Hmmm, a kind of embedded coop group of players is an interesting idea.
I can see how it appeals.
However, the part of me that has been herding cats, sorry managing people, for way too long is sadly a bit more skeptical.
It's not the the idea isnt't good, it is.
It's that it can go wrong is so many spectacular ways, and almost all of them are illogical.
People get dramatic, lets say, in a myriad of ways. This structure I feel, while not necessarily creating any more such people will be vulnerable to them.
As for the underlying issue, I'd say relax.
Small fleets = slow fleets. It's a reality.
And I can't muster any good reason why it should be different.
And I run a small fleet.
Shinies are nice, and shinier is nicer, true.
But tis not that we dont get there as small fleets, we just have to be a bit more strategic and focussed.
Where a big fleet can just set direction and power through project after project, a small fleet has to weight the contributions required against the reward somewhat.
Perhaps aiming at that embassy comodities broker is more important right now than a tier 2 spire. Maybe i know we cant sfford that much dilithium just now, so I'll slot provisioning projects so we can keep some momentum going.
Just have to be smart about it. Smarter than a large fleet really.
Enjoy the ride a bit more and worry less about the destination.
In regards to the argument that smaller fleets are slower fleets, I do agree. Ours opened on jan 28, 2013 and we are three sets of projects away from Tier 3. I know we are moving slower than larger fleets have, but we are getting there. Our Fleet Spire is Tier 1 upgrading, our Fleet Mine is Tier 2, and our Embassy is upgrading to Tier 2. I am so proud of our progress. We are happy to announce our KDF Fleet that was founded on February 8, 2013 is soon to be Tier 1 on Starbase and the rest are in the midst of upgrading to Tier 1. Not bad for an alt majority casual based fleet on that side.
As for the mismanagement of the fleets, there is only one thing that could be a concern. The productivity of some may not be that of others. This was the only concern I had. Let's say you and I have an agreement, we meet on Tuesday at 4 to grind my fleet... you don't show. Now, your fleet is on Friday and I grind with you for 3 hours. This goes on for 3 weeks. Is that fair? No. COULD it happen? Sure. However, there is a chance to have something good happen. If you are all "Doom and Gloom" on everything you try, you never know if you will succeed. The greatest successes in life happened from due diligence and practice to make it perfect, like riding a bike. So, in reflection to this, I think the good FAR outweighs what COULD happen. I think we should all focus on the common goal and all agree that we are on the same page as far as commitment.
Now, I planned for this already using my knowledge of networking. You place the similar minded with similar motivation together so they don't feel pressured or overworked. This makes a happy place to spend time. The same goes with teaming in groups. That is all I would oversee, other than someone not holding up their end of the bargain. I am planning on bringing the Devs to light on this and showing them the models of it to see if it CAN, in theory, work. This is to enhance the community participation and help keep the grind feeling less like work and more like playing the game.
So often I am sure we all feel the burn as Admirals and can't just "leave and come back" to get the ship shiney or whatever you need to join another fleet for. I am wanting others that have smaller fleets to enjoy the same as what I have on mine. I also want to help them lessen their grind. This is my way of paying it forward in the community. I like to see a low tiered fleet read mid and high tier. This idea would allow an agreement to be made that can benefit the larger fleets as well. They could sign the petition for the smaller upgrade projects to make it faster for them in any future projects that may come. Wouldn't it be nice if you could CD the projects faster and have more actives on roster to fill them as well ? I think we all can benefit from the petition.
I am planning on bringing the Devs to light on this and showing them the models of it to see if it CAN, in theory, work. This is to enhance the community participation and help keep the grind feeling less like work and more like playing the game.
Dude, I don't know what to tell you if you don't know the grind is a feature, not a bug of a F2P MMO.
Shutup Wesley has about a dozen members, not all of which are active. We still managed to finish our Starbase, Embassy, Mine, and Spire in record time and with enough resources left over to give NoP some help.
It seems to me that you should save yourself the effort of setting up the complicated bureaucracy your roundtable requires and expend it educating your fleet members instead. If everyone knew what to do, you wouldn't have to shuffle them all around every day.
Now, I planned for this already using my knowledge of networking. You place the similar minded with similar motivation together so they don't feel pressured or overworked. This makes a happy place to spend time. The same goes with teaming in groups. That is all I would oversee, other than someone not holding up their end of the bargain. I am planning on bringing the Devs to light on this and showing them the models of it to see if it CAN, in theory, work. This is to enhance the community participation and help keep the grind feeling less like work and more like playing the game.
Dude, I don't know what to tell you if you don't know the grind is a feature, not a bug of a F2P MMO.
I'm of the mind Robert Vixen Jalynn seems to misunderstand the basic tenets of player investment in MMO design when linked to gameplay. But perhaps more shocking is the basic misunderstanding of what people will do with even one iota of assumed power.
We've seen star fleets crash and burn over less with more involvement than this.
Why this probably won't work: This seems overly complicated, with overseers checking on overseers, and given the hunger for some kind of authority (no matter how frivolous) and hierarchy, this will potentially lead to all kinds of unnecessary micromanagement and frequent abuse.
...
Again and again, we've seen the best management style when dealing with dozens or more players online is a mostly flexible, hands-off approach. People do what they're supposed to do? Great. People become insufferable and leech? Kick. Nothing more needs to be done beyond that. Some public channels have been criticized/made private because people got a little too ready to rule with iron fists, some well-known, high-profile fleets have also recently imploded because of the same. How do you really expect to run this thing day-to-day and have it avoid becoming yet another well-intentioned but poorly-executed player-driven organization?
____GREAT LEADERS LET THEIR ACTIONS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I am a Shutup Wesley member mainly, but I spent a lot of time during the building of our starbase actually leading Starfleet Dental, when the previous leader of SFD had problems he had to attend to, I stepped up. But these days I have taken a back seat role.
Let me clue you in on one way of success, not to say this is the only way, or that it even works for all fleets. Just that this method of leadership has worked for Starfleet Dental since launch.
Having too many voices giving direction has everyone running in different directions and having one person with their hands too tight on the reins just causes the wheels to fall off of the wagon as people burn out. We have found the best way for leadership of our fleet is a benevolent dictator. Someone that guides the direction of the fleets progress, but doesn't lay down rules or requirements. Most people are very happy to donate to a fleet if they don't feel pressure to do so. Sometimes a fleet member that might not have the time or that is extremely casual will want to donate to get the shiny gear as well, I spent a lot of time donating funds directly to the fleet bank so people could buy DOFFs off the exchange to fill projects.
You can spend a lot of time or very little time and if you have a happy group of players in your fleet, you should be able to make meaningful progress.
-- To your actual idea of a fleet, it could work, I have played other games where a style of leadership was run by a core group with input from the members of the fleet, and problems only arose when it came to a crossroads of disagreement, it still requires at least one very respected person to put a foot down sometimes and declare a final judgement call.
I wish you good luck if you choose to run with your idea.
Youknowwhatitis...
-Supporter of Cryptic Lockboxes!
Comments
I can see how it appeals.
However, the part of me that has been herding cats, sorry managing people, for way too long is sadly a bit more skeptical.
It's not the the idea isnt't good, it is.
It's that it can go wrong is so many spectacular ways, and almost all of them are illogical.
People get dramatic, lets say, in a myriad of ways. This structure I feel, while not necessarily creating any more such people will be vulnerable to them.
As for the underlying issue, I'd say relax.
Small fleets = slow fleets. It's a reality.
And I can't muster any good reason why it should be different.
And I run a small fleet.
Shinies are nice, and shinier is nicer, true.
But tis not that we dont get there as small fleets, we just have to be a bit more strategic and focussed.
Where a big fleet can just set direction and power through project after project, a small fleet has to weight the contributions required against the reward somewhat.
Perhaps aiming at that embassy comodities broker is more important right now than a tier 2 spire. Maybe i know we cant sfford that much dilithium just now, so I'll slot provisioning projects so we can keep some momentum going.
Just have to be smart about it. Smarter than a large fleet really.
Enjoy the ride a bit more and worry less about the destination.
As for the mismanagement of the fleets, there is only one thing that could be a concern. The productivity of some may not be that of others. This was the only concern I had. Let's say you and I have an agreement, we meet on Tuesday at 4 to grind my fleet... you don't show. Now, your fleet is on Friday and I grind with you for 3 hours. This goes on for 3 weeks. Is that fair? No. COULD it happen? Sure. However, there is a chance to have something good happen. If you are all "Doom and Gloom" on everything you try, you never know if you will succeed. The greatest successes in life happened from due diligence and practice to make it perfect, like riding a bike. So, in reflection to this, I think the good FAR outweighs what COULD happen. I think we should all focus on the common goal and all agree that we are on the same page as far as commitment.
Now, I planned for this already using my knowledge of networking. You place the similar minded with similar motivation together so they don't feel pressured or overworked. This makes a happy place to spend time. The same goes with teaming in groups. That is all I would oversee, other than someone not holding up their end of the bargain. I am planning on bringing the Devs to light on this and showing them the models of it to see if it CAN, in theory, work. This is to enhance the community participation and help keep the grind feeling less like work and more like playing the game.
So often I am sure we all feel the burn as Admirals and can't just "leave and come back" to get the ship shiney or whatever you need to join another fleet for. I am wanting others that have smaller fleets to enjoy the same as what I have on mine. I also want to help them lessen their grind. This is my way of paying it forward in the community. I like to see a low tiered fleet read mid and high tier. This idea would allow an agreement to be made that can benefit the larger fleets as well. They could sign the petition for the smaller upgrade projects to make it faster for them in any future projects that may come. Wouldn't it be nice if you could CD the projects faster and have more actives on roster to fill them as well ? I think we all can benefit from the petition.
Dude, I don't know what to tell you if you don't know the grind is a feature, not a bug of a F2P MMO.
Shutup Wesley has about a dozen members, not all of which are active. We still managed to finish our Starbase, Embassy, Mine, and Spire in record time and with enough resources left over to give NoP some help.
It seems to me that you should save yourself the effort of setting up the complicated bureaucracy your roundtable requires and expend it educating your fleet members instead. If everyone knew what to do, you wouldn't have to shuffle them all around every day.
I'm of the mind Robert Vixen Jalynn seems to misunderstand the basic tenets of player investment in MMO design when linked to gameplay. But perhaps more shocking is the basic misunderstanding of what people will do with even one iota of assumed power.
We've seen star fleets crash and burn over less with more involvement than this.
Take advice to heart, my dear.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Let me clue you in on one way of success, not to say this is the only way, or that it even works for all fleets. Just that this method of leadership has worked for Starfleet Dental since launch.
Having too many voices giving direction has everyone running in different directions and having one person with their hands too tight on the reins just causes the wheels to fall off of the wagon as people burn out. We have found the best way for leadership of our fleet is a benevolent dictator. Someone that guides the direction of the fleets progress, but doesn't lay down rules or requirements. Most people are very happy to donate to a fleet if they don't feel pressure to do so. Sometimes a fleet member that might not have the time or that is extremely casual will want to donate to get the shiny gear as well, I spent a lot of time donating funds directly to the fleet bank so people could buy DOFFs off the exchange to fill projects.
You can spend a lot of time or very little time and if you have a happy group of players in your fleet, you should be able to make meaningful progress.
-- To your actual idea of a fleet, it could work, I have played other games where a style of leadership was run by a core group with input from the members of the fleet, and problems only arose when it came to a crossroads of disagreement, it still requires at least one very respected person to put a foot down sometimes and declare a final judgement call.
I wish you good luck if you choose to run with your idea.
You know what it is...
-Supporter of Cryptic Lockboxes!