Reinstatement of Gatekeeper Method

Quote by Araa

@Todd, my math comes out very, very differently than yours since, as I think the demand side is far smaller than you expect. For example, I haven't had anything from the store in months and don't intend to.

I can respect that. And you raise a good point about how some people don't buy stuff. I would just point out that if we have seven people like you who don't buy anything and one person who buys eight things to fully equip his new ship, my math still works. My math doesn't require each person to buy one thing a month, it just assumes the average demand across all users.

Another issue that I'm surprised hasn't reared its head yet, and which I haven't mentioned because I don't really care about it, is the matter of people camping the store. It has already happened. If we are going to have an open system, then are we saying that we are okay with a return to people camping the projects and the store?

I quite agree, Voleron. I'm sorry if my posts were overly loquacious and feel that I have said all I needed to say.. and then some :P

I don't want this to turn into the "a gentle reminder" thread so I will bow out of the debate and allow others to have their say.

I fervently encourage everyone reading this thread and who hasn't already commented to please please contribute your opinions, questions and concerns. :)

@Voleron - You're making a habit of being the voice of reason in these things. You SURE you're a cop? :-D

Thanks for keeping us grounded Voleron. You remind me that this entire problem may just go away once we get back to regular reprovisioning projects. Perhaps, as you suggest, the right solution is simply to give it another month or two to clarify where the real issues are before getting involved in a detailed debate about the next step.

I do hope everyone feels free to contribute their thoughts though, sometimes it takes a new person and some fresh ideas to help us focus on what's really important! (see above)

If we want everyone's opinion, here's mine:

This doesn't really affect me at all. I try to make contributions to the fleet when I can, as generously as I'm able, but I'm not into going full-tilt with equipment once I hit 50. I only team for PvE occasionally, I don't do PvP at all, and at 50, I mostly just like to run around New Romulus and play Foundry missions. In short, I contribute but don't buy. I'm not sure how many players there are like me in this respect, but I'm about as casual a player as one can be whilst still playing frequently.

@Jacien: No problem :) I know everyone has the best interests of the fleet at heart!
@Araa: lol ;)

Incidentally, please feel free to refer people to this thread! We sent out the fleet-wide email providing the link, but I think that some people may be a bit forum shy. If the topic of fleet stores comes up with other fleeties during conversation in fleet chat, an STF or Fleet Action, encourage them to speak up here :D I'll try to do the same and hopefully we'll we some new faces!

Cheers all!
Dave.

One suggestion that I'd like to make is that we start utilizing Deep Space Stonewall. Right now, Stonewall Fleet has a much higher demand because everyone moves their current "main" character to that fleet. If we could balance our active players in both fleets, we could level the DSS Starbase more quickly and double our ability to requisition Engineering Personal Provisions. Despite the fact the DSS is a little less leveled, there is no downside to having your character in that fleet over Stonewall Fleet.

Quote by Traull

Quote by mrgig00

C. Is there a particular number limit on items this time or is it just a general "discouragement" for the armor, weapons, and engines provided by Engineering Personal Provisions? :

This has been brought up and is being discussed. Tell me, what do you think would be a good limit? Or would a limit be a good idea at all?

I think that despite a few silly personal vendettas, most everyone in the fleet is trustworthy. Should the promotion to purchasing rank comes with a warning "Hey, just try to go easy on personal weapons, personal shields, and ship engines because we're trying to rebuild our Engineering Personal Provisions," I honestly believe most people will respect that and evaluate their shopping lists accordingly. After all, the fleet pretty much relied on honor-system-style self-reporting to inventory who bought what the last time we had the provision method.

(and yeah, now that WhiteOnmyoji mentions it, I can totally see Janet Jackson singing the Provision Principle. I'll stick to "Method." B) )

Quote by NicholasJohn16

One suggestion that I'd like to make is that we start utilizing Deep Space Stonewall.... Despite the fact the DSS is a little less leveled, there is no downside to having your character in that fleet over Stonewall Fleet.

I want to, I really do, but the only thing I do with my alt is pick up duty officers to mail to my main. I always feel a sense of guilt when I hear Deep Space Stonewall. I'll try to do better.

I hope you don't mind me, a fairly new fleet member, weighing in.

I went into this fleet at a time when there were no provisions, and had to face the grim reality that saving fleet credits for that purpose is really not that important right now. That said, working toward the fleet base is still fun since it's always nice to contribute in light of the friendly nature of the fleet so far.

Given that I use all Tetryon weapons on my ship, and no Reputation tiers offer any weapons such as those, Polaron, or disruptor weapons, my only recourse would be to use the fleet stores to get great gear... However that isn't a priority. Although I have met some on here (who will remain nameless) who are pretty keen on having the strongest ship and capable of killing everyone else WAY faster, that isn't how I play the game.

Because of general team work in the fleet (which i have experienced sofar to my delight) and my general disinterest in PvP the idea of getting powerful fleet equipment isn't a necessity, and I seem to see more people working toward the reputation system with greater interest. Would I like the option to beef up items here and there? Sure! But in time. And given the ever-changing nature of this game and the commitment of the players, Cryptic might even be planning to release more featured series and Reputation tiers featuring new equipment sets anyway. Haha maybe I'll get lucky and one will be a Hirogen one so I can get some sweet Tetryon gear!

If there is a plan for limited but fair access to equipment, it would be awesome. It would be better than none at all. And if anyone has an issue with limiting themselves from over-using provisions than they should know that these actions ruin the game for the rest of us and I'm sure the powers that be will deal with such inconsiderate actions

Sums me up also. Always the occasional contributor and never a purchaser, although this does mean i dont throw dilithium in projects anymore as zen is a better option for me to buy with that.

Quote by NicholasJohn16

One suggestion that I'd like to make is that we start utilizing Deep Space Stonewall...

Brilliant! In the same email/MoTDs that say "Please go easy on the store ground weapons/....", we could also add "by the way guys, there are tons of provisions over on DSS, feel free to temporarily move over there to buy some if you're in a rush".

It'd not only add to our provisions available to SW, it'd also help to increase DSS activity. Now if only we could do the same thing with HNR. lol.

I was extremely happy when the Gatekeeper method was lifted, but I'm also in favour of its reinstatement for the time necessary for our stockpile to replenish.

Furthermore, I'd suggest something based on my field of expertise: the exchange rate of floating currencies have a variation tolerance over a fixed level. Given 25 as our target, we could decide to give a warning to fleeties at, say, 30 in order to ask for higher efforts to increase the Fleets' stockpiles and to avoid a temporary reinstatement of the Gatekeeper method. I think it would be a good way to increase our collective attention to the fact that common resources come from a common effort.