How about a new way of looking at upgrades? [Archive]

cocoa-jin

10-22-2008, 09:10 PM

The devs say they want player skill and not level to count toward success or defeat in PvP, but I dont see how they will get away from that if upgrades just mean "buying your uberness" with some replacment for money or some other currency frequently tied to time spent in game.

Eventually what happens is that over time just about every system has some level of upgrade and several systems have massive upgrades, the ship because some uber-starship on stereroids and out matches the stock hull by some god-forsaken multiple.

Eventually Destroyers hit and tank like a Cruiser, Cruisers hit and tank like a battlecruiser, etc, etc.

I propose that a hull is only able to improve by 10-15% over the total "battle rating" of a stock hull and that upgrades not be used to make ships so muvh better, but instead specialized. The specialization will cater to a type of combat, providing strengths in one area, but inherit weakness in others. This means a skilled captain is one that identifies the strengths of his hull and his own personal combat style and specializes the ship toward that style at the expense of others. A successful captain then uses his strengths to his advanatage, while identifying the strength and weaknesses of his oppoenet and attempts to draw his opponent into a fight based on his weaknesses.

This may mean a phaser/range style might be able to increase his phaser output to 20-30%, but because of what he must give up in the process(shield strength, number of torpedo tubes, available aux power, etc), his total "battle rating" maxes out only 10-15% above that of a stock hull...any major advantage comes from captain skill and less reliant on the uberness of his hull. Certain systems have to be given up and the available upgrades of other systems is severly restricted in number and improvement.

A torpedo/close-range/assualt style would see an increase in torpedo tubes, and perhaps rate of fire, but would have to give up some phaser banks, should get rid of armor or some other form of mass for increased speed(he needs to be able to get in close), fewer phaser banks could mean some more power for shields since it needs to get in close, etc.

A sensory picket style would reduce weapon systems, increase sensory suites, reduce shields a little to compensate for the incresed power to sensors. Reduced mass from weapons system removal provides more speed and add an EW/ECM boost.

A standard ship upgrade would increase over all crew compliment by 10-15%, providing an overall bonus to the ship's stock format by that amount.

I guess what Im trying to do is have a captain committ to a combat style, a direction through his upgrades, not build something that out-classes the hull, not just committ to a "uber-ship"(we shouldnt be able to do something the shipyard and engineers couldnt do).

I dont know how easy and frequently we can upgrade our ships, but I'd assume we could choose another style and simply over-hual the hull to that style.

Siggy_23

10-22-2008, 09:20 PM

cocoa-jin

10-22-2008, 09:29 PM

i like the DAoC concept where the armor meant bunk if you didnt have the skill to use it . . . let anyone buy the best upgrade and put it on their ship (maybe not quantum torpedos) but nerf it because a ship of engsins doesnt know how to use it to its full potential

But a ship is crewed with both veterans and green crew...even new ships have veteran crew canablized from other ships...senior officers will always be veteran officers(thats why they are senior) and these seasoned vets are who mamage the various "departments"...so they would be able to manage/use the new stuff.

Nerfing certainly isnt the answer...why would Starfleet give a ship a system it couldnt handle?

Plus this just gives players who have been in gam elonger the advnatage in viable upgrades...not what the devs are looking for.

sdcabrad

10-22-2008, 09:37 PM

Plus this just gives players who have been in gam elonger the advnatage in viable upgrades...not what the devs are looking for.

Players who have been playing longer Should have an advantage in viable upgrades. Should somebody who starts playing 6 months after me get the same upgrades? or maybe I miss read the intention of your statement. Not meaning to flame, just clarification.

Siggy_23

10-22-2008, 09:37 PM

But a ship is crewed with both veterans and green crew...even new ships have veteran crew canablized from other ships...senior officers will always be veteran officers(thats why they are senior) and these seasoned vets are who mamage the various "departments"...so they would be able to manage/use the new stuff.

Nerfing certainly isnt the answer...why would Starfleet give a ship a system it couldnt handle?

Plus this just gives players who have been in gam elonger the advnatage in viable upgrades...not what the devs are looking for.

point well taken

cocoa-jin

10-22-2008, 09:59 PM

Players who have been playing longer Should have an advantage in viable upgrades. Should somebody who starts playing 6 months after me get the same upgrades? or maybe I miss read the intention of your statement. Not meaning to flame, just clarification.

The devs stated that they didnt want time in game to carry too much weight in engagements...they want skill...as in player skill, technique, strategy and ability to determine success, not ship/avatar "skills".

They realize that all player types are equally important, so people with real lives and jobs can play during their limited time and be competitve through their actions, not out-classed because of equipment.

So ideally, those who play more,have beenin game more should beat others because they as players are better and perhaps better practiced at execution of technique, strategy, maneuvers, systems managment, etc... not because they have slapped together a better ship.

Ideally all ships of a class would be roughly equal, with upgrades only providing a minor increase in over-all effectivness. Even then, a well flown stock vessel ought to be able to beat a not so well piloted vessel with upgrades because good skills ought to out-shine the upgrades. So In my mind that meant that upgrades cant be something used to "uber-fy" the vessel, but instead specialize it as a tool to amplify a player's skillful use of it...and the specilization meant improvements on place with reductions in others not consistent with the style?

In most games you improve things, but the other systems remain the same, it means an over all increase in the ship's "rating". You eventually get a chance to even improve the other systems which accelerates the rate of improvement over the stock hull...eventually its one its way to being "uber".

With this idea you can improve one system(or a couple of systems)at the expense of other systems, so it maintains some balance from the stock hull, with only a small increase over the stock hull "rating".

So yeah, they'll have access to the same upgrades...perhaps prestege would one to get them sooner or something. I believe all upgrades should be faction based and all applicable upgrades dished out to all it applies to in the faction over time, with perhaps prestege determining when you get yours.

AugustusTirion

10-22-2008, 10:56 PM

The devs stated...
Source or link please.

If this were a purely PvP game, I could easily see it.
PlanetSide is a good example of that model working well.

But, in a PvE game, I really don't see how such a promise can be delivered upon.
Hmm... No... let me rephrase that...
I really don't see a PvE game with such a model being successful.
You're, essentially, talking about playing the game from start to finish with almost no improvements. I suppose that's fine if the devs only want to cater to the RP-PvE crowd. But I suspect that's not a big enough demographic to make the game successful.

Lets be honest, there's a certain amount of 'e-peen stroking' in every MMO.
For the PvP crowd, your bragging rights are generally in your K/D ratio.
For the PvE crowd, it's generally in your 'uber loots'.

I can't help but wonder how much of the potential player base would be lost if players didn't get those shiny new guns/shields every so often (and please keep in mind that it'll probably take more then just die-hard trekkies playing to make the game a hit).

cocoa-jin

10-22-2008, 11:04 PM

Source or link please.

If this were a purely PvP game, I could easily see it.
PlanetSide is a good example of that model working well.

But, in a PvE game, I really don't see how such a promise can be delivered upon.
Hmm... No... let me rephrase that...
I really don't see a PvE game with such a model being successful.
You're, essentially, talking about playing the game from start to finish with almost no improvements. I suppose that's fine if the devs only want to cater to the RP-PvE crowd. But I suspect that's not a big enough demographic to make the game successful.

Lets be honest, there's a certain amount of 'e-peen stroking' in every MMO.
For the PvP crowd, your bragging rights are generally in your K/D ratio.
For the PvE crowd, it's generally in your 'uber loots'.

I can't help but wonder how much of the potential player base would be lost if players didn't get those shiny new guns/shields every so often (and please keep in mind that it'll probably take more then just die-hard trekkies playing to make the game a hit).

Which ever long standing vid clip at the Trek convention with Nimoy. It was in response the question of how will the devs deal with adult players with lives getting on and being ganked by 12 or 14 year old brats who get to play hours upon hours compared to those of use with responsibilites(i may have taken some liberities in my para-phrasing).

k.mpok

10-22-2008, 11:08 PM

RookActual

10-22-2008, 11:25 PM

So the problem remains, how to make it skill based yet still give a desire for equipment not to be completely useless.

As to that answer I am not sure. Maybe the slower aspect of space combat Cyrptic is taking will help since it will giving us more time to try different tactics/approaches/ manuevers.

Special equipment can allow you to do things similar to what talents or *shudders* feats allow you to do. Basically, stuff that lets you break the game's rules, but not in a gamebreaking way. Rulebreaking is the very heart of talents and feats. Also, they can be synergy points, as well. A piece of equipment can allow two otherwise irrelevant skills come together to perform a task.

An example, although not necesasarily one relevant to Trek, would be 'quick draw'. Drawing a weapon is usually an action, but with quickdraw, you ignore that typical rule and can immediately fire your weapon. A synergy is when you're shooting that weapon at, per se, an Andorian, and you happen to know Andorian anatomy well enough to know shooting them in their antennae will instantly kill them(Okay, Im making that up, probably, just run with it.)....the skill comes into play when you roll to hit the antennae, which are small and not so easy to hit, but if you roll high enough, you can. However, you may not need to roll so high if you had a talent like 'crack shot', which removes penalties for aiming at particular parts of the anatomy. If the target is moving, you may have a talent such as 'stable gunner'...which removes the penalty for shooting a moving target.

All these talents could easily be translated into equipment for your vessel, or perhaps that's where the NPC's come in, in this case you may have a tactical officer that has some talents. I know it seems a starship can do all those things with the computer, so keep in mind it was just an example.

Now, how does this work in a skillpoint based game? Easily, because I just took all those abilities(mostly) from a skill based game, and my character sheet. Those are all talents that have a cost associated with them. I could have either put those points into my skills, or, such as I did, I bought those talents. Considering my character is illiterate and not very attractive or charismatic, but could hit a penny from a thousand yards away...meh. I'll spend points on the reading part later.

cocoa-jin

10-22-2008, 11:34 PM

My only concern when it comes to post about wanting Skill over equipment is how they wish to bring that about.

Maybe say that equipment shouldn't mean as much yet when you take a game that IS skill over equipment (See AoC) where equipment mean nothing. Example I deal near as much damage as a nuker fully equiped as I would if I wore nothing (been proven time and again over there). All you here now concerning equipment in AoC now is how they want dropped equipment/crafted equipment to mean something and provide a better benefit.

So the problem remains, how to make it skill based yet still give a desire for equipment not to be completely useless.

As to that answer I am not sure. Maybe the slower aspect of space combat Cyrptic is taking will help since it will giving us more time to try different tactics/approaches/ manuevers.

Perhaps a constant tech "cold war" where there are periodic upgrades for the various systems for each side that is distributed through out the faction populations. I assume there will systems that some ships have that others dont, even within a faction. The diversity in systems creates a nice lottery of periodic upgrade releases. The distribution of the upgrades for those with the appropriate system will create a dynamic relationships through out the life of the game/campaign, whatever. When you meet a vessel from another faction, you never know who will have the upgrade, though eventully all with the system will have it.

The upgrade could be distributed over the course of a few weeks. Perhaps you have to be logged on or it passes over to the next player, and you have to wait for it to come around again over the course of the few weeks. At the end of the distribution period it just becomes available immediatly as stock for anyone who didnt recieve it during the perod.

The various upgrades would be randomly generated and part of a faction's upgrades would be counters to the other faction's upgrades. So has one faction's damage output increases, we will eventually see the other faction's resistance increase to some level near the upgrade...so Fed phaser increase by 5% would eventually trigger a 4-6% increase in shield strength for the Klingons, a 3% increase in Klingon torpedos would bring a 2-4% in Fed armor/hull, etc. It might be the next upgrade that counters, or a few upgrades later.

Decius

10-23-2008, 04:02 AM

cocoa-jin

10-23-2008, 03:32 PM

This is a hard topic, really is. I keep imagining the "what if" scenarios and it just goes in circles.

I like meaningful item upgrades, although I wouldn't consider myself dependent on them. What I mean by that, is item upgrades that have value and usefullness and doesn't feel the item upgrades are just candy coating with little to no upgrade value underneath. It's one thing I didn't like too much about WAR, the trivial items that you get for questing.. they didn't feel like it had much merit to them or worth, but just the "next thing" on the list.

EVE did an alright job in my opinion concerning this, if you played for a long time you had a broad spectrum of skills, but on the same token a new player can spend a little bit of time to get top end skills and a solid ship in a short amount of time, but they won't have the broad spectrum of skills that a seasoned and longterm player has, yet it still gives the new player the opportunity to participate at the level of a seasoned player in some regards.

For example..

Mr. Seasoned Player
Sovereign Class Starship
Mark IV Phasers
Mark III Photon Torpedos
Mark V Shields
Mark VI Sensors
Mark III Medlab
Mark IV Tactical Interface

Total: 25 Points (for references sake - for experience comparison)

Little Junior (aka the new guy)
Intrepid Class Ship
Mark IV Phasers
Mark II Photo Torpedos
Mark III Shields
Mark I Sensors
Mark I Medlab
Mark II Tactical Interface

Total 13 Points

The new player spent most of the points in upgrading the phasers and shields, and with some in the tactical interface. Well, my point is... is even in EVE someone who is new can make a PVP worthy ship relatively soon in their career, it may not be top-of-the-line but still it can take someone out if played right, and there comes the player skill factor.

EVE's upgrade system and combat model is what I personally want to avoid. It wasnt very impressive to me, the shear variety of upgrades is impressive, but the over-all combat model was unimpressive. I'd like to see something different that places more importance on player action, execution, etc. I'd like to see manuever combat be more important, environmental interaction be more important, and tactics... not uber equipment upgrades and the spamming of a such systems be at the forefornt.

I'd like to see choosing a style/philosophy of combat that fits you as a player, lead to a type of hull that is compatiable with your style and customization the ship toward that style and the captains skillful use of the ship lead to success...not uber equipping and relying on the equipment to defeat the enemy.

What I loved about Klingon Acadamy was my ability to take a BoP and use it skillfully and defeat or severly affect much larger/powerful ships(especially in mixed group combat)because I used my ship well, not because I had uber-equipment.

Decius

10-23-2008, 04:41 PM

EVE's upgrade system and combat model is what I personally want to avoid. It wasnt very impressive to me, the shear variety of upgrades is impressive, but the over-all combat model was unimpressive. I'd like to see something different that places more importance on player action, execution, etc. I'd like to see manuever combat be more important, environmental interaction be more important, and tactics... not uber equipment upgrades and the spamming of a such systems be at the forefornt.

I'd like to see choosing a style/philosophy of combat that fits you as a player, lead to a type of hull that is compatiable with your style and customization the ship toward that style and the captains skillful use of the ship lead to success...not uber equipping and relying on the equipment to defeat the enemy.

What I loved about Klingon Acadamy was my ability to take a BoP and use it skillfully and defeat or severly affect much larger/powerful ships(especially in mixed group combat)because I used my ship well, not because I had uber-equipment.

That's why I said "EVE did an alright job", not a perfect job. But it the idea behind it I liked, even the most decked out ship can be taken out by someone who's relatively new, who picked whatever setup they liked, and used skill to kill the veteran player and his/her more advanced and better equipped ship.

I don't want ship upgrades to be like 0.5% itty bitty dinky improvements, where I get the impression of.. "I got the next upgrade, meh..." but on the same token I don't want to be able to roll my face across the keyboard and own an entire quadrant just from my more advanced upgrades. Sure there has to be a middle ground there at some point, I won't argue that. But I don't want upgrades to be so small that it makes me /shrug, I do want it just enough to make me actually eager to fly back to a starbase and get that new upgrade and say to myself.. "I can't wait to try this new one out!". The only problem with that is, the whole "just enough" is a relative thing and a matter of opinion, for you it may be fine, but for me it may not be, and vice versa.

I know all about KA, I used to play it all the time. Speaking of which, I re-downloaded the multiplayer demo due to me lacking all the game CD's except for one, and started playing again a day ago (link (http://startrekalliance.com/forums/general-discussion/31-sto-ship-systems-like-klingon-academy-ships.html) to my ordeal).

cocoa-jin

10-23-2008, 07:03 PM

That's why I said "EVE did an alright job", not a perfect job. But it the idea behind it I liked, even the most decked out ship can be taken out by someone who's relatively new, who picked whatever setup they liked, and used skill to kill the veteran player and his/her more advanced and better equipped ship.

The problem was the new ship usually won because of rock-paper-scissors, so in the end it was the equopment again. If the veteran had the "wrong set-up" against the other ship he's toast...once again making equipment to influential.

I know all about KA, I used to play it all the time. Speaking of which, I re-downloaded the multiplayer demo due to me lacking all the game CD's except for one, and started playing again a day ago (link (http://startrekalliance.com/forums/general-discussion/31-sto-ship-systems-like-klingon-academy-ships.html) to my ordeal).

Really, you can still get Klingon Acadamey? Where? Are there still people playing, is it easy to get into a multiplier match?

Trekkie

10-23-2008, 07:04 PM

I definitely think that this is an interesting take on the idea and you definitely have some great concepts! Obviously very little is known about how upgrades will work in the game but I would not be opposed to seeing something similar to this in the game!

AugustusTirion

10-23-2008, 09:58 PM

The problem was the new ship usually won because of rock-paper-scissors, so in the end it was the equopment again. If the veteran had the "wrong set-up" against the other ship he's toast...once again making equipment to influential.
In other words, you want everyone the same.
We'll all just fly around in Sovereigns, with the Klingons in their equivalent, with no hope of ever differentiating ourselves or our preferred style of play. Bleh. Not fun. :(

The 'rock-paper-scissors' approach is the norm in MMOs.
Don't expect everyone to have the same chances in 1v1 fights, since that's not the goal of a group oriented game.
Success in squadron fights should be about how well each member of your squadron preforms their specific role.
How quickly does the Intrepid (Science/Sensors, or 'buffer' in fantasy MMOs) in your squad find and relay your enemies weaknesses.
Are the Sovereigns (Tanks) good at putting up a block between the enemies and the support vessels.
Are the Defiants (Corvettes, think Assassin/Rogue in other MMOs) good at quickly flanking the enemy for a strafing run and getting out again.
Are the Akiras (Missile boats, 'Ranged' DPS classes like Mage or Hunter/Ranger) good at pecking away at the enemies from behind the Sovs while keep an eye out to make sure they don't get flanked.

As for ensign vs admiral argument.... As I said before, in any MMO with major PvE I expect there to be a rather noticeable 'power curve' as level/rank/whatever progresses.
That power curve doesn't necessarily exclude the ensign from the PvP field, although it may exclude him from certain roles such as 'tank'. The lower level player should still be able to contribute to his squads damage output capacity.

JMD10222

10-23-2008, 11:01 PM

I see your point, but until we know more about the Skill/Talent/Rank (or whatever the heck they decide to call it) system its very hard to speculate on what will or will not work. We will just have to wait and see what they come up with.

cocoa-jin

10-24-2008, 12:27 AM

In other words, you want everyone the same.
We'll all just fly around in Sovereigns, with the Klingons in their equivalent, with no hope of ever differentiating ourselves or our preferred style of play. Bleh. Not fun. :(

The 'rock-paper-scissors' approach is the norm in MMOs.
Don't expect everyone to have the same chances in 1v1 fights, since that's not the goal of a group oriented game.
Success in squadron fights should be about how well each member of your squadron preforms their specific role.
How quickly does the Intrepid (Science/Sensors, or 'buffer' in fantasy MMOs) in your squad find and relay your enemies weaknesses.
Are the Sovereigns (Tanks) good at putting up a block between the enemies and the support vessels.
Are the Defiants (Corvettes, think Assassin/Rogue in other MMOs) good at quickly flanking the enemy for a strafing run and getting out again.
Are the Akiras (Missile boats, 'Ranged' DPS classes like Mage or Hunter/Ranger) good at pecking away at the enemies from behind the Sovs while keep an eye out to make sure they don't get flanked.

As for ensign vs admiral argument.... As I said before, in any MMO with major PvE I expect there to be a rather noticeable 'power curve' as level/rank/whatever progresses.
That power curve doesn't necessarily exclude the ensign from the PvP field, although it may exclude him from certain roles such as 'tank'. The lower level player should still be able to contribute to his squads damage output capacity.

Actually no, i dont want everyone in the same ship. Each ship/hull will essentially have its own character as due to its, strengths, weaknesses inherit in the stock hull. Im saying we use upgrades to take the character of a ship and specialize toward a style. So a Soveriegn set-up as a close quarters assualt specialist with extra torpedo tubes, and fewer phasers will fight and behave on the battlefiled much different than a Soveriegn with a range set-up with more phasers and less tubes, compared to a stock Soveriegn with a crew upgrade. A Soveriegn assualt set-up will generally like the same type of fight, will carry similar combat philosophy, tactics, etc as a Klingon of equal class with a assualt set-up also, but they wont be the same ship. Each hull orginated with a specific character based on its stock design, the assualt upgrade only builds on top of what was already there. So they will behave similar because their style in large part dictates the tactics(those tactics that are compatiable with the style's strength), but they will not be red vs blue...it wont be the same ship dressed in faction clothing.

Lets do away with these generic MMO classes, lets not try and use these on warships where maneuver combat is essential, where environmental influences play a part...these old MMo classes are the same lame models that include range/sniper classes but wont let you get more than 20 paces from your opponent, where you spam an attack and you have no real input in weither it was executed propely to actually land, these models deetrmine weither you hit your target based on your level and not your skill as a player in putting weapon son target, instead there is a roll of the dice coupled with multipliers and other dice rolls to decide if you hit or if you place a critical hit....that has no place here. It has no place because all those models rely on levels, chance...not on skill, not on talent, not on tactics.

Father_Origin

10-24-2008, 02:11 AM

hmmm good thread.

I would like to think there are 3 flavors in starship...variation

the first is cosmetic - Maybe should be given to players that complete certain
missions, reach a certain rank, or are conected with thier particular racial origin.
-----They are a lot of fun and don't effect play balance at all.

the second is changes that reflect a persons play style - these would be changes
of equal value but different effect. The power of the new weapon should require
the removal of equal or better weapons, as an example - if you want your ship to have
an UBER photon laucher, you must give up 2 regular launchers in trade, or if
you wanted a Hellbore weapon (from SFB) you would have to give up an equally
valuable weapon.

-----This should be limited by available space in the hull for weapon hard points. The
-----easiest way to scale the weapons in over-all power/effectiveness would be
-----to set one common weapon as the base (this weapon uses 1.0 space) then have all
-----other weapons scaled against it (if the weapon is twice as powerful it uses 2.0 space)
-----then limit the total weapon system space available based on the class of the ship.

the third should be the rarest - Upgrades, this should be hard to get and very limited.
Possible upgrades should be to the ship's base systems or a small increase in the available
weapon space.
-----Unlike the other 2 'flavors' this one could unbalance fights so should be used sparingly.

just a thought

cocoa-jin

10-24-2008, 10:27 AM

Even the rarest upgrades should sacrifice something. Everything has to remain balanced and the ship needs to not so much become some steroid version of itself, just a specialized version.

Any rare upgrade should still only provide a small overall increasse to total ship "rating".

ajaco3025

10-24-2008, 10:57 AM

The devs say they want player skill and not level to count toward success or defeat in PvP, but I dont see how they will get away from that if upgrades just mean "buying your uberness" with some replacment for money or some other currency frequently tied to time spent in game.

If CCP can do it for Eve, I'm sure Cryptic can do it for STO.

Eventually what happens is that over time just about every system has some level of upgrade and several systems have massive upgrades, the ship because some uber-starship on stereroids and out matches the stock hull by some god-forsaken multiple.

Eventually Destroyers hit and tank like a Cruiser, Cruisers hit and tank like a battlecruiser, etc, etc.

Not every ship will be the same if the ships are modular. I might have more shield modules on my ship where you have more damage modules.

EDIT: From what I am understanding from Jack it that each ship should have different bonuses depending on their role and also the skills of the Captain affects its performance. The actual level of the Captain doesn't really affect much at all except what ship he/she can fly.

Some modules that are advanced could have bonuses as well as penalties. A module to boost your sensors could have two different affects depending on what type you use.

Some examples:

Sensor Modification Array (Basic):
Gives a 5% increase to targeting range or tracking speed. Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized by 0.5% per module.

Sensor Modification Array (Advanced):
Gives a 10% increase to targeting range or tracking speed. Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized by 0.5% per module.

Warp Core Stabilizer (Basic):
This module compensates for fluctuations and disruptions of the ships warp core and must be activated by the player. Bonus: +3% to stability Penalty: -30 to targeting range.

Warp Core Stabilizer (Advanced):
This module compensates for fluctuations and disruptions of the ships warp core and must be activated by the player. Bonus: +5% to stability Penalty: -25 to targeting range.

Shield Power Relay (Basic):
Increases the rate at which shields regenerate by 0.9%. Penalty: -0.5 reduction in shield capacity.

Shield Power Relay (Advanced):
Increases the rate at which shields regenerate by 1.3%. Penalty: -0.3 reduction in shield capacity.

Weapon Power Relay (Basic):
Reduces the amount of power needed for energy weapons. Bonus: -2% reduction in energy consumption. Penalty: -1.3% reduction in CPU output.

Weapon Power Relay (Advanced):
Reduces the amount of power needed for energy weapons. Bonus: -5% reduction in energy consumption. Penalty: -0.9% reduction in CPU output.

Just some ideas on modules that would require you to think of how you want to set up your ship.

Raso719

10-24-2008, 11:25 AM

So ideally, those who play more,have beenin game more should beat others because they as players are better and perhaps better practiced at execution of technique, strategy, maneuvers, systems managment, etc... not because they have slapped together a better ship.

This makes scense to me. I use to play wow on and off, and one issue I had in both PvP and PvE is my equipment sucked. I rarrly had the funds to properly outfit my character untill I already had to get the next, next thing and seldum had the motivation or man power to run instances. I was DEFINATLY a casual player by and determination.
But dispite my sucky gear, in PvP I learned tio rely on y allies and use my character's stregnths and weaknesses to my advantage and over came.
Time spent playing turned into human skill (or twitch if you prefer, though I don't like that term). This cognative ability of mine mad the diferance a lot of times, but other times I was simply out clased by the oposition. It was ofter brutaly clear that my gear sucked and had I spent that past 9 level doing more instances, loot grinding and selling crap at the AH I'd be a much more viable combatant. The other half of the equastion is this: Time spent doing instances and not as fun grind stuff = Avatar skill.
The reason most of the time in an MMO I have less powerful still is because I dispise grinding. Grinding to me has always been boring. Nothing short of looting "The Sword of a Thousand Truths" would make wasting hours upon hours in mindless killing worth wile, but if I don't loot it in at least 5 days of 3 to 4 hour play, then it's not worth my time and I'll go do the quest for the "Sowrd of a Hundred Implications" because it a more realistic goal for me.
There needs to be a blance between player skill and equipment/skill/level bonuses. And I feel it is obtainable.

One major obsticle in doing this is the player base. A great many gamers have lost thier way. They've become so focused on the reward that they don't care if the game is fun or not as long as it has a familiar title or runs off of a familiar fanchise and has a lot of I win bottuns and a lot of rewards. To me, if a game is fun it's worth playing, that's the reward. I fail to see how pushing a mouse bottun every second and occasionaly fiddling with my AWSD keys and number pad is entertaining. The control over my caracter needs to be meaninful with interesting things happening and a griping story. I don't need some carbon copy steriotypical characters to relate to, and don't insult me intelegance by writing a halfassed story and filling in the blanks with a lot of over emotionan and over dramatic BS and referances to current events and such. If the story is good it's worth telling, if it's not don't doctor it up with fluf.

Wow, I went on a tangent.....

AugustusTirion

10-24-2008, 11:58 AM

If CCP can do it for Eve, I'm sure Cryptic can do it for STO.
Eve and STO is an 'apples and oranges' comparison.

The type of balance being sought for in this thread is good for a PvP focused game, such as Eve, but it's generally not well received in a PvE game.
The driving force of the PvE game is generally the next 'new toy', and folks usually aren't happy when the new toy isn't really much of an upgrade from the old toy.

As long as there aren't 'to hit' modifiers connected to rank, I don't see a problem.
A new captain's ship might have 4x the overall capabilities of an ensign's ships, but 4 ensigns working together should have a reasonable chance of defeating 1 captain.
Someone with 100s of hours of game time as a captain might have 140% (by way of 'uber' upgrades) of the basic capabilities of their hull, but 2 'new' captains working together would be more then a match.

But if you're looking for 1v1 balance, regardless of time spent in game, between 2 players at max rank and with the same hull/configuration... I just can't agree.
If one of those players has 100s of hours raiding with their fleet, I'd expect that effort to be rewarded with equipment that'd give them an advantage in a 1v1 fight.

To put it in 'real' terms. Jack and Smitty have the same job with the same responsibilities and are equally capable.
Jack works 80hrs a week, Smitty works 8hrs a week.
If I were Jack, I'd be seriously PO'd if Smitty got the same pay.

ajaco3025

10-24-2008, 12:16 PM

Eve and STO is an 'apples and oranges' comparison.

The type of balance being sought for in this thread is good for a PvP focused game, such as Eve, but it's generally not well received in a PvE game.
The driving force of the PvE game is generally the next 'new toy', and folks usually aren't happy when the new toy isn't really much of an upgrade from the old toy.

As long as there aren't 'to hit' modifiers connected to rank, I don't see a problem.
A new captain's ship might have 4x the overall capabilities of an ensign's ships, but 4 ensigns working together should have a reasonable chance of defeating 1 captain.
Someone with 100s of hours of game time as a captain might have 140% (by way of 'uber' upgrades) of the basic capabilities of their hull, but 2 'new' captains working together would be more then a match.

But if you're looking for 1v1 balance, regardless of time spent in game, between 2 players at max rank and with the same hull/configuration... I just can't agree.
If one of those players has 100s of hours raiding with their fleet, I'd expect that effort to be rewarded with equipment that'd give them an advantage in a 1v1 fight.

To put it in 'real' terms. Jack and Smitty have the same job with the same responsibilities and are equally capable.
Jack works 80hrs a week, Smitty works 8hrs a week.
If I were Jack, I'd be seriously PO'd if Smitty got the same pay.

Apples and oranges? You just described a part of Eve.

Anyway, the point is that having a level difference doesn't allow for new players to jump in PvP and help because they would get smacked too easily by much higher leveled characters. Also, making everyone exactly the same would not let me feel like my character is unique nor would it allow for variety. Variety where myself and one other in a fleet have a high shield capacity due to modules and skills but my damage modifier is higher than his, his armor is higher than mine.

I don't want to be forced to one ship. While I may be promoted to fly a Soveriegn, that doesn't mean I want to. And if I do buy one to fly but I want to switch to a smaller ship, why can I not have kept the one I had before?

cocoa-jin

10-24-2008, 02:38 PM

Eve and STO is an 'apples and oranges' comparison.

The type of balance being sought for in this thread is good for a PvP focused game, such as Eve, but it's generally not well received in a PvE game.
The driving force of the PvE game is generally the next 'new toy', and folks usually aren't happy when the new toy isn't really much of an upgrade from the old toy.

As long as there aren't 'to hit' modifiers connected to rank, I don't see a problem.
A new captain's ship might have 4x the overall capabilities of an ensign's ships, but 4 ensigns working together should have a reasonable chance of defeating 1 captain.
Someone with 100s of hours of game time as a captain might have 140% (by way of 'uber' upgrades) of the basic capabilities of their hull, but 2 'new' captains working together would be more then a match.

But if you're looking for 1v1 balance, regardless of time spent in game, between 2 players at max rank and with the same hull/configuration... I just can't agree.
If one of those players has 100s of hours raiding with their fleet, I'd expect that effort to be rewarded with equipment that'd give them an advantage in a 1v1 fight.

To put it in 'real' terms. Jack and Smitty have the same job with the same responsibilities and are equally capable.
Jack works 80hrs a week, Smitty works 8hrs a week.
If I were Jack, I'd be seriously PO'd if Smitty got the same pay.

I assume you were just throwing numbers, but Ideally the veteran or big time player would have a ship thats only 110% to 115% over stock. It provides some bonus that a skilled captain can exploit, but not so big that the ship does all the work for him...in addition, I believe a 10-15% advantage can be overcome by a skillful captain with a stock or less upgraded ship(like at 107%) if he pocess real skill over the more upgraded captain.

Dont tell me you deserve an automatic win button because you've been in game longer...show me you deserve to beat me because you actually learned something, developed a skill in all your timen in game. Beef up and flex your mental muscle not your ship's. Ride your abilities to victory, not your ship.

For all we know Jack just sits there and does the same old same old, no innovation, no expansion of experience...Smitty migt produce more, be more skilled and gets the job done better and faster. So instead of giving you a crutch to big time players on your future success, why not assume you should be better at executing and exploiting the mechanics because of all your time in game...and have your success be based on your ability.

In addition, PvE always results in farming, Ive yet to truly see any innovation in AI, you just slug it out mindlessly and if you cant do it now, you wait until your basically out-classing them and try it again. Maybe if we stopped with all the uber-upgrades the devs will have to find away to model NPCs/MOBs so we beat them with tactics and strategy.

ExAstris

10-24-2008, 03:40 PM

Personally, I think EVE's system works just fine in terms of the skills. You'll of course have to do different work with the ships to have them feel Trek instead of eve-ish. With EVE's skill system you can balance the top tier vessels by their capabilities when a max skilled pilot flies them. Slots and modules can be modified according to those balancing needs. PvE and PvP tend to balance pretty well against each other under this skill system. Eve's PvE isn't top notch compared to some games, but it works still, and there is always room for improvement.

But I would consider the PvE element of the game independant of the skill/level system personally. The ship configurations and abilities/roles will define starship combat as much as any class does in a level based game.

Given that reality, the ships and items and/or abilities themselves will determine more about the tactical gameplay than the skills/levels will.

thefreshjedi

10-24-2008, 04:02 PM

Eve and STO is an 'apples and oranges' comparison.

The type of balance being sought for in this thread is good for a PvP focused game, such as Eve, but it's generally not well received in a PvE game.
The driving force of the PvE game is generally the next 'new toy', and folks usually aren't happy when the new toy isn't really much of an upgrade from the old toy.

As long as there aren't 'to hit' modifiers connected to rank, I don't see a problem.
A new captain's ship might have 4x the overall capabilities of an ensign's ships, but 4 ensigns working together should have a reasonable chance of defeating 1 captain.
Someone with 100s of hours of game time as a captain might have 140% (by way of 'uber' upgrades) of the basic capabilities of their hull, but 2 'new' captains working together would be more then a match.

But if you're looking for 1v1 balance, regardless of time spent in game, between 2 players at max rank and with the same hull/configuration... I just can't agree.
If one of those players has 100s of hours raiding with their fleet, I'd expect that effort to be rewarded with equipment that'd give them an advantage in a 1v1 fight.

To put it in 'real' terms. Jack and Smitty have the same job with the same responsibilities and are equally capable.
Jack works 80hrs a week, Smitty works 8hrs a week.
If I were Jack, I'd be seriously PO'd if Smitty got the same pay.

I really like these ideas Augustus, but I can understand your ideas behind it also. I think they could be applied to both. I'm sure Pax will disagree with us both, in fact I'm surprized he hasn't already commented here. The one thing I'm not looking forward to is repairs. Although I realize they are important, it just seems to be a pain to have to repair your ship for things, especially when per-canon they were usually able to make repairs in space.

( I do realize that major damage would need to be repaired at a Starbase maybe ), but the thought of having to pay for it is all that bothers me. I also hope that we don't see item decay in the game. I think item decay is pretty silly too.

-Avery

AugustusTirion

10-24-2008, 04:24 PM

For starters, let me say again that if STO's primary focus was PvP, I'd agree with you 100%
But since I'm of the impression that PvE will be a major component of the game, I can't agree with your upgrades model.

Let me also again say that the entire thread is flawed/corrupted by the fact that it's focused on 1v1 balance.
MMOs are NOT about 1v1 fights.
If you're continually getting your tailpipe handed to you by a particular enemy ship, don't whine 'it's not fair', get some friends to come help.

Dont tell me you deserve an automatic win button because you've been in game longer...I never said a 'win button', simply that a player that has invested significantly more time has earned their equipment advantage.

Put the shoe on the other foot.
You deserve an equal footing just because you want it?
For some mystical reason, you don't need to earn your advantage?

For all we know Jack just sits there and does the same old same old, no innovation, no expansion of experience...Smitty migt produce more, be more skilled and gets the job done better and faster...The example I gave was specific, Jack and Smitty are equally capable.
Yet you seem to think it's o.k. for Smitty to receive the same (or near to it) pay as Jack, despite doing a tenth of the work.

In addition, PvE always results in farming, Ive yet to truly see any innovation in AI, you just slug it out mindlessly and if you cant do it now, you wait until your basically out-classing them and try it again. Maybe if we stopped with all the uber-upgrades the devs will have to find away to model NPCs/MOBs so we beat them with tactics and strategy.
I'd have to guess that you've never participated in high end PvE raiding.
I won't claim the AI is notably different, it's still just a series of scripted events, but the difficulty of the situation requires a significant amount of skill. Not just an individuals skill, but 20 or 40 or more people working together flawlessly. Where one persons mistake can lead to everyone's death.
IMO, the skill required to get through such 'boss' encounters earns the victor their spoils.

...The one thing I'm not looking forward to is repairs. Although I realize they are important, it just seems to be a pain to have to repair your ship for things, especially when per-canon they were usually able to make repairs in space. ...
-Avery
While not my fav thing, I understand paying for repairs.
It's a money sink. And, unfortunately, every game needs a few money sinks to keep the economy stable.

Decius

10-24-2008, 04:28 PM

The problem was the new ship usually won because of rock-paper-scissors, so in the end it was the equopment again. If the veteran had the "wrong set-up" against the other ship he's toast...once again making equipment to influential.

Really, you can still get Klingon Acadamey? Where? Are there still people playing, is it easy to get into a multiplier match?

Yes, you can still find the multiplayer demo for KA. Some people were interested in that thread (link) (http://startrekalliance.com/forums/general-discussion/31-sto-ship-systems-like-klingon-academy-ships.html) I linked to. I haven't played online with that yet, was just doing some quick fights.

I don't have any issue what-so-ever with a rock-paper-scissors type of gameplay. It's a massive multiplayer type of game where group play is essential, and with that comes ships with multiple roles. Having ships with multiple roles could very well mean that some ships fair better than others against certain other ships, I'm fine with that. I do think that EVE is a good example, at least in the regard that even a newer player can take out a veteran depending on how the new player set up his/her ship. If a new player wants to get into PvP, then skip past learning scanning, warp calibration, structural integrity, and etc upgrades, just go straight for the shields, phasers, and torpedoes. A good very low end and newbie friendly ship I had in EVE was just a cruiser with long range weaponary and superb speed, and you can get that pretty early in the game.

Should there be a "power curve" in STO? I think so, although not as dramatic as say.. pre-expansion WoW where people who had decked out raid gear characters crushed the people who didn't (just using this for reference).

Decius

10-24-2008, 04:40 PM

To put it in 'real' terms. Jack and Smitty have the same job with the same responsibilities and are equally capable.
Jack works 80hrs a week, Smitty works 8hrs a week.
If I were Jack, I'd be seriously PO'd if Smitty got the same pay.

I think there should be a difference, just not a huge difference. As I said in my last post the whole WoW raid gear decked out characters could just roll their faces across their keyboards and kill everyone around them (pre-exp, it's the best example imo). It would be like saying someone in STO could roll their faces across the keyboard and own everyone the quadrant.

I do think there should be a power curve, and mixed with that is how you modify your ship. The power curve shouldn't be huge in comparison to someone who can play 80+ hours per week over someone who can only play 10+ hours per week, but it should be there. But with that comes how they personally customize their ship. Smitty with his tons of playing time could have a decked out ship, that would be considered top-of-the-line and a terror in the quadrant, but it was configured a certain way.. for example anyone that gets close to his ship would be destroyed fairly quickly with his devastating close range weaponary in which he focused all of his time into, yet due to that he lacks long range capabilities. Jack could have a ship that is both quick and agile, and equipped with long range weaponary. Under those circumstances, even with Smittys top-of-the-line ship decked out with his powerful modifications, still isn't going to handle Jack very well.

Sure in this scenario its based on itemization to an extent. But here is the plus side that perhaps some people are forgetting... you are not locked into a specific role, just like in EVE. In games such as EQ, WoW, and such you would have to basically re-roll to have something completely different, in a game like EVE (and hopefully something like STO) you can just go back to a starbase and re-configure your ship to how you want it to be, from the ground up. The longer you play the game, the more broad your capabilities will be which would include the scope of how you can modify your ship. Someone who plays the game 80+ hours per week may have some edges in certain areas over another person who plays 10+ hours per week, but that person that plays 10+ hours per week can focus on specific things if he/she wants to get into the PvP action quick and have a ship worthy of doing so.

AugustusTirion

10-24-2008, 05:01 PM

... with that comes how they personally customize their ship. Smitty with his tons of playing time could have a decked out ship, that would be considered top-of-the-line and a terror in the quadrant, but it was configured a certain way.. for example anyone that gets close to his ship would be destroyed fairly quickly with his devastating close range weaponary in which he focused all of his time into, yet due to that he lacks long range capabilities. Jack could have a ship that is both quick and agile, and equipped with long range weaponary. Under those circumstances, even with Smittys top-of-the-line ship decked out with his powerful modifications, still isn't going to handle Jack very well.
That's a good example of how I'd expect (hope) things to work.

I just keep getting the feeling that the majority of this thread is asking for 1v1 balance in a situation where both Jack and Smitty have optimized for CQ (Close Quarters) and are, essentially, in a 'slugfest'.

...and hopefully something like STO) you can just go back to a starbase and re-configure your ship to how you want it to be, from the ground up. The longer you play the game, the more broad your capabilities will be which would include the scope of how you can modify your ship. Someone who plays the game 80+ hours per week may have some edges in certain areas over another person who plays 10+ hours per week, but that person that plays 10+ hours per week can focus on specific things if he/she wants to get into the PvP action quick and have a ship worthy of doing so.
This reminds me of the way things worked in PlanetSide, and I wouldn't mind seeing things here work similarly.
In PS (which is a purely PvP MMOFPS), a 'newb' character could specialize in only one or two battlefield roles, while a vet could choose from 8+. However, the vet couldn't do all of them at the same time due the limitation of how much you could carry at once.

cocoa-jin

10-24-2008, 09:30 PM

That's a good example of how I'd expect (hope) things to work.

I just keep getting the feeling that the majority of this thread is asking for 1v1 balance in a situation where both Jack and Smitty have optimized for CQ (Close Quarters) and are, essentially, in a 'slugfest'.

In general yes...in my mind if you think you deserve to win then prove it...out fly me, out maneuver me, out plan me, out shoot me.

You dont deserve beating me just because play more. You arent entitled to have a one up on me just because you played more, grind more, quest more. Prove to me you're a better captain, because you earn the victory through actions.

Sullen

10-24-2008, 11:16 PM

Father_Origin

10-25-2008, 05:06 AM

Decius

10-25-2008, 05:33 AM

In general yes...in my mind if you think you deserve to win then prove it...out fly me, out maneuver me, out plan me, out shoot me.

You dont deserve beating me just because play more. You arent entitled to have a one up on me just because you played more, grind more, quest more. Prove to me you're a better captain, because you earn the victory through actions.

I've been getting this impression for a while now, that you basically want a FPS style game equality among STO ships? Where skill and not item gives you 100% control over whether you win in a combat scenario or not.

If that's the case, I don't think it would make a very long lasting MMO, and the reason behind that is that there are a TON of people that like collecting items, and usually that means a reason behind those items, and with that comes the whole "upgrading to the next better thing" mentality.

I would like to see some sort of power curve for items, so it makes a person at least somewhat eager to return to a starbase to upgrade to the next best thing. I also would like to see a large item variety with a broad spectrum of functions.

If you have 2 ships in a system, both the same classes and even the exact same appearances, there is a good chance that they could be setup vastly different. One could have used up all of his/her slots for stronger shield, scanning, and enchanced probe modifications. Does that turn that ship into a death machine? No, but it increases the chance of spotting cloaked ships, for example. While the other ship in the system could have the top-of-the-line torpedo, phaser, and ablative hull armor modifications eating up his/her mod slots. The first ship would get roasted by the second ship, but the second ship provides a resource that the first ship doesn't, and with that comes solid group playing experiences.

cocoa-jin

10-25-2008, 12:48 PM

Sullen and Father_Orign:
In response to the asserstions that I wont all ships equal:

No, i dont want to make all ships equal. I dont expect a frigate to compete against a battleship or a cruiser. I dont expect all cruisers from both factions to be the same.

Im saying each hull has its stock set-up/configuration and that would equate to a combat rating by taking in to account sensors, armor, sheilds, weapons, maneuverability, etc. Each hull as its own rating based on its design, which is totally inherit to itself. One can expect that ships of the same class(cruiser, frigate, battleship) will have similar ratings but the wont have the same attributes. One ship could have a lower rating but have more offensive abiities, while the other as a higher rating but its due to more torpedo tubes with less armor or less maneuverability.

There would be no attempt to balance out ship hulls of oppossing factions into a blue vs red match up, the ship are what they are from canon.

The battle specialization allows one to specialize, preferably, the inherit attributes of the hull to a specific style or combat philosophy. That means that hull type cant increase its rating by more than 10-15%, though the systems specialized in could be up by 20-30%...so you gain something by giving up something else. Or you can just upgrade the over-all ship to 10-15%.

So two Voyagers would eventually upgrade to roughly the same rating, but they could go several different ways in how they specialize, becoming the same hull but specialized in different types of operations, combat styling, tactics, etc.

This does not mean the stock Klingon rough equalivalent hull(frigate class) would have the same attributes as the Vogayer stock hull. This also means the specialized Klingon frigate would not necessarily have the same attributes as the specialized Voyager hulls. It would mean that two oppossing faction hulls with the same specializations would enjoy roughly the same tactical situations but each would still hold on to their relative differences inherit to each hull.

Two oppossing faction hulls with a basic 10-15% upgrade to overall ship would maintain totally intact the relative differences inherit to their two hulls.

So no, not all ships will be the same. When say i dont want someone to be gauranteed success due to their ship, the assumption is a engagement between roughly two equal hulls. So what Im saying is that I dont want the uber-upgrading of ships being the difference. I dont expect or desire there to be total parity between ships of the same class(frigate, cruiser, battleship, etc), and i defineatly dont want to see parity between all ships across class lines(frigates on par with battleships).

cocoa-jin

10-25-2008, 01:02 PM

"No shielding, and fully functional laser beams."

Ever seen an episode where the Enterprise completely obliterated a ship because it outclassed it?

Without the incentive to upgrade your ship, the whole customization idea for ships would be pretty dull.

If you saw the Reman Warbird Scimitar coming at your runabout, would you try to fight or run?

Making all ships equal, no matter the time spent on upgrades, takes a really fun element out of the game.

Just some of my thoughts.

Well, yes..there was a episode ..voyager, the final episode, the upgunned ship was able to take out
whole borg cubes with 1 torpedo.

also in SNG, there was episode where thier minds were wiped to trick them into
fighting a war with a vastly inferior race..they stopped short of destroying thier
home base when they relized it would only take 1 torpedo to destroy it.

There was the movie where the Klingons 1-shotted the Federation science ship in orbit
around the genisis planet (lucky shot sir!)

and that whacked out Klingon general only lasted a few shots when Kirk/Spock fig.
out how to target his special bird of prey.

ok, it was 2 to 1...lol but it didn't take that many torpedos to do it.

The Feds and Klingons arent so vastly sperated in technology and ability. The cloaked BoP had no shileds while cloaked and I believe it was the smaller version(I might be wrong, need to re-check), pure science ships would likly have little means of shrugging off an attack from a warship. Lastly, Voyager had weapons/knowledge from decades in the future. Its assumed the same reasons for creating such dynamics in hollywood wouldnt fit the goals of the game.

Providing future uber-tech would likly do to STO what the whole Jedi fiasco did to SWG.

People tend to forget that uber stuff is only cool if a few have it, and that the uber isnt so cool when its used to God-smack you.

cocoa-jin

10-25-2008, 01:08 PM

[QUOTE=Decius;249458]I've been getting this impression for a while now, that you basically want a FPS style game equality among STO ships? Where skill and not item gives you 100% control over whether you win in a combat scenario or not.
QUOTE]

Not equality through ships...perhaps more accuratly, less inequality due to equipment upgrading. Each stock hull is what it is, cant and dont want to change the ship set-ups based on canon. Just no upgrading ships into uber-ships.

AugustusTirion

10-25-2008, 01:41 PM

I've been getting this impression for a while now, that you basically want a FPS style game equality among STO ships? Where skill and not item gives you 100% control over whether you win in a combat scenario or not.

Not equality through ships...perhaps more accuratly, less inequality due to equipment upgrading. Each stock hull is what it is, cant and dont want to change the ship set-ups based on canon. Just no upgrading ships into uber-ships.C-J, there's a follow up to Deci's statement, and it's a point I've also made a couple times in this thread, that you're not addressing.

I've been getting this impression for a while now, that you basically want a FPS style game equality among STO ships? Where skill and not item gives you 100% control over whether you win in a combat scenario or not.

If that's the case, I don't think it would make a very long lasting MMO, and the reason behind that is that there are a TON of people that like collecting items, and usually that means a reason behind those items, and with that comes the whole "upgrading to the next better thing" mentality.

I would like to see some sort of power curve for items, so it makes a person at least somewhat eager to return to a starbase to upgrade to the next best thing. I also would like to see a large item variety with a broad spectrum of functions.
You want equality in PvP, fine.
Explain how you would overcome the problem of removing a driving force from PvE gameplay.
If you take away the 'next new toy' from the PvE focused players, you need to replace it with something to keep them playing.

Let me see if I can 'head off at the pass'...
Replacing toys with missions/exploration wouldn't work.
When you get down to the core of it, there are only 2 types of missions. Kill X (or X#) and Courier runs. No matter how creative the writers are, missions get repetitive (grind). The best a good writer can do is slow down how quickly a player would get bored with the mission treadmill.

Same is true of exploration of new planets. Yeah, STO will have this new feature of randomly generated worlds. BUT, the programmers can only create so many variables to generate worlds from. The human mind is great at pattern recognition, it won't take long for players to get a 'feel' for these new worlds. Once players 'get the gist' of the 'randomly' generated planets it becomes another treadmill.

So... without missions or exploration as replacements for new toys... what prize would you give the PvE focused players to keep them interested?

cocoa-jin

10-25-2008, 02:11 PM

C-J, there's a follow up to Deci's statement, and it's a point I've also made a couple times in this thread, that you're not addressing.

You want equality in PvP, fine.
Explain how you would overcome the problem of removing a driving force from PvE gameplay.
If you take away the 'next new toy' from the PvE focused players, you need to replace it with something to keep them playing.

Let me see if I can 'head off at the pass'...
Replacing toys with missions/exploration wouldn't work.
When you get down to the core of it, there are only 2 types of missions. Kill X (or X#) and Courier runs. No matter how creative the writers are, missions get repetitive (grind). The best a good writer can do is slow down how quickly a player would get bored with the mission treadmill.

Same is true of exploration of new planets. Yeah, STO will have this new feature of randomly generated worlds. BUT, the programmers can only create so many variables to generate worlds from. The human mind is great at pattern recognition, it won't take long for players to get a 'feel' for these new worlds. Once players 'get the gist' of the 'randomly' generated planets it becomes another treadmill.

So... without missions or exploration as replacements for new toys... what prize would you give the PvE focused players to keep them interested?

New ships is one, but my idea doesnt eliminate the new toys, there is just a limit to how much you get out of the new toys and the new toys would provide small increases to the attribute its modifying, with a corresponding decrease in an other attribute(s).

Second, there needs to be a means of rewarding the player as part of a faction. Right now the reward system as its priorities wrong. Its based on motivating us like we are children and so we play based on how we are rewarded...its like the way you catch a particular fish by the bait you use. Reward us as a faction based on our actions on behalf of the faction. Gamers will always aim to excel at the model set in the game, the prerequiste is that the game be something of intrinisc interest.

Let upgrades be a faction reward, allow players to partipate in furthering the faction through multiple ways. Provide a sense of an end-game...though I dont see that being an option in STO, so provide periodic end-games through modeled conflicts. So if there is no end to the war, let there will be many pivotal battles...episodes, chapters, scenerios, etc that are combat, non-combat and a combination that have a descive conclusion. This would result in the distribution of faction rewards for the accomplishments made on both sides.

The idea is to get away from the "give him a cookie" to appease us like children and instead immerse us into a more fulfilling, complete, team/side oriented means of motivation. It becomes a much more social based motivation, it plays into our inherit herd mentality, an inherit drive to identify yourself with a group, a side, to bond and act on behalf of those of mutal interest. This provides a much more fulfilling and deeper since of satisfaction and accomplishment than the self-absorbed, baser and superfical goal of trinkets.

Manx

10-25-2008, 03:38 PM

Problem is, if such strict limits are put on how far a ship may be upgraded then, eventually, the players will have no choice but to get a bigger and more powerful ship in order to progress to the more challenging parts of the game. Getting 'the next ship' becomes the STO equivalent of leveling.

There will only be so many 'top end' ship classes, and everyone would end up flying one of them sooner or later. This means there will be 'uber ships'; they will just be uber by design and not because we, the players, made them that way. I'm not sure that would be an improvement over massive upgrading.

AugustusTirion

10-25-2008, 06:43 PM

cocoa-jin

10-25-2008, 07:13 PM

If you can find a different, successful, motivator I think the devs should hire you :p

Victory! Victory for a cause,victory toward a goal, victory for a side.

The slight boosts the upgrades will bring will be eagerly put to use during the next engagement

Problem is, if such strict limits are put on how far a ship may be upgraded then, eventually, the players will have no choice but to get a bigger and more powerful ship in order to progress to the more challenging parts of the game. Getting 'the next ship' becomes the STO equivalent of leveling.

The need for a bigger ship is a given, the lack of upgrades or the lack of uber-upgrades doesnt change that. Presumably the NPC farms will just get bigger and more numerous in ships, the need for a bigger ship will be due to the Devs not coming up with anything more innovative. The unavoidable move to stronger and more NPCs will be in response to player abilities as they progress. Uber-upgrades just makes the run away train of mindlessly stronger and numerous NPCs come about even faster.

The more we can upgrade, the frequently the devs will have to come up with with anothere generation of upgrades and the more disparity between stock ships(new players) and long timers, the old timer's dominace gets grandfathered in as it takes more and more, longer and longer, for new players to close the gap.

The best thing is to create some relative respect and acceptance of the hulls, stop the run away train because it will only perpetuate the cycle of over blown, disporportinate and un-canon boosts in a hulls performance.

I just feel upgrades are a short-side motivator, STO really doesnt need it.

CaptainLynch

10-25-2008, 07:33 PM

Manx

10-25-2008, 07:37 PM

The need for a bigger ship is a given, the lack of upgrades or the lack of uber-upgrades doesnt change that. Presumably the NPC farms will just get bigger and more numerous in ships, the need for a bigger ship will be due to the Devs not coming up with anything more innovative. The unavoidable move to stronger and more NPCs will be in response to player abilities as they progress. Uber-upgrades just makes the run away train of mindlessly stronger and numerous NPCs come about even faster.

The more we can upgrade, the frequently the devs will have to come up with with anothere generation of upgrades and the more disparity between stock ships(new players) and long timers, the old timer's dominace gets grandfathered in as it takes more and more, longer and longer, for new players to close the gap.

The best thing is to create some relative respect and acceptance of the hulls, stop the run away train because it will only perpetuate the cycle of over blown, disporportinate and un-canon boosts in a hulls performance.

I just feel upgrades are a short-side motivator, STO really doesnt need it.

I don't disagree exactly; it's just that if I follow your reasoning I end up envisioning fleets of veteran players with nothing but the same 3 ship classes over and over again. It can be hoped that there will be more than one 'top end' ship within each category (I refer to the cruiser, escort, science thing), but that in itself would not really be in keeping with canon (not that I'm too fussy about canon if I'm being honest). After all, if the Sovereign had a competitor within Starfleet, it was never mentioned that I heard.

I guess I'm in favor of greater diversity within the fleet; even beyond what the ship customization feature seems to be offering.

cocoa-jin

10-25-2008, 08:00 PM

CJ

I disagree. There are players, like me, that have our sites set on escorts and science vessels. If I'm forced to progress to the next bigger hull for advancement then it won't be an ideal game mechanic. There will come a point where I'll want to stop putting points towards a bigger ship and start putting points into upgrades and crew skills. Why should I be punished because someone else wants to force me onto a larger ship?

Let me play the game the way I want to play it without the influence of your bias please

I dont want to force you in to a larger ship...the game model will do that anyway. Its the easy way for the devs to keep us feeling challenged with respect to combat at least.

I was thinking about the non-combatants(this thread as been mainly focused on combat and perhaps more so PvP). With respect to non-combatants I dont see the uber-upgrade thing beeing all that much of an issue.
What kind of upgrades can we expect for science vessels? Better sensors so we can scan farther(they're pretty darn good already), sensors so we can detect with more detail...ok, thats fine, but how much better are we going to get? You want to do more, carry more, multi-task better, better or more labs...that just might require a bigger ship.

I dont see how science veesels will be much of an issue for player on player interactions, I'd expect they would go toward specialization already...but thats my own thoughts, its pure speculation. I dont see too many complaining about getting God-smacked by a science vessel. Yeah they'll likly be armed, so I guess one could specialize it toward combat at the expense of other systems.

PvE
One thing they can do, is customize PvE missions to the vessel used. Ideally Command would take your vessel's abilities into account for the missions they'd send you on. Allow mission drops not be based on a single pre-set mission, but instead have the missions vessel based, with the difficulty scaled to the player's vessel...the drops would be the same.

Even open space farming of NPCs could be triggered by the vessels in the farming area...so once again, the challenge remains as the NPCs scale up or down in number and class to meet the appropriate challenge.

The adjustments could be set up for varying levels of difficulty so you dont know what you'll get each time. Somethimes the threat or combined threat will be equal to you, sometimes it will be up to 15% less and sometimes up to 25% more than your level. If another player vessel enters the area(assuming same faction), the farm area ups the challenge and warps in "reinforcments" to match.

CaptainLynch

10-25-2008, 08:14 PM

cocoa-jin

10-25-2008, 08:39 PM

CJ

My fleet is already gearing up for PvP. The last thing I want to do with my Science vessel is to blow up battle cruisers. I want to help my fleet-mates in their Escorts detect enemy targets with the most accuracy possible. Cloaked Klingon ships will be our primary focus, so I'll be looking for the slightest of traces ;)

All I ask is that the game doesn't try to force me into an Exploration vessel because my Science ship is "too small" :eek:

Yeah, thats why I didnt focus much on science vessels...they arent 1vs1 vessels, nor do they unbalance the hull with uber-upgrades. As a team player they'll be critical, but mixed fleet or group combat is something all together different, variety is key and that is already provided by the different hull types, specialization will further diversify the engagments without the need for uber-ships.

But remeber, detecting cloaked vessels isnt so much about stronger sensors, its about knowing what to look for...its more about specialization than it is stronger sensors. Cloaked vessels have never been directly detected, they have always been detected indirectly through some emmission, by-product, turbulence within some medium, etc. The key to finding cloaked vessels is being better able to detect these indirect indicators.

ajaco3025

10-25-2008, 09:04 PM

c-j,
Your view of the human condition is far less cynical then mine.
Rah-rah.. go, team, go.. and all that is great.
But, IMO, underneath remains a bit of 'what's in it for ME?'

Police, Fire, Rescue, Teachers, etc. all work for 'the greater good'.
But they also get a paycheck (not as big a check as they deserve, but that's another topic ;) )

Faction based rewards are already planned for.
The devs have said that planetary accesses we gain through PvP and competitive PvE will offer bonuses to our crew ('red shirts') and resources.

But when it comes to item rewards (which equate to our personal rewards), I just can't go along with your models.

So if I am reading your post correctly, you want upgrades that only give bonuses. So are you saying that that modules can be stacked? If a phaser module increases damage by 5%, I don't want someone stacking 5 or 6 on their ship without some kind of progressive draw back. Stacking penalties for one would help make sure no one can build an all-around, super uber ship because you ONLY get bonuses from modules.

Modules should be able to have a use in pve and PvP; penalties, bonuses, and all.

PvE players will, typically, want something in return for their efforts above and beyond anything they add to their faction (which everyone gets). That 'something' is usually in the form of meaningful equipment upgrades. Increased phasers at the cost of shields isn't an upgrade, it's a trade-off.

Hey, PvP players want something in return for their efforts just as much as pvers. And "meaningful" equipment or salvage would be satisfactory.

Tying equipment upgrades to faction runs into the same playtime problem talked about before. Bill puts in 40hrs work for his faction, Bob puts in 4hrs (at equal hourly efficiency)... and they both get the same reward?? Bill is probably going to feel like he's been cheated.

15, or so, years of MMO development and, I'm afraid, upgraded gear is still the standard motivator for the PvE focused player.
If you can find a different, successful, motivator I think the devs should hire you :p

Equipment upgrades will be sold on the market and through "loot", likely NPC loot. In any case, the upgrades will be available to everyone and I doubt Mr Bill will have a hard time finding what he will need regardless of the hours he put in. Not to mention that we'll be able to produce our own modules/upgrades, both basic and advanced, with the resources we gather.

cocoa-jin

10-25-2008, 09:27 PM

So if I am reading your post correctly, you want upgrades that only give bonuses. So are you saying that that modules can be stacked? If a phaser module increases damage by 5%, I don't want someone stacking 5 or 6 on their ship without some kind of progressive draw back. Stacking penalties for one would help make sure no one can build an all-around, super uber ship because you ONLY get bonuses from modules.

Modules should be able to have a use in pve and PvP; penalties, bonuses, and all.

Im find with modules I guess, but either no stacking or stacking up to a max boost.

I can see the modules being used to increase or decrease the number of mounts, or being used to re-position new mounts. For instance, I might want to specialize toward torpedo assualt. I might have 6 tubes on my hull, but i want to make some changes from my 4 fore and 2 aft tubes. I would remove 1 or both aft tubes and put them all forward facing, I might add one more tube(thats a 16% boost) either fore or aft as an upgrade to boost torpedo output. Ive now increased my torpedo fire power and further specialized my ship toward a spearheading assualt profile. I may have to remove phaser modules to fit in the new tube, if not now, definitly for additional tubes.

So modules would change the physical configuration of the vessel. These modules would then force the reduction of other attributes as applicable. So I guess it could be a combination of modules and attributes.

AugustusTirion

10-25-2008, 09:57 PM

So if I am reading your post correctly, you want upgrades that only give bonuses.
Only giving a bonus is, basically, the definition of 'upgrade'.
I.e. Your stock phaser can do 100dmg per shot and can fire once every 5 seconds.
You find a new phaser that does 200dmg per shot (increase), but can only fire once every 10 seconds (decrease).
That's not really an upgrade, both weapons have a dps rate of 20, it's a trade-off.
It's a way of tuning style, but I wouldn't call it upgrading.

To use an example more along the lines of the 'modules' you outlined early.
Your 'stock' mod adjusts phaser dmg by +10% but changes shield capacity by -5%
Finding a new mod that's +15% & -10% I wouldn't call an upgrade, just a different trade-off.
A mod that's +10% phaser and -2.5% shield, or +12.5% phaser and -5% shield, would be an upgrade.

Hey, PvP players want something in return for their efforts just as much as pvers. And "meaningful" equipment or salvage would be satisfactory.
Hmm... Kinda depends.
I've played, and been perfectly happy with, a PvP game where there were NO upgrades.
The only thing you got for enemy kills was some XP towards your next rank. The only thing your next rank got you was a bit more flexibility.
A 'newb' could only pick 1or 2 jobs. Someone with a few more ranks might be able to pick from 4 or 5 roles, but limits how much you could carry would limit you to only being able to perform 1 or 2 of those roles at any given time.
Once you hit max rank the only thing you were fighting for was the glory of the empire (and bragging rights on your K/D ratio :cool: )

But... that was a strictly PvP game. The devs didn't need to worry about keeping the PvE folks happy ;)

Equipment upgrades will be sold on the market and through "loot", likely NPC loot. In any case, the upgrades will be available to everyone and I doubt Mr Bill will have a hard time finding what he will need regardless of the hours he put in. Not to mention that we'll be able to produce our own modules/upgrades, both basic and advanced, with the resources we gather.
Number of hours invested in the game tends to have a direct correlation to how much game currency your toon has, and your quantity of game currency effects either the quantity or quality of the upgrades you can afford :p

cocoa-jin

10-25-2008, 10:16 PM

Hmm... Kinda depends.
I've played, and been perfectly happy with, a PvP game where there were NO upgrades.
The only thing you got for enemy kills was some XP towards your next rank. The only thing your next rank got you was a bit more flexibility.......Once you hit max rank the only thing you were fighting for was the glory of the empire (and bragging rights on your K/D ratio :cool: )

I play a game thats a bit like that right now...been at it for 7yrs. There something unescapable about faction vs faction. The thing the non-combatants and PvE folks is a means of feeling connected to the "struggle" like the PvPers are without forcing them into PvP. That would be the main means of motivation(which is addictive in itself) with the upgrades being a minor, but desirable motivator(small as they are)...being cherries on top...your 2.5% boost would be cherished, especially if they were hard to come by.

ajaco3025

10-26-2008, 02:30 PM

Only giving a bonus is, basically, the definition of 'upgrade'.
I.e. Your stock phaser can do 100dmg per shot and can fire once every 5 seconds.
You find a new phaser that does 200dmg per shot (increase), but can only fire once every 10 seconds (decrease).
That's not really an upgrade, both weapons have a dps rate of 20, it's a trade-off.
It's a way of tuning style, but I wouldn't call it upgrading.

To use an example more along the lines of the 'modules' you outlined early.
Your 'stock' mod adjusts phaser dmg by +10% but changes shield capacity by -5%
Finding a new mod that's +15% & -10% I wouldn't call an upgrade, just a different trade-off.
A mod that's +10% phaser and -2.5% shield, or +12.5% phaser and -5% shield, would be an upgrade.

Hmm... Kinda depends.
I've played, and been perfectly happy with, a PvP game where there were NO upgrades.
The only thing you got for enemy kills was some XP towards your next rank. The only thing your next rank got you was a bit more flexibility.
A 'newb' could only pick 1or 2 jobs. Someone with a few more ranks might be able to pick from 4 or 5 roles, but limits how much you could carry would limit you to only being able to perform 1 or 2 of those roles at any given time.
Once you hit max rank the only thing you were fighting for was the glory of the empire (and bragging rights on your K/D ratio :cool: )

But... that was a strictly PvP game. The devs didn't need to worry about keeping the PvE folks happy ;)

Number of hours invested in the game tends to have a direct correlation to how much game currency your toon has, and your quantity of game currency effects either the quantity or quality of the upgrades you can afford :p

It isn't like the modules I put up for examples are written in stone. Tweaking. That is a wonderful concept, isn't it?. My idea for those modules could be tweaked.

Let's just say you have the weapon module I put as an example. You put that said module on your ship, thus upgrading your phaser damage from base to a 10% increase. Correct? It upgraded your phaser back regardless of your eyes going to the "Penalty" portion, it still upgraded your ship.

Now, I'm not saying that all modules should have penalties. I do greatly believe that some should have stacking penalties even if it just reduces the amount of a bonus the module originally gives. Some "special" modules should have a greater bonus than advanced mods but should also have a penalty.

-------------

Rank in PvP? Personally, I hate ranks in PvP. It does nothing for me. I could care less if someone is #1 in PvP. All it says to me is either you are good, you waited for a limp ship to show up, or you only attack noobs.

AugustusTirion

10-26-2008, 02:57 PM

... I do greatly believe that some should have stacking penalties even if it just reduces the amount of a bonus the module originally gives...

You're talking about diminishing returns.
It's a fairly common feature of games, and one I've no trouble with.
Rank in PvP? Personally, I hate ranks in PvP. It does nothing for me. I could care less if someone is #1 in PvP. All it says to me is either you are good, you waited for a limp ship to show up, or you only attack noobs.
The rank I was referring to wasn't your position on a 'who's got the most kills' chart.
PS used 'rank' where most fantasy games use 'level'.

cocoa-jin

10-26-2008, 04:56 PM

It isn't like the modules I put up for examples are written in stone. Tweaking. That is a wonderful concept, isn't it?. My idea for those modules could be tweaked.

Let's just say you have the weapon module I put as an example. You put that said module on your ship, thus upgrading your phaser damage from base to a 10% increase. Correct? It upgraded your phaser back regardless of your eyes going to the "Penalty" portion, it still upgraded your ship.

Now, I'm not saying that all modules should have penalties. I do greatly believe that some should have stacking penalties even if it just reduces the amount of a bonus the module originally gives. Some "special" modules should have a greater bonus than advanced mods but should also have a penalty.

-------------

Rank in PvP? Personally, I hate ranks in PvP. It does nothing for me. I could care less if someone is #1 in PvP. All it says to me is either you are good, you waited for a limp ship to show up, or you only attack noobs.

I feel any all upgrades should have a penalty and not just an energy consumption penality it increases output of a system. There has to be a constant give and take, no win/win modules where all you get is a bonus with no reduction some place else.

ajaco3025

10-27-2008, 05:34 AM

You're talking about diminishing returns.
It's a fairly common feature of games, and one I've no trouble with.

The rank I was referring to wasn't your position on a 'who's got the most kills' chart.
PS used 'rank' where most fantasy games use 'level'.

Yeah, diminishing returns. I'm accustomed to calling it stacking penalties and then having to describe its meaning to those who don't play Eve. Its a habit.

Gain XP for PvP? No thank you. If I want XP points, I'll go pve. I've played games where the only reward was getting your name on the rankings and it gets shown "in lights" on the main web page. Didn't like that either.

I like the killmail, looting, and salvaging system that Eve has. I know. I know. Some of you curse the Eve system. You've let us Eve players know time and again, even if we don't say anything.

Originally Posted by cocoa-jin
I feel any all upgrades should have a penalty and not just an energy consumption penality it increases output of a system. There has to be a constant give and take, no win/win modules where all you get is a bonus with no reduction some place else.

Yeah, that is what I liked about Eve. Most of the modules have penalties making you think, which is hard for some people, to create a build for whatever role you want.

thefreshjedi

10-27-2008, 03:01 PM

*deleted by poster

ajaco3025

10-27-2008, 04:05 PM

I've been thinking a lot about PvE rewards with regard to MMO's, and something you never see is a change in the story. To some degree you're all right, and in my opinion you're all wrong.

PvE
For example, you look at the STO Star Map, and you have a defineable edge around the Federation factional areas, and the Klingon Factional areas. These are separated by the tenuous "neutral zone" border inbetween them. What I'm suggesting here is that you create in-game missions both PvE and PvP that will cause that border to shrink or expand the "influence" areas around different systems in-game. This could allow players to actually see the "fruits" of their labor, both PvE and PvP for example. So if you are doing peaceful exploration and don't want to contribute to the PvP element, you could have missions along the neutral zone, or in areas of opposing factions, and the results of those missions from a PvE standpoint would be to influence the "sphere of influence", causing it to expand or detract based on mission success or failure.

PvP
Those that would like to strictly PvP could also have an influential impact based on their contributions to the relative successes or failure of PvP campaigns. So if your faction or house is stomping on the competition, those contribution points for PvP would directly influence both the player, but more-over the game world that everyone is playing in.

(Just an endnote here), but Warhammer has a really neat PVE/PVP/RVR system, with open-ended public quests, etc. If you guys want a refreshing way to PvP/PVE you should check it out. It's not a bad idea at all. It works a little like what I was suggested up there, but not to such a great scale as to what STO could be.

This is not the PvP and pve discussion. Please go to the PvP thread stickied above.

This thread is in regards to upgrades/modules.

thefreshjedi

10-27-2008, 04:12 PM

This is not the PvP and pve discussion. Please go to the PvP thread stickied above.

This thread is in regards to upgrades/modules.

Thanks, I realize that, but my point was in lieu of the overall discussion which dealt with rewards, etc. To tailor my original thoughts around this, I think that upgrades and modules, etc, could also be reflective upon overall factional standing, and the amount or kind of upgrades available could also reflect back against your factions current standing based on the expansion or subtraction of boundaries, etc...

PS I move it into it's own category, thanks for the suggestion Recoil, I appreciate it.

-Avery

ajaco3025

10-28-2008, 06:23 AM

I feel any all upgrades should have a penalty and not just an energy consumption penality it increases output of a system. There has to be a constant give and take, no win/win modules where all you get is a bonus with no reduction some place else.

If you add a bigger gun to a ship you essentially have to give something up to add it, right? Armor maybe?

I think all modules/weapons should meet a certain power requirement, maybe a CPU requirement since it is mostly ran by the ship computer.

If you have 3000 MW remaining after life support, transporters, and the computer core has been installed, then I think that for each module or weapon you install draws from that remaining 3000 MW. So your loadout will be determined by the power requirement. Thus keeping players from abusing the module builds.

Each module/upgrade has a power and cpu requirement.

Let's say a weapons upgrade module provides the following:

Rate of Fire bonus: 0.93 %
Damage Modifier : 1.07 x

But to keep the module active, you'll need so many MW and terrabytes of CPU. This is a basic module that requires 2 MW and 40 tb.

The advanced weapon upgrade module provides the following:

Rate of Fire bonus: 1.23 %
Damage Modifier : 1.30 x

Penalty: 2.05% chance of plasma emitter misalgnment for each module of this type.

This is an advanced module that requires 1 MW and 30 tb.