said population increase projects. The lowest level population fleet would have to pay 100% of the same costs the highest population fleets would through unlocking projects.
3: Fleets can't be 'rolled back' to smaller population numbers. Whatever population the fleet is at now, it stays that way. Fleet population is a one-way progression. No, you can't get reduced costs by culling the fleet population and rolling back.
4: Fleet Taxes. Fleet leadership puts a 5-10% dilithium tax on all members. All members would thus have to earn an additional 5-10% dilithium each day. Additional dilithium would NOT count for the individual's daily refinement limit. Additional dilithium being 'taxed' would be automatically refined and placed in a fleet dilithium coffer. Said dilithium could not be used for personal use, but given to fleet projects instead. This prevents fleet leadership from dipping into the piggy bank for his or her own personal use. Said tax would occur regardless of dilithium refined by an individual. If you earn 14k dilithium a day, 10% of it gets 'taxed', automatically refined, put into fleet coffers. Tax would be completely optional and decided arbitrarily by the leadership of the fleet. Tax could be removed and reinstated at any time.
This prevents people from having to choose between serving their own personal interests and serving the fleet's interests. Since everyone participates, there's less burden on individual captains, and everyone is taxed fairly. If you have to earn an additional 5-10% a day to make your 8k limit, big deal? Everyone else would be too. And it's not like making 8k dilithium is hard or time-consuming as it is. Asking that little bit more isn't unreasonable, imo.
5: Fleet Credits into Dilithium 'boxes'. If I can buy doffs for projects with fleet credits, I want to buy dilithium boxes too. I don't care how inefficient the exchange is. If anything it keeps me wanting to generate fleet credits by playing the game.
6: Charge fleet members for leaving the fleet. This is probably the most controversial. But to prevent players from joining/rejoining constantly to either buy equipment or trying to 'scam' a fleet by robbing the bank or whatever, charge fleet members a flat dilithium fee to go directly into the coffers to leave the fleet. Kicking members from a fleet does not incur the charge. Just voluntary leaving. This gives individuals more incentive to pick their fleets wisely -- and not to think of joining/rejoining as something to be done on a whim. If they get kicked, they don't get charged. But if they decide that fleet isn't for them -- they have to pay the dilithium to leave. This puts more responsibility in the hands of an individual to choose what fleet to join.
Obviously fleets could be predatory to get people to join, tax them, and force them to pay a fee to leave -- or kick them after taxing them.
So all dilithium 'taxed' is refunded if the player is kicked, but not if they leave voluntarily. If the fleet coffers are empty (I.E. taxes already spent), then this is represented by a negative integer. Which would need to be filled before the fleet coffers can accrue dilithium taxes again.
This prevents fleet leaders from being predatory and rounding up bums from the bus stop to work for them as dilithium-farming slaves, and kicking indiscriminantly.
1: Limit Fleet Population Numbers. Start with an extremely small fleet of about 20 people. Adjust costs accordingly.
2: Offer larger population number boosts in the form of projects who have a cost equal to what the previous population would cost, x2. If you want to increase population rank, you spill the amount of resources a larger population fleet would up front. This makes it fair and puts everyone on equal footing, resource wise. This prevents exploitation. "I'll just unlock all of the stuff now when it's cheap and then just bump the population number up to the max when everything's already done.", except you'd have to pay the exact amount you would have had to pay before by unlocking said population increase projects. The lowest level population fleet would have to pay 100% of the same costs the highest population fleets would through unlocking projects.
3: Fleets can't be 'rolled back' to smaller population numbers. Whatever population the fleet is at now, it stays that way. Fleet population is a one-way progression. No, you can't get reduced costs by culling the fleet population and rolling back.
4: Fleet Taxes. Fleet leadership puts a 5-10% dilithium tax on all members. All members would thus have to earn an additional 5-10% dilithium each day. Additional dilithium would NOT count for the individual's daily refinement limit. Additional dilithium being 'taxed' would be automatically refined and placed in a fleet dilithium coffer. Said dilithium could not be used for personal use, but given to fleet projects instead. This prevents fleet leadership from dipping into the piggy bank for his or her own personal use. Said tax would occur regardless of dilithium refined by an individual. If you earn 14k dilithium a day, 10% of it gets 'taxed', automatically refined, put into fleet coffers. Tax would be completely optional and decided arbitrarily by the leadership of the fleet. Tax could be removed and reinstated at any time.
This prevents people from having to choose between serving their own personal interests and serving the fleet's interests. Since everyone participates, there's less burden on individual captains, and everyone is taxed fairly. If you have to earn an additional 5-10% a day to make your 8k limit, big deal? Everyone else would be too. And it's not like making 8k dilithium is hard or time-consuming as it is. Asking that little bit more isn't unreasonable, imo.
5: Fleet Credits into Dilithium 'boxes'. If I can buy doffs for projects with fleet credits, I want to buy dilithium boxes too. I don't care how inefficient the exchange is. If anything it keeps me wanting to generate fleet credits by playing the game.
6: Charge fleet members for leaving the fleet. This is probably the most controversial. But to prevent players from joining/rejoining constantly to either buy equipment or trying to 'scam' a fleet by robbing the bank or whatever, charge fleet members a flat dilithium fee to go directly into the coffers to leave the fleet. Kicking members from a fleet does not incur the charge. Just voluntary leaving. This gives individuals more incentive to pick their fleets wisely -- and not to think of joining/rejoining as something to be done on a whim. If they get kicked, they don't get charged. But if they decide that fleet isn't for them -- they have to pay the dilithium to leave. This puts more responsibility in the hands of an individual to choose what fleet to join.
Obviously fleets could be predatory to get people to join, tax them, and force them to pay a fee to leave -- or kick them after taxing them.
So all dilithium 'taxed' is refunded if the player is kicked, but not if they leave voluntarily. If the fleet coffers are empty (I.E. taxes already spent), then this is represented by a negative integer. Which would need to be filled before the fleet coffers can accrue dilithium taxes again.
This prevents fleet leaders from being predatory and rounding up bums from the bus stop to work for them as dilithium-farming slaves, and kicking indiscriminantly.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
7. fleet owner gets a job, fills the dilithium as needed, and uses the resulting fleet credit to buy the doffs. members contribute the marks. projects stay in cd.
free jkname
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
That sounds about right! As a fleet leader, I should not have to rely on fleet members to supply anything I am unwilling to supply myself. I should not force them to contribute if they choose not to. Attempting to "balance" requirements for small and large fleets in the ways suggested would ultimately harm small fleets.
1-3: If small fleets house lots of alts, requirements according to this suggestion would increase without an actual increase in members. The small fleet then has higher requirements for each member than a large fleet without many alts.
4: The best fleets won't need or want to tax their members. They can survive and advance on contributions, not taxes. Fleets that do tax would probably find it difficult to retain their members.
5: I'd personally like to convert Fleet Credit into Fleet Marks.
6: I cannot express just how bad of an idea this is. With every fleet claiming it's better than the rest, people need to be able to try a fleet to see if it's good for them. Sure, you get bank thieves and things, but proper bank settings get rid of them real fast. If a fleet has problems retaining members, perhaps the problem is not with those members.
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>
1. Reduce dilithium costs by 1/2 and triple fleet mark requirements
2. Reduce doff requirements by 50% ... Just plain annoying
Dilithium is the single biggest issue fleets have. It is a huge sink to require 2 million dilithium to level up a tier on a fleet holding. I think everyone has had it with buying dilithium in exchange.
Time gates should remain in place though.
- Judge Aaron Satie
I don't believe in a "No Win Scenario".
True. How about fleet population numbers are dependant on individual accounts rather than number of alts?
"Best" is subjective. I'm assuming you mean "large" (which does not always mean best). In which case, a dilithium tax becomes beneficial as even a small tax rate with a large number of players mean that dilithium requirements fill up quickly. With every member taxed evenly, larger population fleets mean each individual member has more dilithium to use on themselves as individuals, while the fleet requirements for it become a non-issue -- which it already is with large fleets.
With a dilithium tax being optional (not mandatory), then the 'best' fleets would not be affected by this to begin with. This is just another tool to be used (or not used) alongside existing ones.
Also not a bad idea.
You can express how bad of an idea it is, I really don't mind. This thread was for my idea to be picked apart and argued, because I can't foresee all possibilities. I don't think every fleet claims to be better than the rest, even if they do it's intellectually dishonest to claim.
This proposal is mainly slanted towards small fleets, with larger fleets already not having much of an issue fulfilling said requirements -- and thus would not be affected by this proposal to begin with unless the fleet leadership decides to do so.
I welcome and encourage feedback, whether positive or negative.
That's great. But you've got to pay the price. Altering the price is fundamentally unfair to those who've already paid it.
My suggestion on how to fix smaller fleets is simple.. We make an alliance with each other and fulfill the commitment to each other in understanding and friendship.I agree with the idea that an Admiral shouldn't ask more than you are willing to do, also I believe the game shouldn't have to milk you for all your extra money. I also believe that you shouldn't need a job to finance something you want. Here is an alternative, I'll be it unorthodox, yet still able to be done.
1. You meet and greet fellow admirals that have an alternate character that they could spend a minimum of a day a week on for prosperity of both fleets. Next, you make an arrangement that you will both grind on both fleets once a week on the given day for a given amount of time. This does three things: A) boosts membership,
2. Make sure the arrangements are in writing and on a contract on both fleet websites and exchange emails. It may not be business, however you don't want to get jipped.
3. Decide fleet ranks for the donating grinder and make sure you both agree on the terms of what they can and can not get from the fleet.
4. With this comes a huge thing, ALLIES! For each admiral that has an hour a week to donate you could get 8000 dil from them in this transaction, as well as fleet marks and whatnot... multiply it by 7 and you get 8 grand a day that you don't have to do. Each fleet understands this ... and the fleets all make a plan on when they get together. This supports all fleets and you all are in command, so you all know the expectations and what each are asking.
My reasons for stating this are simple, this is what my fleet THE_KINDRED does with their needs. We "outsource" our other admiral friends that are non-agressive to us to help us build. We have prospering and upgrading very well. It is a novel idea and one that people like the "trolls" have already used to their advantage. As far as requirements to donate, that is up to you and your alliance to decide. Just to talk to more people than yourself and to hear that others think like you and would help you like you would help them SHOULD help alleviate some problems. This also helps the one man fleets in not having to purchase so many.
i am fortunate, I have 5 characters and my husband has 4. We are on our characters at least 2 hours each a day. that means we get 8000 dil per character on all. We run two fleets... so when we need the dil, we trade it to the fleet that needs it. This has helped us survive through building of tier 1 on our own and with a small amount of help on tier 2. This also helped with the KDF side which is progressing as a casual fleet to tier 1 and we have our embassy and mine at tier 2 from the majority of help coming from us asking the members to help when they could.
I hope this gives you an idea of a way to solve all our problems. We are a roster of about 35 with only an average of 5 to 6 on at once with a rarity of double digits. It has helped to keep us alive and able to know the projects are getting done. Oh, for the numbered minded people, 5 characters with 8 grand in dil is 40,000 dil per day that can be donated on a F2P model of example as I am not a lifetime and neither is my husband.
My husband has been the sole contributor to the fleet projects once due to both sides upgrading and us splitting our resources per side. I only had 4 characters then and he had 3.. he reached 300,000 dil in a matter of under 2 weeks grinding it by himself. It isn't impossible to do, just not as fast. I wanted to tell you this so you didn't give up hope, it can be done.
wouldnt it be just as effective for everyone to keep their own alts in their own fleets?
free jkname
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
free jkname
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
And keeping things the way they are is unfair to small fleets as it is and as it always has been. Keep in mind, nothing in my proposal alters the costs based on fleet population numbers. A 500 person fleet that started at a fleet of 10 would still have to pay the same price if they opened up the population limit.
If they keep the limit of 10-20 people, yes the costs are reduced. But they would get access to the same things larger fleets would. If they wanted to grow their fleet, they would have to pay the price the larger fleets do already.
While I don't disagree that it's unfair to those who have already paid it (my fleet is Tier IV), I can't in good conscience endorse a "stay the course" approach when it comes to fleet progress costs. Because it's not just my fleet in STO -- there are other fleets who have less than my fleet does, and I don't want to arbitrarily decide whether or not they deserve the same rights to the same things I do based on a lower fleet population. They want to play the game and progress with their fleet starbase and holdings just as I do, and I offer this idea to help them. We should always want things better than they currently are.
To tell them that any alteration to the current system is "unfair to us, so continue to suffer so we don't have to live with change" comes off as morally questionable to me, because we should always strive to make the game better and more enjoyable.
I don't think a fleet's leadership role should have to be decided by a person's real-life socio-economic status when this is a video game we play to escape real life.
And I can't agree with the current state of people who can afford to spend money on zen and turn it into dilithium be the ones who are primarily burdened with fleet progress -- with no other options on the table.
What I offer is an option to generate additional dilithium revenue, something that can be ignored or used as a fleet sees fit. A flat 'tax' that can be disabled when a project's dilithium costs are filled by the cooperative effort of the entire fleet -- that can be supplemented with the current way of donating personal dilithium reserves.
That can be enacted during lean times, and disabled during prosperous times. Or all of the time or not at all.
And I offer the idea that the current state of the fleet system should be altered to help those less fortunate, since those in larger fleets would ultimately not be affected by another fleet's progress. It offers more options, not less.
Sir, what you say is not true, im a leader of a smal fleet, and the upgrade to military tier 5 is going, embassy & dil.mine tier3, spire tier2.
Even small fleets can get everything if you use your FC's for the fleet.
Interestingly, I think this post cuts to the heart of the issue.
No system is going to be 'fair' as a replacement for one where some Fleets have put in over a year of massive graft to get T5.
Why does this matter? Because the gear that high-tier fleets can get access to is substantially better than anything in the rep system or (less ships) even Lockboxes. Allegedly, this is a deliberate policy to encourage fleet politics as a means to getting people to spend more time in-game.
Consoles are the worst example - fleet ones are so much better than regular issue it's ridiculous, easily giving a +5% crit chance or +50% turn rate on aggregate. Ships are another issue - if you want a top of the line Fed or Klingon ship, you have to be in a sufficiently developed fleet. By contrast any joker can buy a Jem'Hadar vessel.
What's needed is a balance between Fleet and Rep / Lobi gear so that comparably useful stuff can be obtained via other means - even if it is at cost. Then levelling a fleet will add options, but not be essential to have top-of-the line capabilities. I think that would reduce a lot of the percieved pressure.
You don't need to be in a large or established fleet to buy top-level fleet equipment. All you need for any fleet gear is to get to Tier 1 and run the provision projects. If you can get a rep to T5 you can get a solo fleet to T1, so don't cry that you can't access Elite Whatevers because they're only a base invite away for anyone. Fleet ships are a different matter, but if you're smart you can get those for free, too.
That argument doesn't hold water - or do you regard it as fundamentally unfair every time there's a sale?
Simply put, everyone who has paid full price up to this point has already gotten a benefit - they've had access for longer.
I was in your position too. I still am in some ways (which is what made me consider these options), but just like anything else in life there will always be people worse off than I am.
Would my options I present greatly affect me and my fleet? Maybe. The climb to Tier IV to Tier V is long and arduous, but it's a shorter distance compared to Tier I to Tier V. That's the big picture.
I don't regard any fleet as 'better' or 'worse' than my own. The standards for measuring that would be inherently flawed to begin with.
I simply recognize fleets as entities of players who work together and do things their own way. Just because we paid our own price to get to where we are doesn't mean we should be sociopaths and force others to suffer just as we did.
Things should always be seen with an eye towards the future, and not the past. I want newer players and newer fleets to not have to go through the same thing my fleet (and your fleet and all the other small fleets) had to go through.
And I think the way to do that is to have options proposed, argued, debated, and hopefully considered by Cryptic if they have enough merit.
if you all want to do something else to help out the small fleets by keeping their members happy, why not join futurepast and myself and spend an hour or two every day inviting these people to your base to use your fleet holdings?
free jkname
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
1) Any system that can be exploited will be and I can see any sort of "sponsorship" relationship, or anything that scales based on size, as ripe for exploitation.
2) Cryptic has a history of making changes to the fleet system that are poorly planned, poorly tested, and poorly executed. And believe me, they give no consideration at all to what is good or bad for large fleets when doing so.
They put in changes to fleet leadership promotions/demotions that may help in some situations but are absolutely awful for us. They break the roster on a regular basis. Their admin tools are barely adequate for smaller fleets and borderline worthless for large ones.
Asking Cryptic to make structural changes to the fleet system... I honestly don't believe they can do it without breaking something badly in the process.
As stated in another thread, I am always on the lookout for new players to help polish off T5... I would never institute a tax or fee. But hey if you want to do it... go at it bud, there will be fleets ready to welcome your fleeing members, free of charge.
Star Trek Online, Now with out the Trek....
Who says I don't? I do many things to help those less fortunate than I. I give Tuffli and Suliban Cell Ship invites and I give fleet holding invites, in addition to having alts of every career/faction with an emphasis on being able to train bridge officers in commonly-used skills.
And like those things, I also participate in discussions like this on the forums. But I'd rather not put the content of my character on trial here, I'd rather put my proposal on trial. I'd like to see it argued and debated, rather than the conscience of the person making said proposal.
1) I agree. Which is why I encourage debate on how to counter any possible exploitation so people can see if I missed anything, since my original proposal was meant with combating exploitation in mind. If you see any particular exploitation possibilities in my plan, please say so.
2) Half-True. What is 'good' or 'bad' can be highly subjective. What is good for one fleet may be bad for another. Similarly what one fleet considers 'good' another may consider 'bad'. The larger fleets in my proposal would operate as 'business as usual', since nothing I proposed would interfere with their progress. In fact, I could take it one step further and say people who already have T5 everything don't really have a dog in this fight -- since the progress of smaller, or less advanced fleets have absolutely no bearing on their own fleet's progress. Nothing I suggest would take anything away from what they've already earned/completed.
The purple Mk XII tactical consoles available in the fleet spire could be considered 'good' for fleet members who can't afford the multi-million EC price tag of the Mk XII consoles set on the exchange.
They would be considered 'bad' by those who make their EC making said consoles. It really depends on what side you're on -- but in the grand scheme of things I consider it a positive step forward even if a select few suffer because of it.
Cryptic does have a habit of breaking things with everything they fix. Things they don't foresee breaking, or things they foresee breaking but can be 'fixed later'.
That said, taking the hardline position of "No. No. No. No. No." based on perceived fears of the unknown is counter-productive. While said fears are understandable, we will achieve no progress in the game whatsoever if Cryptic simply stops working on making the game better. We will live forever in a state of permanent stagnation with no bug fixes or improvements to the game if we reject everything based on "Well, what will they break if they do this thing? It's not worth the risk."
Nothing worth doing is ever easy, after all.
I dont believe that we should change prices too much, so I dont like the Idea of expanding costs the bigger the fleet gets. This is a substantial threat to price stability and could let eigther to hyper inflation or a deflation wich is probably even worse.
How ever I support the Idea of a fleet tax, with multiple options. There is just one point to be mentioned here, putting the tax on the unreffined dilithium, bears the risk of currency devaluation, because the "money", supply is increased. But it is defenatly an option, considering that most prices are dictaed and do not follow the rules of the free market.
AND YES, if you do not wanna contribute to the discussion, just don't read the thread!!!!!!!
This.
And yes, I'm in a small fleet. But you know what, mom-and-pop stores don't expect to have a multibillion dollar office complex like Microsoft. Your local tech company doesn't get to have a googleplex.
Personally, I think the way the resources work is scaled just about right. If you want big-company benefits, join a big company. If you want the experience of working for a small company, learn to live with the fact that your company's never going to have a company jet.
I really love how you equate "being statistically competitive in a game" with "having a company jet for personal use in real life". I don't know that I've seen such an obvious show of lack of perspective in a long time.
I was simply making the comparison that large organizations have more resources than small ones. T5 starbase is the in-game equivalent of a company jet. Big corps get to have 'em, small corps don't, because .. they're smaller and have less resources to throw around, natch.
Then I still see it as a tradeoff. It's cause/effect. Just like in every single MMO ever.
If you want gear item X, perform action Y.
If you do not wish to perform action Y, then live without gear item X.
I'm dating myself here, but to go way back for an example: If I didn't want to kill Vox, then I'd never get a Cloak of Flames - Unless I bought one for exorbitant prices on the market, of course.
The Fleet system is no different, when you break it down to it's component parts. If you want those purple MK XII fleet consoles, do what you need to do to get them. It's not some special prerequisite that only certain people fulfill. You don't have to be over 6 feet tall. Or only have blonde hair. Or only be able to speak 17 languages.
Everyone can get them.... If they choose to perform the in-game acts that are a requirement for the reward.
You are. Fleet holding equipment (ships, consoles and in some cases shields, weapons, engines and deflectors) is head and shoulders superior to what's available to players. Restricting that equipment (the "company jet") to "big companies", codifies a fundamental statistical disparity between those who have access to fleet gear, and those who don't.
Not having a realistic hope of completing fleet holdings means that small fleets have a choice: accept that they're going to be treated as inferior or give up their group identity and be absorbed into a large group.
That choice is entirely unacceptable.
And that's where your argument falls flat on its face. Willingness to put in effort is not the problem here. Small fleet members are doing orders of magnitude more work per capita than their large fleet counterparts are. According to your reasoning, they should be getting more rewards for their trouble. Yet they're getting less.
So no.. I wasn't talking about being statistically competitive, or whatever the term was that you used. Because being "stastically competitive" in a video game is so far down on my list of reasons to play it might as well not be on there. I play to relax and watch pixellated things go boom, but that's a different discussion.
And frankly, I find that choice perfectly acceptable.
Back when I did care about being competitive, I joined endgame top-tier guilds. (i.e. I identified what was necessary to achieve my goal, and then I went out and did it. I didn't whine about wanting X, when I wasn't prepared to do Y to get it)
I never said anything about per-capita.
I'm just talking raw numbers.
If it takes, totalled up, ten million EC, ten million fleet marks and ten million dilithium to get access to an item, that's what it takes. If it only takes 5 EC, 5 fleet marks and 5 dil, then that's what it takes, too. Doesn't matter whether it's done by one person or a hundred. The numbers are the numbers.
For what it's worth, I'm all in favor of things like fleet alliances, to spread the load. But I don't think that the raw numbers themselves should be changed. If that's what an item is worth, that's what it's worth. You either reach those totals or you don't.
A fleet alliance is, mathematically, doing what the big fleets do anyway - adding more warm bodies to the mix, more people who can contribute. Whether you do it by having an alliance of multiple smaller fleets, or whether you do it by having one big monolithic fleet, the numbers don't care.