Update on Fleet Marks and Dilithium
View Single Post
Join Date: Oct 2012
02-20-2013, 11:18 AM
Originally Posted by
I have forgotten nothing. I was never concerned with how long fleet holding progression takes. They can design their systems however they will. We have a choice as to whether or not to partake in those systems' gameplay.
If they want fleet holding progression to ignore small fleets, then so be it. The small fleet has three choices:
1 - Grow their fleet with enough active members to more efficiently manage the amount of fleet marks and dilithium needed to progress.
2 - Play it as it is and keep complaining about how hard it is to progress because the Fleet Mark payouts are not good enough.
3 - Don't play it at all.
I am not saying that this is how it should be. I believe in fair content progression for everyone.
If they were to refer to fleets with 25 members or less a "squadron" and introduce squadron holdings that are smaller installations but can provide useful things for a more open-ended endgame, and these holdings were balanced for five to 25 players the way fleet holdings are balanced for 25 players and up, then the gap will be closed. Squadrons could still pursue the starbase with its current extreme difficulty of progression. But fleets would not be allowed to pursue Squadron Holdings as they would pose no challenge whatsoever.
I have also suggested a method that could be used to scale Starbase advancement requirements for fleet size, but I do not feel like reiterating it here and now. Suffice to say that it IS possible to do this without setting up an exploit.
For the last few days I've been working on a similar idea of grouping, from squadrons through battlegroups, fleets, flag fleets and sector fleets, with a workable progression and holdings system. I'm hacking it around and looking for exploit potential atm. I'll post it here, if I get it complete before this thread does the big one.
Maybe we should knock-heads?
HOMO SAPIENS NON URINAT IN VENTUM