You should have given more options in the poll. For example, I think 9 weeks is a long time, but I don't particularly care as I hate full skirmish events. I think most people voting as I have feel similar.
Maybe occasionally mix it up with a Hybrid or two.
Not this. I get bored with 4 days of any event type. I understand the necessity for full faction events. But the rest... I'll take hybrids every time. In my ideal world, there would be a skirmish hybrid once a month and an expedition hybrid twice a year. Fill in the rest with as many hybrids as are practical.
I think that mini event was on the heels of a galaxy where I got in the top 10. Grinding through the cataclysm after that made it feel enough like a skirmish to me. Anyone complaining that there weren't good enough rewards should have spent their dilithium better. I was pretty darn thrilled with getting that much dilithium in two days, personally. Thrilled enough to grind through it after grinding a galaxy event pretty hard.
Loaded language? It’s the ACTUAL question I asked in the poll. I swear, this “community” is harder to please than a lynch mob.
Sorry. I'm picky about polls. Nothing personal. I don't want to distract further from your thread with my reasoning. I do hope we can get another skirmish soon. Ideally a hybrid.
You just suggested the word “is” is a loaded word. Without it, it’s a statement, not a question. But I apologize to anyone else offended by my reckless use of the inflammatory word “is”. Clearly I was being an insensitive monster.
You should have given more options in the poll. For example, I think 9 weeks is a long time, but I don't particularly care as I hate full skirmish events. I think most people voting as I have feel similar.
I mean, I asked a yes or no question. How many options are really required for that? Yes, it’s too long or no it’s not. Bam. One. Two. Is there an option that isn’t covered by one of those 2 choices?
I'll unlock those shuttles when the 50% off sale extends to them. If I have to wait 5 years, I have to wait 5 years. The dilithium isn't burning a hole in my pocket and the campaigns will just keep stacking a few more crumbs on top. If it never happens I get to keep complaining about the long time players that got the benifit of having that sale available to them at one point. The world will go on.
I have been around for one year and afair there was no such sale during that time. But even if so... Do not waste dil on literally ANYTHING before you have 4 shuttles. They pay back a ton during and also outside of Faction events, and even if said sale happened next month you should not regret today's purchase.
Wir, die Mirror Tribbles [MiT] haben freie Plätze zu vergeben. Kein Zwang und kein Stress, dafür aber Spaß, Discord und eine nette, hilfsbereite Gemeinschaft, incl. voll ausgebauter Starbase und täglich 700 ISM.
I'm confident a fair number of you are in fleets with maxed out starbases.
I'm also confident that a fair number of your starbases benefited from skirmishes when they were happening every 3-5 weeks.
I'm also confident that a fair number of you would rather maintain your own fleet's advantage than admit it isn't fair to players in newer fleets to cripple their starbases development and deny them the same means of building their starbases that you guys benefited from.
Sure. But that doesn't mean the Skirmish mini-event wasn't a Skirmish.
And I'm confident that the thousands of dilithium acquired by the newer players in our (far-from-top!) fleet was a greater benefit to them than delaying a starbase upgrade by a couple of weeks. Unlocking shuttles #3 and #4 springs to mind. Our fleet suggested banking as many chrons as possible when the mini-event was announced, just in case. Perhaps your fleet should have done the same?
You're free to speak as an authority for what's best for the players in your fleet. But don't presume to know what's best for the players in mine. My fleet has worked HARD over the past year to maximize gains and close the gap between us and the 200 fleets already at 134. We've passed up a lot of fleets that have been around a lot longer than us.
In the past 24 weeks, the frequency of skirmish events has dropped by more than 50%. Translation: Holoemitter distribution via skirmishes has decreased by 50%. If that's not a concern for your developing fleet, then we clearly have two very different kinds of fleets.
And why on earth would you assume we're not smart enough to stash chrons? Guess what? We're also smart enough to not throw them away by the thousands chasing rank in an event with squat for rank rewards, increased intel cost, half the honor, and half the chron return. Did your fleet chase rank in that event? Because... wow.
I agree with you that Skirmishes are the best event, but I am really disliking your dogmatic tone when it comes to talking about them. Anytime someone expresses an opinion you don't like you jump down their throats or accuse people of looking for some way to get an advantage on you. It's totally fine for people to have mixed feelings about Skirmishes and to think that they need changes or improvements. They do.
I really like the mini-skirmish that we had midweek, I liked that the chron cost was high because it meant I had to do less skirmishing whilst still getting a taste of my favourite event. Skirmishes are still a lot of work (ie they involve doing something I'd rather not be doing.) Yes, they are very highly incentivised because they 'pay well', but I'd still rather be doing something else.
A higher chron/intel cost would not interfere enormously with the conversion of your existing stockpiles to your starbase either, as you still have to generate the same amount of intel, it just means that you don't have the endless loop of new chrons coming back into the game from the skirmishes (which is what makes them so much of an endurance contest). There are also tons of fully finished starbases that have loads of room for people. Do we actually need any new ones? (I'm not saying that you shouldn't want your own starbase, I am saying that maybe the game as a whole doesn't need your starbase when there is plenty of capacity already.)
I think the actual reason that skirmishes are appearing less frequently and DB are looking for new ways to use them is that there's very little money for them in skirmishes, especially now that they've reduced the number of new ships they are introducing. It would not totally shock me to see skirmishes go the way of expeditions. I wouldn't like that personally, but there's a reason that they are becoming rarer and I'd rather they were still a part of the game landscape even if they were removed from the event rotation.
Maybe occasionally mix it up with a Hybrid or two.
Not this. I get bored with 4 days of any event type. I understand the necessity for full faction events. But the rest... I'll take hybrids every time. In my ideal world, there would be a skirmish hybrid once a month and an expedition hybrid twice a year. Fill in the rest with as many hybrids as are practical.
I think that mini event was on the heels of a galaxy where I got in the top 10. Grinding through the cataclysm after that made it feel enough like a skirmish to me. Anyone complaining that there weren't good enough rewards should have spent their dilithium better. I was pretty darn thrilled with getting that much dilithium in two days, personally. Thrilled enough to grind through it after grinding a galaxy event pretty hard.
Loaded language? It’s the ACTUAL question I asked in the poll. I swear, this “community” is harder to please than a lynch mob.
Sorry. I'm picky about polls. Nothing personal. I don't want to distract further from your thread with my reasoning. I do hope we can get another skirmish soon. Ideally a hybrid.
You just suggested the word “is” is a loaded word. Without it, it’s a statement, not a question. But I apologize to anyone else offended by my reckless use of the inflammatory word “is”. Clearly I was being an insensitive monster.
Since you insist...
You aren't asking a useful question. You're making a statement and quantifying the number of people who agree with you. Nine is an arbitrary number of weeks. I understand the relevance, but the next 5 events are already planned out. This poll won't change that.
If you wanted to gather useful data, you could ask something like "How long do you think there should be between skirmish events?" You would get your skirmish junkies who say every week is fine by them. You would get skirmish haters who say they could do without skirmishes forever. And in between, you would probably get a bell curve that shows that sweet sport that players would most want.
Now, this example is more extreme than this poll, but if you are not familiar with the dihydrogen monoxide parody, please look it up. If you were to present information in such a way, then create a poll to ask people if it should be banned, you would have a very skewed and useless poll. That's not what you did here, but it comes across to me in the same vein with the way that you described how skirmishes help newer fleets and trying to elicit the response that you desire.
Please do not take this as a personal attack. I just have strong feelings about polls. I am trying to present information that will help you grow and gather data that is more accurate and useful.
I enjoy most of your posts. I like you as a person. When you pointed out that legendaries rewarded in skirmishes were SCI primary for a long time, it was GREAT! I think it really helped the community. It certainly helped my roster when that trend changed.
Guess what? We're also smart enough to not throw them away by the thousands chasing rank in an event with squat for rank rewards, increased intel cost, half the honor, and half the chron return. Did your fleet chase rank in that event? Because... wow.
Nope. Thresholds and out, those who could make it that far (it took our fleet all of a minute to come to that conclusion!). But thank you for the assumption. Was that another of your "confident" guesses?
Guess what? We're also smart enough to not throw them away by the thousands chasing rank in an event with squat for rank rewards, increased intel cost, half the honor, and half the chron return. Did your fleet chase rank in that event? Because... wow.
Nope. Thresholds and out, those who could make it that far (it took our fleet all of a minute to come to that conclusion!). But thank you for the assumption. Was that another of your "confident" guesses?
No, but it seemed like that’s what you were implying we should’ve done. So I had to wonder if that’s what you did. Most of us picked up a few hundred holoemmiters from clearing thresholds. A far cry from the tens of thousands of holoemmiters some of us get during real skirmishes. When skirmishes were more regular I donated 700 a day and never ran out. Even hit the 32767 cap at one point.
Guess what? We're also smart enough to not throw them away by the thousands chasing rank in an event with squat for rank rewards, increased intel cost, half the honor, and half the chron return. Did your fleet chase rank in that event? Because... wow.
Nope. Thresholds and out, those who could make it that far (it took our fleet all of a minute to come to that conclusion!). But thank you for the assumption. Was that another of your "confident" guesses?
First, polls with loaded language bother me, so I'm not voting. I'd rather just see a thread that says "9 weeks without a skirmish is too long."
Agreed, I couldn't vote either. And now we've seen what the OP actually meant: can we please have more holoemitters and tritanium!
I didn’t realize anyone didn’t know exactly what I meant. It’s not like I just wanted them deposited directly into my bank account. I’m willing to grind for them the way I always have. Hours and hours and tens of thousands of chrons.
You should have given more options in the poll. For example, I think 9 weeks is a long time, but I don't particularly care as I hate full skirmish events. I think most people voting as I have feel similar.
I mean, I asked a yes or no question. How many options are really required for that? Yes, it’s too long or no it’s not. Bam. One. Two. Is there an option that isn’t covered by one of those 2 choices?
"Other" or "Something else" is always useful and it prompts people to explain themselves in the comments (I would have picked that one if it had been available). This way, it's not clear why people picked "No". Some of them probably hate Skirmishes and others prefer the mini-event version of a Skirmish to the original event type (I'm one of them).
And my guess is that a lot of people who don't have a strong opinion about this issue didn't take part in the poll, so the results are mainly from those who love or hate skirmishes, which doesn't give a good idea of how the majority of players feel about their frequency. A "Don't care" option could have changed that to a certain degree.
But it's not like this is an official poll from DB. Its usefulness is mainly in the discussion in this thread and in the fact that it shows that there are people who agree with you.
I'm confident a fair number of you are in fleets with maxed out starbases.
I'm also confident that a fair number of your starbases benefited from skirmishes when they were happening every 3-5 weeks.
I'm also confident that a fair number of you would rather maintain your own fleet's advantage than admit it isn't fair to players in newer fleets to cripple their starbases development and deny them the same means of building their starbases that you guys benefited from.
Sure. But that doesn't mean the Skirmish mini-event wasn't a Skirmish.
And I'm confident that the thousands of dilithium acquired by the newer players in our (far-from-top!) fleet was a greater benefit to them than delaying a starbase upgrade by a couple of weeks. Unlocking shuttles #3 and #4 springs to mind. Our fleet suggested banking as many chrons as possible when the mini-event was announced, just in case. Perhaps your fleet should have done the same?
You're free to speak as an authority for what's best for the players in your fleet. But don't presume to know what's best for the players in mine. My fleet has worked HARD over the past year to maximize gains and close the gap between us and the 200 fleets already at 134. We've passed up a lot of fleets that have been around a lot longer than us.
In the past 24 weeks, the frequency of skirmish events has dropped by more than 50%. Translation: Holoemitter distribution via skirmishes has decreased by 50%. If that's not a concern for your developing fleet, then we clearly have two very different kinds of fleets.
And why on earth would you assume we're not smart enough to stash chrons? Guess what? We're also smart enough to not throw them away by the thousands chasing rank in an event with squat for rank rewards, increased intel cost, half the honor, and half the chron return. Did your fleet chase rank in that event? Because... wow.
I agree with you that Skirmishes are the best event, but I am really disliking your dogmatic tone when it comes to talking about them. Anytime someone expresses an opinion you don't like you jump down their throats or accuse people of looking for some way to get an advantage on you. It's totally fine for people to have mixed feelings about Skirmishes and to think that they need changes or improvements. They do.
I really like the mini-skirmish that we had midweek, I liked that the chron cost was high because it meant I had to do less skirmishing whilst still getting a taste of my favourite event. Skirmishes are still a lot of work (ie they involve doing something I'd rather not be doing.) Yes, they are very highly incentivised because they 'pay well', but I'd still rather be doing something else.
A higher chron/intel cost would not interfere enormously with the conversion of your existing stockpiles to your starbase either, as you still have to generate the same amount of intel, it just means that you don't have the endless loop of new chrons coming back into the game from the skirmishes (which is what makes them so much of an endurance contest). There are also tons of fully finished starbases that have loads of room for people. Do we actually need any new ones? (I'm not saying that you shouldn't want your own starbase, I am saying that maybe the game as a whole doesn't need your starbase when there is plenty of capacity already.)
I think the actual reason that skirmishes are appearing less frequently and DB are looking for new ways to use them is that there's very little money for them in skirmishes, especially now that they've reduced the number of new ships they are introducing. It would not totally shock me to see skirmishes go the way of expeditions. I wouldn't like that personally, but there's a reason that they are becoming rarer and I'd rather they were still a part of the game landscape even if they were removed from the event rotation.
Boy, that’s a lot to cover. But you took the time to write it so I’ll try to give you the courtesy of a properish response. You called my tone dogmatic. I think frustrated is more accurate, at least from my perspective. I’m gonna leave that at that.
I don’t disagree with you that skirmishes could use improvement. I just think they need it less than faction events do. Just my opinion. Nobody has to agree with it.
I play skirmishes harder than other events because the rewards are good and it helps my fleet. In all honesty though, galaxy events are the ones I ENJOY playing the most. They aren’t perfect by a long shot, but I really appreciate the flexibility of them.
I disagree that that increased intel cost wouldn’t reduce holoemmiter gains. That endless loop you referred to is exactly why it’s possible to gain thousands of holoemmiters during a skirmish. Raise intel costs a little and I suspect holoemmiter gains would drop a lot, at least for the same amount of chrons going into the event. Until they introduce an alternative way of gaining holoemmiters and honor, I hope they don’t mess with it.
Does the game need more fleets? Probably not, but so what? That sounds like the rhetoric established fleets peddle to make life easier on themselves. Hey, you brought it up. That’s my opinion. Nobody has to agree with it. I started my fleet because I wanted to do something no other fleets were doing. It worked very well for us. There were some copycat attempts after I started the Hounds but I don’t know of any that were successful. We’re a lot closer to maxed now than not, so the chances of us throwing in the towel are virtually nil.
I don’t think you’re wrong about skirmish events being less profitable than other events. That’s not a justifiable reason to get rid of them, especially when so many players favor them. They’re way more popular than expedition events. I suspect nixing them altogether would cost TP more players than they care to lose.
You should have given more options in the poll. For example, I think 9 weeks is a long time, but I don't particularly care as I hate full skirmish events. I think most people voting as I have feel similar.
I mean, I asked a yes or no question. How many options are really required for that? Yes, it’s too long or no it’s not. Bam. One. Two. Is there an option that isn’t covered by one of those 2 choices?
You're the one who's trying to figure out why people have voted no. I'm suggesting you might have had some of that data had you offered choices beyond the binary.
You should have given more options in the poll. For example, I think 9 weeks is a long time, but I don't particularly care as I hate full skirmish events. I think most people voting as I have feel similar.
I mean, I asked a yes or no question. How many options are really required for that? Yes, it’s too long or no it’s not. Bam. One. Two. Is there an option that isn’t covered by one of those 2 choices?
You're the one who's trying to figure out why people have voted no. I'm suggesting you might have had some of that data had you offered choices beyond the binary.
I asked a yes no question because I wanted a clear and concise answer to (what I thought was) a clear and concise question... Ha! I’ve already been made aware of what a complete and utter idiot I am for attempting to make a poll. And for making use of the most controversial “is” since Clinton was in office. And for not including yes, no, maybe, sometimes, Smelly is am dum dum, I like cheese, Disco Janeway, give us more fRaction events, and other as options. Anyone got anything else to add or did I cover everything?
I stand corrected. Since everything one has the audacity to write under this poll is apparently taken as a personal attack and/or ridiculed, its usefulness clearly doesn't lie in the discussion it prompted.
You should have given more options in the poll. For example, I think 9 weeks is a long time, but I don't particularly care as I hate full skirmish events. I think most people voting as I have feel similar.
I mean, I asked a yes or no question. How many options are really required for that? Yes, it’s too long or no it’s not. Bam. One. Two. Is there an option that isn’t covered by one of those 2 choices?
You're the one who's trying to figure out why people have voted no. I'm suggesting you might have had some of that data had you offered choices beyond the binary.
I asked a yes no question because I wanted a clear and concise answer to (what I thought was) a clear and concise question... Ha! I’ve already been made aware of what a complete and utter idiot I am for attempting to make a poll. And for making use of the most controversial “is” since Clinton was in office. And for not including yes, no, maybe, sometimes, Smelly is am dum dum, I like cheese, Disco Janeway, give us more fRaction events, and other as options. Anyone got anything else to add or did I cover everything?
Yur mudder was a hamster and yur father smelt of elderberries.......
😺🤓🖖🤓😺
"The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."
You should have given more options in the poll. For example, I think 9 weeks is a long time, but I don't particularly care as I hate full skirmish events. I think most people voting as I have feel similar.
I mean, I asked a yes or no question. How many options are really required for that? Yes, it’s too long or no it’s not. Bam. One. Two. Is there an option that isn’t covered by one of those 2 choices?
You're the one who's trying to figure out why people have voted no. I'm suggesting you might have had some of that data had you offered choices beyond the binary.
I asked a yes no question because I wanted a clear and concise answer to (what I thought was) a clear and concise question... Ha! I’ve already been made aware of what a complete and utter idiot I am for attempting to make a poll. And for making use of the most controversial “is” since Clinton was in office. And for not including yes, no, maybe, sometimes, Smelly is am dum dum, I like cheese, Disco Janeway, give us more fRaction events, and other as options. Anyone got anything else to add or did I cover everything?
You should have given more options in the poll. For example, I think 9 weeks is a long time, but I don't particularly care as I hate full skirmish events. I think most people voting as I have feel similar.
I mean, I asked a yes or no question. How many options are really required for that? Yes, it’s too long or no it’s not. Bam. One. Two. Is there an option that isn’t covered by one of those 2 choices?
You're the one who's trying to figure out why people have voted no. I'm suggesting you might have had some of that data had you offered choices beyond the binary.
I asked a yes no question because I wanted a clear and concise answer to (what I thought was) a clear and concise question... Ha! I’ve already been made aware of what a complete and utter idiot I am for attempting to make a poll. And for making use of the most controversial “is” since Clinton was in office. And for not including yes, no, maybe, sometimes, Smelly is am dum dum, I like cheese, Disco Janeway, give us more fRaction events, and other as options. Anyone got anything else to add or did I cover everything?
Live long and prosper. 🖖
"In the short run, the game defines the players. But in the long run, it's us players who define the game." — Nicky Case, The Evolution of Trust
For those that think 9 weeks isn’t too long between skirmishes, is it just because you don’t like them? Or do you have other reasons? Surely you see the benefit they have for your starbases (assuming it isn’t already maxed) even if it’s not particularly your favorite event type? And it’s not like we have an abundance of event types. Only 3 that we get on a somewhat regular basis. Do you really enjoy playing the same 2 event types 9 weeks in a row?
It's just because I don't like them. Lotsa tap-tap-tap, over and over.
Starbases? How are skirmishes connected to starbases?
For those that think 9 weeks isn’t too long between skirmishes, is it just because you don’t like them? Or do you have other reasons? Surely you see the benefit they have for your starbases (assuming it isn’t already maxed) even if it’s not particularly your favorite event type? And it’s not like we have an abundance of event types. Only 3 that we get on a somewhat regular basis. Do you really enjoy playing the same 2 event types 9 weeks in a row?
It's just because I don't like them. Lotsa tap-tap-tap, over and over.
Starbases? How are skirmishes connected to starbases?
Pretty sure he was saying you can farm lots of starbase components during them but I’ve never known anyone to not have 700 per day to donate
For those that think 9 weeks isn’t too long between skirmishes, is it just because you don’t like them? Or do you have other reasons? Surely you see the benefit they have for your starbases (assuming it isn’t already maxed) even if it’s not particularly your favorite event type? And it’s not like we have an abundance of event types. Only 3 that we get on a somewhat regular basis. Do you really enjoy playing the same 2 event types 9 weeks in a row?
It's just because I don't like them. Lotsa tap-tap-tap, over and over.
Starbases? How are skirmishes connected to starbases?
Pretty sure he was saying you can farm lots of starbase components during them but I’ve never known anyone to not have 700 per day to donate
I dropped below 15k holoemiters once. It was disconcerting.
Starbases? How are skirmishes connected to starbases?
Pretty sure he was saying you can farm lots of starbase components during them but I’ve never known anyone to not have 700 per day to donate
I dropped below 15k holoemiters once. It was disconcerting.
Yeah, the argument was likely about holoemitters specifically. And despite me having played the ever-livin'-heck out of most Skirmishes, I tend not to have much of a surplus of them. (At the moment, I have 118 of them.) Our starbase is maxed, but those are still what I generally donate for our dailies, since most of the other fleet members tend to give other starbase components. However, several of the people in our main fleet who don't give away most of their holos (unlike me) will often temporarily transfer to one of our other fleets in order to donate holos there for a week or two.
Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing. ~ Data, ST:TNG "Haven"
I found that too. Our starbase is maxed so it’s just replicator rooms but EVERYONE donates the eggs and jars of brains. Very few people donate folded towels and stadium lights.
Starbases? How are skirmishes connected to starbases?
Pretty sure he was saying you can farm lots of starbase components during them but I’ve never known anyone to not have 700 per day to donate
I dropped below 15k holoemiters once. It was disconcerting.
Yeah, the argument was likely about holoemitters specifically. And despite me having played the ever-livin'-heck out of most Skirmishes, I tend not to have much of a surplus of them. (At the moment, I have 118 of them.) Our starbase is maxed, but those are still what I generally donate for our dailies, since most of the other fleet members tend to give other starbase components. However, several of the people in our main fleet who don't give away most of their holos (unlike me) will often temporarily transfer to one of our other fleets in order to donate holos there for a week or two.
Yes sir, that is correct. Tritanium, though scare, trickles in fast enough from daily play and regular galaxy events. Holoemmiters are much more scarce and problematic without regular skirmish events.
Not long enough imo. I'm not a fan of skirmishes. With that said, I would not be opposed to skirmishes becoming the mid week mini events, they're just too tedious imo.
- Personally, I think it has been too long, the gap between skirmishes seems to be lengthening each time, and as my favorite event structure, this is not something I am personally happy with.
- I do not personally feel that cataclysm was a skirmish in spirit. Yes it featured ships, but that was where the similarities ended, it felt much more like an expedition with all the constant shuffling of crew between each fight, that cataclysm lacked the autopilot groove of a real skirmish. When I finally hit the finish line I felt relieved, not sad like I normally do after a skirmish. Plus, it happened mid-week *shrug*.
- I was personally OK with the nine week designation when I read the poll question. Mega events train us to see events in groups of four, and months either run four or five events, so I took nine weeks to basically either be "hey we're on our third cluster of events with no skirmish" or "hey it's been two months since our last skirmish". Waiting one more week to hit a round ten would IMO not change the heart of the question.
- I would be interested to see a poll asking people their preference for breaks between skirmish events, I think that would yield some telling and interesting results, and would probably lead to some good discussions.
- Personally, I think it has been too long, the gap between skirmishes seems to be lengthening each time, and as my favorite event structure, this is not something I am personally happy with.
- I do not personally feel that cataclysm was a skirmish in spirit. Yes it featured ships, but that was where the similarities ended, it felt much more like an expedition with all the constant shuffling of crew between each fight, that cataclysm lacked the autopilot groove of a real skirmish. When I finally hit the finish line I felt relieved, not sad like I normally do after a skirmish. Plus, it happened mid-week *shrug*.
- I was personally OK with the nine week designation when I read the poll question. Mega events train us to see events in groups of four, and months either run four or five events, so I took nine weeks to basically either be "hey we're on our third cluster of events with no skirmish" or "hey it's been two months since our last skirmish". Waiting one more week to hit a round ten would IMO not change the heart of the question.
- I would be interested to see a poll asking people their preference for breaks between skirmish events, I think that would yield some telling and interesting results, and would probably lead to some good discussions.
I think after seeing the nitpicking, dissection, and attacking of this poll anyone in their right mind would say I’m not making another poll on this subject. People are crazy!
- Personally, I think it has been too long, the gap between skirmishes seems to be lengthening each time, and as my favorite event structure, this is not something I am personally happy with.
- I do not personally feel that cataclysm was a skirmish in spirit. Yes it featured ships, but that was where the similarities ended, it felt much more like an expedition with all the constant shuffling of crew between each fight, that cataclysm lacked the autopilot groove of a real skirmish. When I finally hit the finish line I felt relieved, not sad like I normally do after a skirmish. Plus, it happened mid-week *shrug*.
- I was personally OK with the nine week designation when I read the poll question. Mega events train us to see events in groups of four, and months either run four or five events, so I took nine weeks to basically either be "hey we're on our third cluster of events with no skirmish" or "hey it's been two months since our last skirmish". Waiting one more week to hit a round ten would IMO not change the heart of the question.
- I would be interested to see a poll asking people their preference for breaks between skirmish events, I think that would yield some telling and interesting results, and would probably lead to some good discussions.
I think after seeing the nitpicking, dissection, and attacking of this poll anyone in their right mind would say I’m not making another poll on this subject. People are crazy!
If I remember in a few weeks, I'll make the poll. But now would be lousy timing. As I said, I have a thing about polls. And I know I'll get more accurate data if the poll is conducted when emotions calm down a bit.
First, polls with loaded language bother me, so I'm not voting. I'd rather just see a thread that says "9 weeks without a skirmish is too long."
I think you missed the "is" part, in the thread tile. it's not '9 weeks without a skirmish is too long.' it's 'is 9 weeks without a skirmish is too long?'
The "is" and the "?" make those two sentences mean different things. ;-]
My issue with this whole endeavour has been the fact that the OP asked for peoples opinions and yet when they gave them he belittled or berated them for them, making accusations about their motives and generally letting their emotions spill into what was a fairly lighthearted conversation. I don't think it's fair that an outcome of this is other people being made a running joke of.
First, polls with loaded language bother me, so I'm not voting. I'd rather just see a thread that says "9 weeks without a skirmish is too long."
I think you missed the "is" part, in the thread tile. it's not '9 weeks without a skirmish is too long.' it's 'is 9 weeks without a skirmish is too long?'
The "is" and the "?" make those two sentences mean different things. ;-]
I did not miss it. I think you missed the whole part where the OP told people how to vote. Which makes it less of a question and more of a call for support.
Comments
You just suggested the word “is” is a loaded word. Without it, it’s a statement, not a question. But I apologize to anyone else offended by my reckless use of the inflammatory word “is”. Clearly I was being an insensitive monster.
I mean, I asked a yes or no question. How many options are really required for that? Yes, it’s too long or no it’s not. Bam. One. Two. Is there an option that isn’t covered by one of those 2 choices?
I have been around for one year and afair there was no such sale during that time. But even if so... Do not waste dil on literally ANYTHING before you have 4 shuttles. They pay back a ton during and also outside of Faction events, and even if said sale happened next month you should not regret today's purchase.
I agree with you that Skirmishes are the best event, but I am really disliking your dogmatic tone when it comes to talking about them. Anytime someone expresses an opinion you don't like you jump down their throats or accuse people of looking for some way to get an advantage on you. It's totally fine for people to have mixed feelings about Skirmishes and to think that they need changes or improvements. They do.
I really like the mini-skirmish that we had midweek, I liked that the chron cost was high because it meant I had to do less skirmishing whilst still getting a taste of my favourite event. Skirmishes are still a lot of work (ie they involve doing something I'd rather not be doing.) Yes, they are very highly incentivised because they 'pay well', but I'd still rather be doing something else.
A higher chron/intel cost would not interfere enormously with the conversion of your existing stockpiles to your starbase either, as you still have to generate the same amount of intel, it just means that you don't have the endless loop of new chrons coming back into the game from the skirmishes (which is what makes them so much of an endurance contest). There are also tons of fully finished starbases that have loads of room for people. Do we actually need any new ones? (I'm not saying that you shouldn't want your own starbase, I am saying that maybe the game as a whole doesn't need your starbase when there is plenty of capacity already.)
I think the actual reason that skirmishes are appearing less frequently and DB are looking for new ways to use them is that there's very little money for them in skirmishes, especially now that they've reduced the number of new ships they are introducing. It would not totally shock me to see skirmishes go the way of expeditions. I wouldn't like that personally, but there's a reason that they are becoming rarer and I'd rather they were still a part of the game landscape even if they were removed from the event rotation.
Since you insist...
You aren't asking a useful question. You're making a statement and quantifying the number of people who agree with you. Nine is an arbitrary number of weeks. I understand the relevance, but the next 5 events are already planned out. This poll won't change that.
If you wanted to gather useful data, you could ask something like "How long do you think there should be between skirmish events?" You would get your skirmish junkies who say every week is fine by them. You would get skirmish haters who say they could do without skirmishes forever. And in between, you would probably get a bell curve that shows that sweet sport that players would most want.
Now, this example is more extreme than this poll, but if you are not familiar with the dihydrogen monoxide parody, please look it up. If you were to present information in such a way, then create a poll to ask people if it should be banned, you would have a very skewed and useless poll. That's not what you did here, but it comes across to me in the same vein with the way that you described how skirmishes help newer fleets and trying to elicit the response that you desire.
Please do not take this as a personal attack. I just have strong feelings about polls. I am trying to present information that will help you grow and gather data that is more accurate and useful.
I enjoy most of your posts. I like you as a person. When you pointed out that legendaries rewarded in skirmishes were SCI primary for a long time, it was GREAT! I think it really helped the community. It certainly helped my roster when that trend changed.
Agreed, I couldn't vote either. And now we've seen what the OP actually meant: can we please have more holoemitters and tritanium!
No, but it seemed like that’s what you were implying we should’ve done. So I had to wonder if that’s what you did. Most of us picked up a few hundred holoemmiters from clearing thresholds. A far cry from the tens of thousands of holoemmiters some of us get during real skirmishes. When skirmishes were more regular I donated 700 a day and never ran out. Even hit the 32767 cap at one point.
I didn’t realize anyone didn’t know exactly what I meant. It’s not like I just wanted them deposited directly into my bank account. I’m willing to grind for them the way I always have. Hours and hours and tens of thousands of chrons.
"Other" or "Something else" is always useful and it prompts people to explain themselves in the comments (I would have picked that one if it had been available). This way, it's not clear why people picked "No". Some of them probably hate Skirmishes and others prefer the mini-event version of a Skirmish to the original event type (I'm one of them).
And my guess is that a lot of people who don't have a strong opinion about this issue didn't take part in the poll, so the results are mainly from those who love or hate skirmishes, which doesn't give a good idea of how the majority of players feel about their frequency. A "Don't care" option could have changed that to a certain degree.
But it's not like this is an official poll from DB. Its usefulness is mainly in the discussion in this thread and in the fact that it shows that there are people who agree with you.
Boy, that’s a lot to cover. But you took the time to write it so I’ll try to give you the courtesy of a properish response. You called my tone dogmatic. I think frustrated is more accurate, at least from my perspective. I’m gonna leave that at that.
I don’t disagree with you that skirmishes could use improvement. I just think they need it less than faction events do. Just my opinion. Nobody has to agree with it.
I play skirmishes harder than other events because the rewards are good and it helps my fleet. In all honesty though, galaxy events are the ones I ENJOY playing the most. They aren’t perfect by a long shot, but I really appreciate the flexibility of them.
I disagree that that increased intel cost wouldn’t reduce holoemmiter gains. That endless loop you referred to is exactly why it’s possible to gain thousands of holoemmiters during a skirmish. Raise intel costs a little and I suspect holoemmiter gains would drop a lot, at least for the same amount of chrons going into the event. Until they introduce an alternative way of gaining holoemmiters and honor, I hope they don’t mess with it.
Does the game need more fleets? Probably not, but so what? That sounds like the rhetoric established fleets peddle to make life easier on themselves. Hey, you brought it up. That’s my opinion. Nobody has to agree with it. I started my fleet because I wanted to do something no other fleets were doing. It worked very well for us. There were some copycat attempts after I started the Hounds but I don’t know of any that were successful. We’re a lot closer to maxed now than not, so the chances of us throwing in the towel are virtually nil.
I don’t think you’re wrong about skirmish events being less profitable than other events. That’s not a justifiable reason to get rid of them, especially when so many players favor them. They’re way more popular than expedition events. I suspect nixing them altogether would cost TP more players than they care to lose.
No, no it's not too long.
You're the one who's trying to figure out why people have voted no. I'm suggesting you might have had some of that data had you offered choices beyond the binary.
I asked a yes no question because I wanted a clear and concise answer to (what I thought was) a clear and concise question... Ha! I’ve already been made aware of what a complete and utter idiot I am for attempting to make a poll. And for making use of the most controversial “is” since Clinton was in office. And for not including yes, no, maybe, sometimes, Smelly is am dum dum, I like cheese, Disco Janeway, give us more fRaction events, and other as options. Anyone got anything else to add or did I cover everything?
Yur mudder was a hamster and yur father smelt of elderberries.......
😺🤓🖖🤓😺
I do like cheese very much.
Live long and prosper. 🖖
It's just because I don't like them. Lotsa tap-tap-tap, over and over.
Starbases? How are skirmishes connected to starbases?
Pretty sure he was saying you can farm lots of starbase components during them but I’ve never known anyone to not have 700 per day to donate
I dropped below 15k holoemiters once. It was disconcerting.
Yeah, the argument was likely about holoemitters specifically. And despite me having played the ever-livin'-heck out of most Skirmishes, I tend not to have much of a surplus of them. (At the moment, I have 118 of them.) Our starbase is maxed, but those are still what I generally donate for our dailies, since most of the other fleet members tend to give other starbase components. However, several of the people in our main fleet who don't give away most of their holos (unlike me) will often temporarily transfer to one of our other fleets in order to donate holos there for a week or two.
Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing.
~ Data, ST:TNG "Haven"
Yes sir, that is correct. Tritanium, though scare, trickles in fast enough from daily play and regular galaxy events. Holoemmiters are much more scarce and problematic without regular skirmish events.
- Personally, I think it has been too long, the gap between skirmishes seems to be lengthening each time, and as my favorite event structure, this is not something I am personally happy with.
- I do not personally feel that cataclysm was a skirmish in spirit. Yes it featured ships, but that was where the similarities ended, it felt much more like an expedition with all the constant shuffling of crew between each fight, that cataclysm lacked the autopilot groove of a real skirmish. When I finally hit the finish line I felt relieved, not sad like I normally do after a skirmish. Plus, it happened mid-week *shrug*.
- I was personally OK with the nine week designation when I read the poll question. Mega events train us to see events in groups of four, and months either run four or five events, so I took nine weeks to basically either be "hey we're on our third cluster of events with no skirmish" or "hey it's been two months since our last skirmish". Waiting one more week to hit a round ten would IMO not change the heart of the question.
- I would be interested to see a poll asking people their preference for breaks between skirmish events, I think that would yield some telling and interesting results, and would probably lead to some good discussions.
I think after seeing the nitpicking, dissection, and attacking of this poll anyone in their right mind would say I’m not making another poll on this subject. People are crazy!
If I remember in a few weeks, I'll make the poll. But now would be lousy timing. As I said, I have a thing about polls.
I think you missed the "is" part, in the thread tile. it's not '9 weeks without a skirmish is too long.' it's 'is 9 weeks without a skirmish is too long?'
The "is" and the "?" make those two sentences mean different things. ;-]
I did not miss it. I think you missed the whole part where the OP told people how to vote. Which makes it less of a question and more of a call for support.
Context is for Kings.