I partly agree with you BUT you can't keep a game enjoyable by nerfing or slowing everything every other patch.
I agree with you when you say that there its no devs team in the world that can keep up with the expectation of any player base (content wise) but if you can't offer content may be you can just offer other small things like bug fixes (and the list its long) or may be a way to save ships, BOFFS and powers trays configuration (and I mean now not in a distand blured future), make everything account bound and not character bound, anyway you can only play with one at the time (and probably people will send more money in the game this way). I can think 1000s things they could give me and make me a lot happier without having to dish out new ships or content or loose money in the game (if ever i think that by making everything account bound they will pull in more players ence money).
((btw english its not my language please be kind to me))
I think this is some form of balance in new content vs bug fixes, yes I will agree that bug should be fixed but do you how many do you loose with these bugs and how many do you loose because the lack of new content.
Not that I will say they are doing it right, the problem here is proberly the size of the game and there fore the size of the dev team. And there budget.
I do hope they read these comment and think about them.
In WoW you get a response from a GM within a couple of hours... in person. They send you a tell and talk to you like a normal person and give reasons why they can't help, if they can't. Then you get an automatic customer feedback survey of about 7 questions about how you were treated by that GM.
Here... I've sent two tickets and never had a response to either of them, closed them off after a couple of weeks. I don't know what GMs do in this game, but it has nothing to do with customer service for sure.
Here you have to take a look again in how the buissness works with these templates.
WoW have a big player base and that gives alot of money to work with, this gives the posibility to have more helpers to sort out these things.
Not that it shouldent be done here, but I simply thing that from the buissness end of this, its about profit. And yes that sucks, but the playerbase vs the profit in it, I belive is calculated and not thought as a gamer to a gamer would.
... since this happened all i see in the chat box is projects have stopped and fleets are slowly bleeding. maybe not urs becuase ur tier 5 maxxed out
Many fleets will probably not see this for a few days, maybe even a few weeks as the pool of Fleet marks currently held by main characters and their toons slowly gets used up. Some slack will probably be taken up by doing more commendation assignments for fleet marks but eventually everyone will feel it and the fleet officers will have a hell of a time organizing 20 man PvEs, since they are so boring. This is when folk will leave to join bigger fleets, or stop playing.
I don't plan on doing any more foundary missions (the time is not worth the rewards), and I don't have any doff reps to 110k yet, so I won't be getting any more fleet marks for my fleet in the near future.....and nobody in my fleet has asked me where I used to get them from, so I also think many fleet officers have little clue how much this is going to affect them.
I posted the following earlier but it got drowned in the Bile River.
The only way to make scaling fleet holding progression fair for ALL fleets is if the game tracks how large a fleet has ever been and uses this as the cost. This way, even if a fleet of 500 kicks everyone but five, the cost in both Dilithium AND fleet marks would reflect 500 players.
This way, the scaling costs benefit small fleets who start small and intend to stay small.
Granted a fleet of five could form, build the starbase at minimum cost in FM and RD, then recruit up to massive numbers. A way to make it where a fleet may only grow by 5 new characters per day from its current roster size. That means it would take 100 days to grow to 500 characters.
And yes. it should be characters that count towards fleet membership, not accounts. If it was accounts, then five accounts each with five alts can all generate the Dilithium and Fleet marks of 25 people towards a cost based on five people. No EASY BUTTONS! You want to factor your alts into FM and RD production for your fleet, then they must be part of the fleet, thus increasing the fleet size and therefore, the cost of advancing fleet holdings. UNLESS the system were to look at how many characters of the faction the fleet belomgs to each account has on it and increasing the impact to cost of projects whenever more alts are added. This way, characters or accounts, the result will be the same.
And remember. The fleet population footprint will only increase. NEVER decrease. So like I said, even if a fleet of 500 drops down to 5 when a new holding gets released, it would still require RD and FM costs reflecting 500 members.
A non-decreasing population footprint is the only way to make it fair for small fleets in a way that large fleets cannot cheat the system by droping members to cut costs. A limited increase to fleet population is the only way to prevent pre-meditative cheating, as in, we'll start with five, build it and then jump right up to 500.
If you can live with restrictions like that, then you really care about small fleets. If you cannot live with restrictions like that, then you are only pretending to bemoan the victimization of small fleets and are really a large fleetist looking for a way to play the system to your favor.
I admit that the daily limit on fleet growth would be unpopular. Perhaps scaling advancement of fleet holdings could be an option that is selectable ONLY when creating a new fleet. It could be turned off at any time once the fleet roster grows to more than 25 members. If turned off, it can never be turned back on.
Yes, that would mean that small fleets who already exist but want costs scaled to their membership numbers would need to sacrifice whatever progress they have already made, reform their fleet under the scaling model and ride the restrictions on growth. But for a small fleet of 25 or less, it would be a delay of five days tops before they are at full strength again. And under the scaled cost system, it should not take long to regain what was lost. especially if the previous progression was not that far along in the grand scheme.
This would be up to fleets to decide whether they want to give up what they have accomplished so that they can advance faster, or to hold onto what they have and continue with standard costs.
I personally want a Star Trek game that is actually Star Trek. On a qualitative level that could be a lot of different things for a lot of different people. But on a quantitative level, if the developers were to watch star trek and make the game like what they see, then at least it will be a shot in the right direction, as far as I am concerned.
its just taken 1 and a half hours to make 50 fleet marks kdf side i like doing other stuff but its a waste of time Queing for fleet mark missions when im on KDF it takes about 15-20 mins sat doing nothing becase no one wonts to do a mission for 17 marks. its not worth my time if somethings not done soon im gone.
if it takes 15-20 mins of Queing at week end wots it going to be like during the week 30-40 mins if im lucky.
COMPUTER GAMES ARE MENT TO BE FUN NOT JUST SAT THERE HOPEING OTHER PEOPLE Q FOR A MISSION WITH A LOW AMOUNT OF REWARD.
still say cryptic are fools.
Welcome to bugs online were we only fix the bugs you like, and will ignore the ones you hate.
These are the voyages of the USS Farmville. Her 5 year mission is to boldly farm where no one has farmed before. Say No to ARK