Re-thinking Fleet Actions and STFs in STO: A Suggested Paradigm Shift

[Archived Post]

Re-thinking Fleet Actions and STFs in STO:
a paradigm shift

Background:
There are a number of fair criticisms (and some praise) for Fleet Actions and STFs. However, I think there's an untapped potential in these events that hasn't been explored fully by the developers.

Here are some common complaints:

The STFs have too many easy mobs instead of unique mobs using different tactics.
Fleet Actions can't be joined by... fleets?
STFs only support 5 people
Fleet Actions can't be joined by fleets!?!?!?!?
STFs require reaching end-game (meaning new STFs are used by a fraction of the player base).
STFs have inconsistent difficulty curves (i.e. easy>easy>moderate>easy>ZOMG WIPE!).

How did we get here? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1wg1DNHbNU#t=0m48s)

Why have content that is designed for only specific rank? Why just scale mobs to an arbitrary level and call it good for higher rank "challenge"? More importantly:

Why not develop large-team content that provides something for every rank?



The Old Ways
Let me expand on the criticisms from earlier on Current STF/Fleet Content:

focuses on a Particular Level (with slightly less focus on encounter variety and far less on
largely expendable (why run The Cure when we're Fleet Admiral 10 - why scale the mobs instead of providing a reason to back? why beat Starbase 24 using the same win conditions?),
cut-off (i.e. new friend can't share this experience until he's played for 90 hours - good luck!).


There's also a feeling that your character hasn't progressed at all when running fleet actions at later ranks. It's just as difficult as it was before - despite my character having saved the galaxy a few times and gone up 45 levels.

Ultimately, this is a game and giving us something fresh to do (instead of bigger numbers on bigger guns) holds more allure

I'm going to suggest a paradigm shift from a design standpoint.



A (Possible) New Way

(==| Click here to see the Example Fleet Action while reading along (http://yfrog.com/c8rethinkingstffleetactioj) |==)
Let's create STFs or Fleet Actions that have objectives "sets" for different ranks:



If all LTs join the instance, either some objective sets won't appear or all content will be scaled to Lt. level



For example: the objective of taking out an Undine Battleship won't appear.



If LTs and VAs are together, the first few objectives might be scaled to LTs while later objectives are scaled to VA.



For example: Lt. heal low-level NPC allies and clearing a minefield while within 20-30 km Captains and Admirals bring in heavy ships to fight off a "signature" Battleship. Everyone is doing something and all ranks are represented. You don't feel like you're fighting in the "Lt. Club" or the "Admiral Club:" you feel like everyone is contributing and everyone is neccessary.



Mixed Groups have lower objectives scale to lowest members of the group



15 VAs and 5 CMDRs means the Lt. objective gets scaled up to Cmdr level.





Benefits:

New players participate in events that have end-game consequences.


Gaining ranks means you're accomplishing something more difficult when you go back to a STF or Fleet actions using these design principles


Changing up game mechanics and objectives based on rank is a great way to get every rank to revisit past missions


Removes many social deficits that are cause by rank-dependent content


With "join as fleet" technology implemented (something that could use the new PvP Challenge Queue), this gives fleets a purpose.


Playing these "new" fleet actions would have a gameplay reason to come back: you're experiencing a unique challenge at higher ranks

Frees up content designers to create objective sets that actually have a purpose and actually use a Rank's news abilities (aka giving us a reason to have these new powers) - instead of worrying as to how a cool raid mechanic may need to get removed to scale to an arbitrary player level

(==| Click here to see the Example Fleet Action (http://yfrog.com/c8rethinkingstffleetactioj) |==)

Is this technically difficult? Yes - but only until the new technology is made. We know the game adds to mobs while teamed - this is an extension of that but taking players into account with gameplay objectives instead of "here's some more of x to kill".

[Archived Post]

As always, a great read, a well developed concept and something I would definitely love to see ingame!
It would be ground-breaking, because there are no MMOs I know of where you could work together like that, no matter what level you are.

We need that ASAP!!!

[Archived Post]

As always, a great read, a well developed concept and something I would definitely love to see ingame!
It would be ground-breaking, because there are no MMOs I know of where you could work together like that, no matter what level you are.

We need that ASAP!!!

Exactly.

Raiding content is underutilized and undersold in potential in virtually every MMO I've ever played. It could be so much more involving and give players a chance to revisit older raids without retreading familiar ground.

In an instanced environment like STO, it's actually easier to implement something this cool compared to, say, Everquest (a good game but the open-world makes it more challenging to implement).

To put it in perspective:

What if players in the tutorial were having to scan vessels while a high-level raid is going on around them (but out of combat distance)?


What if a high-level raid involves protecting low-level vessels from uber-threats while that low-level vessel tries to make it to safety?


To explain it in fantasy MMO terms:

What if the new player is learning to fight undead minions while the higher level players are just a ways down the battlefield in tricked out armor fighting the dragon?


We can have it both ways and please more people.

[Archived Post]

Fleet purpose missions (see first post above). This is one of the holy grails missing from all MMOs. WoW is going to give effect to some guild purpose content in Cataclysm after the idea was raised in the forums. Essentially, it's going to amount to the equivalent of fleet accolades. In LOTRO, the guild can have a house and expose its trophies in it - although I think it is really the GM of the guild or officer having rights that must have first obtained the trophy.

Let's take the general assumption that there is a fleet purpose and that it brings a fleet benefit when it is achieved.

The problem with fleet purpose is that, supposing the purpose was achieved, how do you spread the benefits of achieving the purpose over many individual accounts, what happens for people who join later (do they gain the benefit) and what happens to people of leave the fleet? Do these individuals gain or lose the benefit?

A fleet does not exist as a separate account or entity, it only exists as two elements : a chat channel and a fleet bank.

One idea I had raised on the WoW forums was that there could be a fleet object (procuring some benefit from the bearer) that could be passed around in turns to fleet members. Such object would be earned by the fleet by crafting amassed ressources in the fleet bank or won in missions where only fleet members are grouped.

Now imagining that these practical considerations don't exist, here is what I'd want as a fleet purpose mission :
- work together to build a permanent deep space station,
- be able to man the station and defend it (both from the inside and with members' ships in space) in STF missions (equivalent of the 25 men raid in WoW).
- same idea but for a ship, the fleet builds the ship and is able to man it and take it into an STF.

[Archived Post]

You bring up something I neglected to mention.

What if fleets earned renown for their accomplishments in these events?

In Everquest 2, when I complete a major event, it awards points to my guild (and everyone in the guild is alerted to it - same thing with gaining a level).

that's a cool way to offer rewards that are more than just "bigger guns with bigger numbers".

[Archived Post]

Great post I like the idea about giving the different ranks different objectives. I really wish they would open fleet actions to all levels and scale them to the players level. Admirals fight Admiral mobs and Lieutenants fight Lieutenant mobs and so on. Let players do all fleet actions at any level.

I would also like to see the fleet action quest be able to be repeated. Either daily or every hour or just able to redo the quest after completion.

Dasthl said in an interview they were thinking of adding dailies for random fleet actions at end game. I would also love this. Another reason for people to do them would be badges. Maybe even offer gear that is only able to be gotten from them.

In fleet actions we need to be able to have larger groups than just five people. I was playing my combat medic in Breaking the Planet yesterday and it's hard to heal others outside my group. Because I have to hit control tab or mouse over them to manually select them. It can difficult and sometimes it will skip over players sometimes. We need at least to make groups of ten players twenty would be great in fleet actions.

In some fleet actions you have to keep killing same mobs over and over again. This needs to be toned back some. Like in Breaking the Planet after you destroy the mining stations those mobs should stop spawning. This would give more of a feel of progression. Like your suggestion making harder mobs that you have to use tactics with. Instead of Hordes of easy mobs that must be killed repeatedly.

Also we need a queue system for them too. I have made a few channels that we need to get people to join Ground Fleet Actions and Space Fleet Actions. If we communicate better we could probably form groups a lot easier by forming side kicking groups. This could make them better by getting more people in them. I think the level restriction on the fleet actions limit there use a lot.

[Archived Post]

Dasthl said in an interview they were thinking of adding dailies for random fleet actions at end game. I would also love this. Another reason for people to do them would be badges. Maybe even offer gear that is only able to be gotten from them.
The feature is meant to be live right now (for VA at least - there's a Fleet Action Daily).

However, the emblems really aren't much of incentive to get us to go back. Nothing has changed in the fleet actions: just the same mob scaled to the highest person in the instance.

It's not engaging and, currently, causes level--banding to be a necessity.

Adding unique gear is one of many things that dstahl mentioned coming down the pipe.

I'd love to see earlier content that like Fleet Actions and STFs revisited from a design standpoint and not just a rewards/mob-level boost perspective.

(Also, what if PvP warzones had this complexity with the PvP component. That's an epic PvP scenario.)

[Archived Post]

StarbasePrime raised a good point: balance and dailies.

I'd detailed some ways to balance toward groups of mixed ranks. However, how do we balanced it reward players for their contributions more and prevent farming?

As for dailies, how do we avoid the "I will sit here and do nothing so I can get bigger guns with bigger numbers" routine?

I'd probably lean toward people who don't contribute to an objective set's scoring don't get any points while material rewards aren't handed out if you complete a lower tier's objective.

Any thoughts?

[Archived Post]

The feature is meant to be live right now (for VA at least - there's a Fleet Action Daily).

However, the emblems really aren't much of incentive to get us to go back. Nothing has changed in the fleet actions: just the same mob scaled to the highest person in the instance.

It's not engaging and, currently, causes level--banding to be a necessity.

Adding unique gear is one of many things that dstahl mentioned coming down the pipe.

I'd love to see earlier content that like Fleet Actions and STFs revisited from a design standpoint and not just a rewards/mob-level boost perspective.

(Also, what if PvP warzones had this complexity with the PvP component. That's an epic PvP scenario.)

I think thats a great idea making a PVP fleet action. Where you fight NPC's and player controlled characters. Or even maybe make it where the Klingons could take on the role of the NPC's in some fleet actions at end game. Like they have taken DS9 and they must keep Federations players from dropping the shields and taking ops.

[Archived Post]

Glad you brought this up! I'm pretty sure I saw DStalh said something about making private instances available for fleets and a more general statement something along the lines of beefing these up - so if nothing else you're thinking like Cryptic and its a great place for the community to focus some energy and generate ideas for them.

My first thought (sorry, brain is buried in trying to figure out ideas for The UGC Starbase) is how could we use UGC to accomplish some of this? Could fleets for example create their own instance of a fleet action and "lock" the door against all but fleet members? If the UGC allowed fleet actions, missions could be built that would ignore the 5-player team limit.

I definitely like the "variable objective" twist you've added (e.g., one set of objectives for LTs and another for VAs). I know some of the early problems were around exploitation (an admiral would sit in a Lt fleet zone and grab the rewards (goldspammers in action)). So, another twist on that might be to limit rewards based to the objectives.

One of the issues that pops out at me is that I think the game will always be top-heavy in VAs compared to LTs. Since the VAs can typically easily kill the ships that would be there for the LTs, there's the problem that LTs aren't needed and VAs might accidentally take out their prey eliminating any rewards for the LTs. There's also the difficulty that an enemy VA might use an AOE effect that would take out the LTs. I don't think these are necessarily impossible to overcome. For example, distance between the two groups would solve that problem - but at the expense of making it feel less integrated. If there was a greater differential between speed and maneuverability (perhaps we run these in molasses-space) then small ships fighting it out in-between the behemoths could become vital.

You know, these same mechanics could probably also be applied to multi-level PvP queues.

[Archived Post]

StarbasePrime raised a good point: balance and dailies.

I'd detailed some ways to balance toward groups of mixed ranks. However, how do we balanced it reward players for their contributions more and prevent farming?

As for dailies, how do we avoid the "I will sit here and do nothing so I can get bigger guns with bigger numbers" routine?

I'd probably lean toward people who don't contribute to an objective set's scoring don't get any points while material rewards aren't handed out if you complete a lower tier's objective.

Any thoughts?

Yes, your rewards should scale to your participation. I think if you don't take part in the fleet action you should get no reward. A minimum of participation to get the completion and bonuses for being in the top three or maybe five.

If they offered good gear from badges that could only be gotten from fleet actions. That were also a piece of a gear set that gave bonuses to having all pieces would get people to do them. Like you get two pieces of gear from fleet actions that complete a set that you get from other places like the dailies.

[Archived Post]

Yes, your rewards should scale to your participation. I think if you don't take part in the fleet action you should get no reward. A minimum of participation to get the completion and bonuses for being in the top three or maybe five.

If they offered good gear from badges that could only be gotten from fleet actions. That were also a piece of a gear set that gave bonuses to having all pieces would get people to do them. Like you get two pieces of gear from fleet actions that complete a set that you get from other places like the dailies.

I like the idea of getting unique gear or even just that "missing set item" from doing content. You might get raid-oriented purple gear for doing an STF at every rank - or balanced purple gear from doing all the Fleet Actions at a single rank. It doesn't even have to be major just more (or even different gameplay mechanics attached to the gear). :D

[Archived Post]

I like the idea of getting unique gear or even just that "missing set item" from doing content. You might get raid-oriented purple gear for doing an STF at every rank - or balanced purple gear from doing all the Fleet Actions at a single rank. It doesn't even have to be major just more (or even different gameplay mechanics attached to the gear). :D

Even if they let you get explorer gear from fleet actions could help. If you are able to get that gear could help get more players in them.

Like completing a fleet action would give you the same amount of marks as completing three explorer quest

[Archived Post]

Even if they let you get explorer gear from fleet actions could help. If you are able to get that gear could help get more players in them.

Like completing a fleet action would give you the same amount of marks as completing three explorer quest

True, true. Right now, only the VA daily does anything similar and it's for emblems for more-of-the-same-but+1, which is kind of disappointing when either stories or better gameplay could be used to incentivize growth instead of a bonus to an arbitrary stat (though who doesn't like bonuses?)

[Archived Post]

Yes, your rewards should scale to your participation....

They would need to be "balanced". For example, an Escort might do more damage than anyone else, but the Cruiser might have been giving them boosts to shield and weapons. Perhaps a Science ship took out their shields and confused their sensors. If the reward was based on damaged done there's no incentive for the support roles.

It would be cool if rewards were given out in categories and the items based on the role. That is, a science ship using their science skills might get a purple "science" award item.

[Archived Post]

They would need to be "balanced". For example, an Escort might do more damage than anyone else, but the Cruiser might have been giving them boosts to shield and weapons. Perhaps a Science ship took out their shields and confused their sensors. If the reward was based on damaged done there's no incentive for the support roles.

It would be cool if rewards were given out in categories and the items based on the role. That is, a science ship using their science skills might get a purple "science" award item.

I think it should be combination of healing hull/shields and damage. I don't know if it would balance out in STO. I mean you wouldn't want a science ship just flying around healing himself and winning either. I'm sure they could scale it out where each class could play their role and would be fair for all. Plus adding in objectives from the event.

That would be the easiest way to have a winner from each class. It may give out to much stuff to fast that way and people stop doing them.

[Archived Post]

Working on a mock-up of a "all ranks represented" mock-up of a mission - just to illustrate the idea that multiple ranks can have their own unique goals on a map.

I'll even toss in a few of everyone's reward ideas while I'm at it. :D

Creating that map of Faerun has really helped - lots of good stuff from learning how to do fancy channel editing.

[Archived Post]

i like your ideas

/signed

now to expand a little, as i am the guy incharge of fleet "operations" in my fleet. before they made it so levels got segragated in fleet actions i could invite and play with lower ranked players that were in my fleet, in "fleet actions"

now, instead of just making the match squad leaders level change work the way it was supposed to, they also decided that a fleet with varying different leveled characters can no longer run a "fleet" action together.. this has sucked all the fun out of our fleet sponsored events...

i feel that the development team really messed up on this one cause there is not many fleets out there, (especially since everyone quit) that have all ra and va level players... i feel that this was an injustice to fleets and should be rectified asap. there is almost no use for a fleet right now. i know there are some things in the pipeline, but some action needs to be taken now....

[Archived Post]

Update:
(==| Click here to see the Example Fleet Action (http://yfrog.com/c8rethinkingstffleetactioj) |==)

Notice that there's something for every rank to do (instead of banding or arbitrarily bumping levels up or down).

The goal here is that an entire fleet action can be put on a notecard and each rank's objective in just a couple sentences.

Short, sweet, and simple - yet from all these interconnecting parts you have a huge experience for veteran's and new players alike. Make the content worth going back to from a gameplay standpoint - not just a loot standpoint.

[Archived Post]

Guided Question:

What if fleet members earned renown for their Fleet based on their performance in Fleet Actions and STFs? (capped per day to prevent grinding)


What if fleets could compete against each other or even help each other?

[Archived Post]

I really like this idea

[Archived Post]

I like the idea in the scope of Fleet Actions. This could definitely make the Fleet Actions more interesting.

However, as far as STFs go, they need to just be eliminated from the game. Just wipe them out and start over making them fleet actions with the improved fleet action concepts. They can definitely keep the same story for them, but the whole underlying purpose of the STFs are to frustrate and irritate people, I see no way of salvaging them as they stand now.

The STFs as Fleet Actions, however, would be very cool.

[Archived Post]

I like the idea in the scope of Fleet Actions. This could definitely make the Fleet Actions more interesting.

However, as far as STFs go, they need to just be eliminated from the game. Just wipe them out and start over making them fleet actions with the improved fleet action concepts. They can definitely keep the same story for them, but the whole underlying purpose of the STFs are to frustrate and irritate people, I see no way of salvaging them as they stand now.

The STFs as Fleet Actions, however, would be very cool.

I'd say keep the current fleet actions (no sense wasting content -and people hours- that makes some people happy).

However, going forward, it'd be great to see more robust STF or Fleet Actions designs. Make them fleet centric and support a variety of ranks. Make it so those new Lts. can see the ropes early with raiding content while VAs are still getting challenged.

For those who missed the mock-up:
Update:
(==| Click here to see the Example Fleet Action (http://yfrog.com/c8rethinkingstffleetactioj) |==)

Notice that there's something for every rank to do (instead of banding or arbitrarily bumping levels up or down).

The goal here is that an entire fleet action can be put on a notecard and each rank's objective in just a couple sentences.

Short, sweet, and simple - yet from all these interconnecting parts you have a huge experience for veteran's and new players alike. Make the content worth going back to from a gameplay standpoint - not just a loot standpoint.

Quick note:
I think the devs have said something to the effect of:

STFs are essentially 5-person dungeons
Fleet Actions are 10-20 person raids.

[Archived Post]

something that could work on this.. dont think its been suggested in this thread yet.


its possible to have something to attack that scales individually. the cosmic's in CO are coded somewhat like this.

in effect the damage you do, and the damage they do, is scaled depending on each indivdual. Those who played CoH during the rikti invasion events of a while ago would have seen this in action too.

this way a fleet of varying levels could take on an enemy fleet, no need for distance to seperate them and no worry about the higher level ships insta-pwning the lower levels or vice versa.

the idea of different objectives for each rank is quite stunning however and that would be great to see in place. while the VA ships tackle their objective of keeping civilian ships safe for a time limit the Lt ships can be nipping around, beaming the civilians off and moving them to a safer location as an example. using the scaled-to-opponant system if a Lt ship picks up a stray blast or torpedo from something thats slipped by one of the VA's it wont insta-kill them, cause a fair bit of damage maybe, but be survivable to a degree and those same ships would still present a decent challenge to the VA's.

the same sort of idea can be applied to ground missions as well. you could even split objectives dynamically even further into the different skill branches. tactical officers work on defense while sci heal and scan and engineers repair systems in a under-seige base, with each rank having a different flavour of objective to complete..

if they take this on board and can code it into the game, the potential for it is really quite something. an excellent idea!

[Archived Post]

something that could work on this.. dont think its been suggested in this thread yet.

its possible to have something to attack that scales individually. the cosmic's in CO are coded somewhat like this.

in effect the damage you do, and the damage they do, is scaled depending on each indivdual. Those who played CoH during the rikti invasion events of a while ago would have seen this in action too.

this way a fleet of varying levels could take on an enemy fleet, no need for distance to seperate them and no worry about the higher level ships insta-pwning the lower levels or vice versa.
Interesting - that'd be much like Matching Team Leader's Level currently - if I'm not mistaken.

the idea of different objectives for each rank is quite stunning however and that would be great to see in place. while the VA ships tackle their objective of keeping civilian ships safe for a time limit the Lt ships can be nipping around, beaming the civilians off and moving them to a safer location as an example. using the scaled-to-opponant system if a Lt ship picks up a stray blast or torpedo from something thats slipped by one of the VA's it wont insta-kill them, cause a fair bit of damage maybe, but be survivable to a degree and those same ships would still present a decent challenge to the VA's.

the same sort of idea can be applied to ground missions as well. you could even split objectives dynamically even further into the different skill branches. tactical officers work on defense while sci heal and scan and engineers repair systems in a under-seige base, with each rank having a different flavour of objective to complete..

if they take this on board and can code it into the game, the potential for it is really quite something. an excellent idea!

That's the goal: show that differing ranks have different responsibilities (and powers) early on.

This would get players interested in the game sooner (who doesn't want to help in a raid as a newbie?) while also ensuring that high-level challenges vary as you naturally progress through the game.

You could even have Lt through Cmdr. doing a ground mission while the Higher Ranks handle space combat and support.

[Archived Post]

yeah it'd be like matching the team/squad leaders level, but over the whole instance for everyone in it, regardless of distance or any of that.

the tech is out there for this to happen, like i said, i think the cosmics in CO use something similar, and CoH (while coded by NCSoft at that point) used the older version of the cryptic engine to pull this off, so i dont see it being too much of a stretch for the devs to work out.

even that alone would help improve the "feel" of fleet actions for some, going on what i've seen, and would make the fleet actions as they are now more populated.

[Archived Post]

yeah it'd be like matching the team/squad leaders level, but over the whole instance for everyone in it, regardless of distance or any of that.

the tech is out there for this to happen, like i said, i think the cosmics in CO use something similar, and CoH (while coded by NCSoft at that point) used the older version of the cryptic engine to pull this off, so i dont see it being too much of a stretch for the devs to work out.

I suggested something similar before. The problem is that scores always lean toward higher ranks (since you have more powers available). This would make it less fun

even that alone would help improve the "feel" of fleet actions for some, going on what i've seen, and would make the fleet actions as they are now more populated.
Getting that "feel" of a fleet is challenging but I think differentiating roles by the ranks (or tiers) is vital for having players come back.

I'd love to see new mission challenges as I rank up (or have new challenges that encourage rolling alt characters - so I don't feeling like I'm running the same road as my my main).

I think it's a healthy perspective on developing Raiding content that doesn't bar new players from seeing but also rewards high-end players with new gameplay (and not just bigger guns+numbers).

[Archived Post]

Guided Question:
How would this content philosophy be scaled for PvP?


Would territory control with objectives for everyone in the fleet work? (thus leaving no-one out?)

[Archived Post]

I think that the different objectives is a great idea that would get the feel that different ships are needed in the game. One problem I can think of is what if no T4 show up or T2 how would it decide what tier would complete them. They could allow things like objectives could be failed and it would make it harder to complete the next phase. So you would want lower level ships.

Your idea of beaming people and moving cargo would be great additions in fleet actions to add some non combat roles and a support feel in the fleet action. That others things are needed to win the battle.

They could add where lower tier ships could beam off injured crew from ships take them to a NPC hospital ship. Then bring new personnel to ships from a star base. Or moving in more torpedoes and mines to ships. That are needed only for that fleet action.

They could even let you choose a type of ship to enter the fleet action for a specific roles like mine sweeper or a shuttle to dogfight with fighters. Or a transport to aid players or a star base. With a limited number of special ships. So some would have to play their own ships.

They have unlimited potential with fleet actions.

Let us make 10 or 20 player groups for fleet actions.

[Archived Post]

I think that the different objectives is a great idea that would get the feel that different ships are needed in the game. One problem I can think of is what if no T4 show up or T2 how would it decide what tier would complete them. They could allow things like objectives could be failed and it would make it harder to complete the next phase. So you would want lower level ships.

I tried to address this on the first page. If lower tiers aren't present, then:
the objectives wouldn't appear or
would scale up to the next lowest level or
even remain static, minor objectives that are necessary for completion but don't get measured for performance.

Any one or a combination might work (a far off Lt. Objective might get scratched but the mobs for the minefield might get boosted or remain static and just be a necessary tick without scoring).

This would give unique chances for Fleets to shine and actually do something together (with possible fleet-level rewards).

I'll work on a revised OP to make these options clearer. Thanks for the criticism - you found a weak spot, now it's my turn to help fix it. :D

[Archived Post]

Guided Question:
How would this content philosophy be scaled for PvP?


Would territory control with objectives for everyone in the fleet work? (thus leaving no-one out?)


You basically came up with the idea yourself transporting goods and moving cargo. Moving resources to aid the battles. Protecting personnel to increase production to win the battle. Clearing mine fields and fighters.

Who ever wins control of the system could then get a special daily missions and/or STF and fleet action only available with control of the system. To give reasons to want to control the system.

[Archived Post]

You basically came up with the idea yourself transporting goods and moving cargo. Moving resources to aid the battles. Protecting personnel to increase production to win the battle. Clearing mine fields and fighters.

Who ever wins control of the system could then get a special daily missions and/or STF and fleet action only available with control of the system. To give reasons to want to control the system.
Exactly.

You could even have combat for everyone (and not just non-combat for the new players).

Maybe the KDF have heavy artillery or laser emplacements that need taking out while the KDF need to bring down the roving resupply convoys the FEDs have on the ground 9not just attacking but also tracking and avoiding emplacements where FEDs can easily attack and hide for healing).

Epic! We can do this Cryptic! :)

(hehehe... deliberately posted those questions for such a good response). :D

[Archived Post]

I tried to address this on the first page. If lower tiers aren't present, then:
the objectives wouldn't appear or
would scale up to the next lowest level or
even remain static, minor objectives that are necessary for completion but don't get measured for performance.

Any one or a combination might work (a far off Lt. Objective might get scratched but the mobs for the minefield might get boosted or remain static and just be a necessary tick without scoring).

This would give unique chances for Fleets to shine and actually do something together (with possible fleet-level rewards).

I'll work on a revised OP to make these options clearer. Thanks for the criticism - you found a weak spot, now it's my turn to help fix it. :D

I read it yesterday so I didn't remember that part but objectives that could be failed but still complete the fleet action. If lower levels not present would make you want some lower level players. This could give players with alts and reasons to make alts to play these roles in fleet actions. They could even add accolades for complete all objectives in fleet actions.

[Archived Post]

I read it yesterday so I didn't remember that part but objectives that could be failed but still complete the fleet action. If lower levels not present would make you want some lower level players. This could give players with alts and reasons to make alts to play these roles in fleet actions. They could even add accolades for complete all objectives in fleet actions.

Lose the battle but not the war? (or rather objective but not the battle?)

I like.

This is a great way to get people to roll alts and also to get new players excited about the game (instead of dreading the Lt.Cmdr. and beyond slump). The bean counters will have plenty of beans if people are trying to complete such multi-layered (but rather simple) Fleet Actions. :D

Any thoughts from Cryptic?

[Archived Post]

Exactly.

You could even have combat for everyone (and not just non-combat for the new players).

Maybe the KDF have heavy artillery or laser emplacements that need taking out while the KDF need to bring down the roving resupply convoys the FEDs have on the ground 9not just attacking but also tracking and avoiding emplacements where FEDs can easily attack and hide for healing).

Epic! We can do this Cryptic! :)

(hehehe... deliberately posted those questions for such a good response). :D

Yes, objectives for lower level ships like Mirandas and Connies to take out the artillery, mines and fighters. T3 ship to protect them. They wouldn't stand a chance against battleships. This would be epic and really give it a fleet feel with different roles needed. Then at the end every one pile on the Dreadnought.

[Archived Post]

Yes, objectives for lower level ships like Mirandas and Connies to take out the artillery, mines and fighters. T3 ship to protect them. They wouldn't stand a chance against battleships. This would be epic and really give it a fleet feel with different roles needed. Then at the end every one pile on the Dreadnought.

Who doesn't love 20-person dog-piles? (and you don't have to worry about needing 20 VAs with Raid Gear Tier XX either).

Even ground combat could feel more engaging in this fashion. :D

[Archived Post]

Another solution we over looked is with the lower tier objectives was that Admirals could play with their T1-T4 ships to fill the lower level roles. This would allow you to play your old ships if you wanted.

Just have a NPC in a ship at the entrance that would allow you to switch ships if their wasn't to many lower level ships.

Another would be with the play as bridge officer feature that is being thought about. If they allowed you to station bridge officer on certain ships you could just play as one of them. Or keep different level bridge officers on your character.

[Archived Post]

Another solution we over looked is with the lower tier objectives was that Admirals could play with their T1-T4 ships to fill the lower level roles. This would allow you to play your old ships if you wanted.

Just have a NPC in a ship at the entrance that would allow you to switch ships if their wasn't to many lower level ships.

Another would be with the play as bridge officer feature that is being thought about. If they allowed you to station bridge officer on certain ships you could just play as one of them. Or keep different level bridge officers on your character.

The former would require disabling higher tier Player Captain powers (i.e. using photonic fleet or miracle worker while the new players are struggling would certainly cause issues when it comes to scoring).

Bridge Officers are a viable option too.

[Archived Post]

One of the things I've challenged folks with on The UGC Starbase thead is to ask themselves - rather than wait or ask for stuff from Cryptic - how would you design/build this with UGC? Admittedly a bit tough to answer just now since we don't know the UGC capabilities - but it would help to drive UGC requirements for Cryptic (see UGC Features (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=159672)).

If we can build Fleet actions (and this is only required for that 20+ dogpile), if the tools have the ability to use logic to create opponents dynamically, then I don't see this is being an issue. It could in fact be the basis for "expert-level" designer construction that ensures multilevel play is always fun. Good guidelines would be a valuable addition for all designers. It would certainly make a fun furball under the framework in The UGC Starbase, for Territory Control missions.

[Archived Post]

One of the things I've challenged folks with on The UGC Starbase thead is to ask themselves - rather than wait or ask for stuff from Cryptic - how would you design/build this with UGC? Admittedly a bit tough to answer just now since we don't know the UGC capabilities - but it would help to drive UGC requirements for Cryptic (see UGC Features (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=159672)).

If we can build Fleet actions (and this is only required for that 20+ dogpile), if the tools have the ability to use logic to create opponents dynamically, then I don't see this is being an issue. It could in fact be the basis for "expert-level" designer construction that ensures multilevel play is always fun. Good guidelines would be a valuable addition for all designers. It would certainly make a fun furball under the framework in The UGC Starbase, for Territory Control missions.

Hopefully, the tools are robust. If we could create missions for large numbers of players (i.e. a fleet action or PvP mission) that would be awesome.

There's hopefully something to be gleaned from the original post on shifting away from slapping on level scaling to something more nuanced and representative of a fleet.

[Archived Post]

To the OP:

That is an amazing suggestion, it's so simple, yet at the same time, groundbreaking. I love the idea, I mean, who wouldn't!? Cryptic needs to see this! Like, RIGHT away!!

[Archived Post]

To the OP:

That is an amazing suggestion, it's so simple, yet at the same time, groundbreaking. I love the idea, I mean, who wouldn't!? Cryptic needs to see this! Like, RIGHT away!!

Lead forces into battle? Check.
Having the freshest warriors fight along Dahar Masters in their element? Check.
Give objectives and new replay features that show a natural power progression as you work through the ranks? Check.

Let's do this! :D

[Archived Post]

Guided Question:

Can the basic design of this scale well toward 3 factions (ether FvKvEnvironment or FvKvR)?

[Archived Post]

I'm 'shopping some photos for another mock-up - this time showing how ground PvP would work under this paradigm.

:D

[Archived Post]

I think this format for Fleet Actions is a very good idea. Thanks for posting this up, Darren.

It would support the unfortunate circumstances when only 1 person ends up warping into a fleet action instance (i.e.: Fox Hunt, the second-part of the DS9 Fleet Action). Making the Fleet Action capable of adjusting at certain intervals to the playerbase present is a good way of insurring that people can always go there (thus not discourage the few from going if an insufficient number of players are present; in turn encouraging traffic to Fleet Actions).

I also like the scaling idea because it'd be a way to encourage lower difficulty objectives for lower levels. I never liked how a Miranda could go and square off against a Negh'var, but in this situation if Negh'vars also happen to be level 41 opponents then it does make them a stiff threat to low-level characters and thus assigning important roles to the players whom have battleships. Meanwhile, the light cruisers could go to help contribute fighting the smaller escorting warships of the enemy force (level 5 Bird of Prey trio, level 11 K'Tancos, level 11 Raptors, level 21 K'tingas)

Once that sort of technology is established, perhaps the Devs could go and apply it to elements such as Deep Space Encounters (if applicable).

Early missions could also include this... because, again, light cruisers have no business fighting battleships and easily icing them off. Seeing a K'tinga act as a final boss for a lieutenant-level mission helps affirm ship identity much more strongly and this is something STO presently seriously lacks.

[Archived Post]

Guided Question:

Can the basic design of this scale well toward 3 factions (ether FvKvEnvironment or FvKvR)?


I can see the idea as it applies to multiple levels as there are very tangible differences (HP, dps) which should be easily identifiable in the UGC (e.g., level < 20) . The differences between the factions are more subtle though. Obvious things like humans being ugly compared to Klingons just wouldn't apply. The faction differences center around things likes skills (e.g., Klingons can Cloak).

I wouldn't say it would be impossible. How about next to impossible? :D

[Archived Post]

I can see the idea as it applies to multiple levels as there are very tangible differences (HP, dps) which should be easily identifiable in the UGC (e.g., level < 20) . The differences between the factions are more subtle though. Obvious things like humans being ugly compared to Klingons just wouldn't apply. The faction differences center around things likes skills (e.g., Klingons can Cloak).

I wouldn't say it would be impossible. How about next to impossible? :D

Well, considering some of the community won't touch UGC - this might work best from a dev standpoint.

It'd be great to know what their current design process is like for STFs/Fleet Actions. We really don't have much of an idea about Cryptic operates behind the scenes when it comes to design discussion and implementation.

It'd be cool if a dev could chime in and explain how things work and if this idea is potentially viable.

[Archived Post]

Well, considering some of the community won't touch UGC - this might work best from a dev standpoint.
Their loss, our gain! :D

Although, there's no reason why any idea couldn't be used by the devs or UGC designers (other than tool limitations). i wouldn't be at all surprised if this idea didn't show up in one of the weekly missions or new fleet actions. It's a good one!

[Archived Post]

Their loss, our gain! :D

Although, there's no reason why any idea couldn't be used by the devs or UGC designers (other than tool limitations). i wouldn't be at all surprised if this idea didn't show up in one of the weekly missions or new fleet actions. It's a good one!

I wonder how hard the tech would be to implement - considering there's already a precedent while teaming during Exploration missions (i.e. mobs increase in number).

[Archived Post]

Guided Discussion:
Some players have wanted starbases and colonization in STO.

Using these design principles, could building a space station be more involved than just chipping in energy credits? What if specific tasks needed to be accomplished by various ranks?

Fleets would need a wide spread of low-level players and also high-ranked veterans in order to build a station - promoting the creation of alts and encouraging fleets to recruit more actively.

[Archived Post]

Dear Darren_Kitlor,

On this one, I'm going to disagree with you a bit.

First off, don't scale, if something is set to LT level, then keep it at LT level. The scaling level system has been rather funky from the get go in the random encounters, the Fleet Actions (ground and space) and the frustrating Raid missions (that would work if Star Trek Online had the numbers of active players up there). If you're trying to help out random players when they hit a wall in a mission (yes, the carebear in me is speaking) and you enter into the fleet action with them... Well, bad things happen to the person who has the mission in the first place because the critters scale up and what the player was having difficulty getting through before now becomes impossible, with the higher ranking player finishing out the mission and the lower level person being rather frustrated. Nothing like going in with an Admiral buddy from a little Breaking the Ice and the rest of us are getting insta-popped when our respective toons hit the ground.

The only time there should be a Rank restriction is in the PvP side (since the whole of the game is not PvP), and this is to keep the griefers at bay. Nothing like having a Klingon Carrier in the same room insta-popping all of the LT's trying to deal with Borg Drones to make someone wait until the wee hours in order to avoid said folks.

If the rewards aren't worth it for the higher ranking folks to farm a particular mission then they won't farm it, but everyone should be able to hop on into any mission, fleet action, with the exception of PvP areas where Rank restrictions would deny the higher level players.

Next up, get rid of the queues/instances and open up the different missions/PvP areas. If random folks hop into the room with you while you're patrolling a planet, that's normal, so why are there queues for the different Fleet Actions and Raid missions?

Where we are in agreement is when it comes to using a toon's fleet and fleet mates to joining in on one of these different Fleet and Raid missions together. I concur, it should be easier for fleetmates to hop into the on-going Fleet Actions or Raid mission (unless they are level Restricted for a PvP mission) vs. having to go through the hassle of trying to suss out which instance and how to get to said instance...

I rather like your idea of different objectives for the different ranks, but then it gets back to that issue of if the scale is more towards the upper ranks vs. an average, you have the upper folks actually doing the mission, while the lower ranks are pretty much acting as cannon fodder at best, at worst, they're not even able to participate (getting insta-popped and thus unable to do more than respawn and get popped, again).

Now, to counter player crowding (and thus server overloading) if the queues are removed is to make the location of these Fleet Actions or Raids be variable within a particular Sector. In other words, instead of having menu-driven instances have planet/system-driven instances in order to make it easier for Fleetmates or Friends suss out your location and thus join in the fun!

[Archived Post]

Dear Darren_Kitlor,

On this one, I'm going to disagree with you a bit.

First off, don't scale, if something is set to LT level, then keep it at LT level. The scaling level system has been rather funky from the get go in the random encounters, the Fleet Actions (ground and space) and the frustrating Raid missions (that would work if Star Trek Online had the numbers of active players up there). If you're trying to help out random players when they hit a wall in a mission (yes, the carebear in me is speaking) and you enter into the fleet action with them... Well, bad things happen to the person who has the mission in the first place because the critters scale up and what the player was having difficulty getting through before now becomes impossible, with the higher ranking player finishing out the mission and the lower level person being rather frustrated. Nothing like going in with an Admiral buddy from a little Breaking the Ice and the rest of us are getting insta-popped when our respective toons hit the ground.

The only time there should be a Rank restriction is in the PvP side (since the whole of the game is not PvP), and this is to keep the griefers at bay. Nothing like having a Klingon Carrier in the same room insta-popping all of the LT's trying to deal with Borg Drones to make someone wait until the wee hours in order to avoid said folks.

If the rewards aren't worth it for the higher ranking folks to farm a particular mission then they won't farm it, but everyone should be able to hop on into any mission, fleet action, with the exception of PvP areas where Rank restrictions would deny the higher level players.

Next up, get rid of the queues/instances and open up the different missions/PvP areas. If random folks hop into the room with you while you're patrolling a planet, that's normal, so why are there queues for the different Fleet Actions and Raid missions?

Where we are in agreement is when it comes to using a toon's fleet and fleet mates to joining in on one of these different Fleet and Raid missions together. I concur, it should be easier for fleetmates to hop into the on-going Fleet Actions or Raid mission (unless they are level Restricted for a PvP mission) vs. having to go through the hassle of trying to suss out which instance and how to get to said instance...

I rather like your idea of different objectives for the different ranks, but then it gets back to that issue of if the scale is more towards the upper ranks vs. an average, you have the upper folks actually doing the mission, while the lower ranks are pretty much acting as cannon fodder at best, at worst, they're not even able to participate (getting insta-popped and thus unable to do more than respawn and get popped, again).

Now, to counter player crowding (and thus server overloading) if the queues are removed is to make the location of these Fleet Actions or Raids be variable within a particular Sector. In other words, instead of having menu-driven instances have planet/system-driven instances in order to make it easier for Fleetmates or Friends suss out your location and thus join in the fun!

I think we're actually close to agreement than you might realize - Englebert and I were discussing how to balance for missing ranks on the previous few pages (we came up with something like 4 methods that could either be used separately or together).

Scaling is just one of many options to handle missing rank gaps (Englebert and I also discussing leaving them static and just necessitating it being a tick box without scoring going toward a higher ranked player's goal) and also having elements not appearing if that rank is missing (i.e. the epic VA+ battleship only appears if there are epic VA+ to defeat it).

[Archived Post]

In reading through the requirement of having different level folks for each of the Raids, it would mean that there would be quite a number of "battle won/war lost" as it seems that due to the leveling system incorporated within this game, it's fairly easy to reach the top and then due to the level cap have nothing further to do. Without more new characters (and really this gets to an issue of the lack of subscribers) the ability for the scaling objectives won't work out. Not to mention that because of the level upper limit, this means that those higher level characters really don't have much to do, other than go after accolades, continue to be master crafters/builders for themselves or their respective Fleet/Corporation.

I'd also highly recommend not trying to repeat or imitate any of the advances of such a property as, "World of ********." Blizzard/(the company that is in charge of the hosting/day-to-day work) have a rather vast subscriber base from which many of their ideas have been imitated and unfortunately for those companies trying to duplicate the success of "World of ********" have had more than a few failures. I'd instead recommend

My own recommendations unfortunately come down to adding more factions (their own relative missions) and thus content for players to experience. The first group (with the least amount of additional rule set creation) that I'd really recommend adding the Romulan Star Empire (well, the remnants of it) mainly due to the classic and ever-present nature of this particular faction within the various Star Trek stories (TV shows, movies, books, etc. , ...) Maybe give them various spy/stealth-based missions along with the standard assortment of missions on the Federation side.

The next faction I'd recommend adding would be either the Hydran Kingdom (in order to add a set of summoner style characters to the game). Right yet, I think that the Klingon Carrier is the only ship in the game that can use fighters, I'd love to see the Hydrans come back in order to see more fighters come into play. I do realize that the more pets, the more lag can be had, so this might be a strike against this particular faction.

If Cryptic were to get to a point where they were to consolidate and simplify their various economies so that the majority of items could be purchased via a single currency vs. the 5 or so that are currently being used, I'd love to see them add in the Ferengi Alliance and Wyn Star Cluster as playable factions. Economic Manipulation, Piracy, thievery directly from players' inventories. More diplomatic missions or the same rule set for scrounging items could be used for the piracy missions. With the inclusion of the Wyn Star Cluster, players would have the option of playing Lyrans, Orions, Gorn and Klingon characters (I'm not including the Kzinti because Cryptic/Atari may not have the rights to use Larry Niven's IP) and thus at a later date, maybe have these different races gain access to their own factions due to player actions within the game. Currently, both the Orions and the Gorn have their own ships, so why not build upon this at a later time (again, depending upon the number of subscribers and interest)?

At a much later date, they may even want to look into incorporating Faction Warfare (right yet, there are quite a large number of Federation folks to a single Klingon Faction player) and maybe have sliding neutral zones, economic changes and safety in flying through such places without encountering and thus fighting a hostile Player or NPC force. In such zones, one might encounter a hostile NPC group that is at Admiral level, while another might be at Lieutenant level. This would be the one set of areas where Admirals and Lieutenants could and would possibly duke it out (in these Neutral or Disputed Zones).

[Archived Post]

In reading through the requirement of having different level folks for each of the Raids, it would mean that there would be quite a number of "battle won/war lost" as it seems that due to the leveling system incorporated within this game, it's fairly easy to reach the top and then due to the level cap have nothing further to do. Without more new characters (and really this gets to an issue of the lack of subscribers) the ability for the scaling objectives won't work out. Not to mention that because of the level upper limit, this means that those higher level characters really don't have much to do, other than go after accolades, continue to be master crafters/builders for themselves or their respective Fleet/Corporation.

I'd also highly recommend not trying to repeat or imitate any of the advances of such a property as, "World of ********." Blizzard/(the company that is in charge of the hosting/day-to-day work) have a rather vast subscriber base from which many of their ideas have been imitated and unfortunately for those companies trying to duplicate the success of "World of ********" have had more than a few failures. I'd instead recommend

My own recommendations unfortunately come down to adding more factions (their own relative missions) and thus content for players to experience. The first group (with the least amount of additional rule set creation) that I'd really recommend adding the Romulan Star Empire (well, the remnants of it) mainly due to the classic and ever-present nature of this particular faction within the various Star Trek stories (TV shows, movies, books, etc. , ...) Maybe give them various spy/stealth-based missions along with the standard assortment of missions on the Federation side.

The next faction I'd recommend adding would be either the Hydran Kingdom (in order to add a set of summoner style characters to the game). Right yet, I think that the Klingon Carrier is the only ship in the game that can use fighters, I'd love to see the Hydrans come back in order to see more fighters come into play. I do realize that the more pets, the more lag can be had, so this might be a strike against this particular faction.

If Cryptic were to get to a point where they were to consolidate and simplify their various economies so that the majority of items could be purchased via a single currency vs. the 5 or so that are currently being used, I'd love to see them add in the Ferengi Alliance and Wyn Star Cluster as playable factions. Economic Manipulation, Piracy, thievery directly from players' inventories. More diplomatic missions or the same rule set for scrounging items could be used for the piracy missions. With the inclusion of the Wyn Star Cluster, players would have the option of playing Lyrans, Orions, Gorn and Klingon characters (I'm not including the Kzinti because Cryptic/Atari may not have the rights to use Larry Niven's IP) and thus at a later date, maybe have these different races gain access to their own factions due to player actions within the game. Currently, both the Orions and the Gorn have their own ships, so why not build upon this at a later time (again, depending upon the number of subscribers and interest)?

At a much later date, they may even want to look into incorporating Faction Warfare (right yet, there are quite a large number of Federation folks to a single Klingon Faction player) and maybe have sliding neutral zones, economic changes and safety in flying through such places without encountering and thus fighting a hostile Player or NPC force. In such zones, one might encounter a hostile NPC group that is at Admiral level, while another might be at Lieutenant level. This would be the one set of areas where Admirals and Lieutenants could and would possibly duke it out (in these Neutral or Disputed Zones).

What we were talking about was getting all levels back into the fleet actions like it was when the game launched. Lots of us loved fleet actions this way the only problem was Admirals farmed the fleet actions for the lower level rewards. Like Star Base 24 the Lieutenant level fleet action this made some new players angry because they couldn't win gear rewards.

What we were talking about was mobs scaling to the players level. Like if I was lieutenant and you were a Admiral and we were attacking the same NPC. He would be an Admiral to you and a Lieutenant to me. This is in other games and we were wanting to fill fleet aactions up again.

Darren_Kitlor was suggesting that we have options for lower level characters. Like Miranda's would fight fighters to protect civilians and move some cargo. If no T1 one players were in there the next tier up would do them and so on.

I suggested that players could do them with their own T1 ships. Or play as one their lower level bridge officers which might get put in game. Or some objectives could be failed and still be able to complete the fleet action. If no lower levels were in it.

We were trying to get all ships and tiers in fleet actions to make it feel like Fleets on Star Trek. In DS9 you would see Galaxy, Excelsior and Miranda class star ships fighting together. Also give it a feel that other things were needed to win battles not just combat.

[Archived Post]

I wonder how hard the tech would be to implement - considering there's already a precedent while teaming during Exploration missions (i.e. mobs increase in number).
I think all the tech that's needed is already there for the devs and should be very doable for UGC. The problem might be more along the lines of turning off the default scaling.

Think about how you'd set this up if you were doing it in UGC. A bunch of player ships warp in - the mission needs to figure out how to handle the varying levels of the players. At it's simplest the logic might be something like this:
2 Ships < Level 20, spawn Easy-Encounter1 at x1,y1,z1
Level 20 > 2 ships < level 40, Spawn medium-Encounter 2 at x2, y2, z2
else if shipCount >= 4 spawnEasy-Encounter1 at X1, y1, z1
1 Ships > level 40 spawn CrazyEncounter3 at x3, y3, z3
else if shipCount == 5 spwan Easy-Encounter1 at X1, y1, z1


So, 2 level < 20 ships would spawn one Easy-Encounter1, however 4 ships < 20 would spawn two Easy-Encounter1's, and 5 < 20 would spawn 3.

But, if you had 2 < 20 ships, 2 ships between 20 and 40 then you'd have one Easy-Encounter1 and one Medium-Ecounter2.

If you had a Level 40+ ship you'd get the CrazyEncounter3, plus other encounters depending on the levels and number of ships.

Guided Discussion:
Some players have wanted starbases and colonization in STO.

Using these design principles, could building a space station be more involved than just chipping in energy credits? What if specific tasks needed to be accomplished by various ranks?


Yes, absolutely! Ignoring the ranks/levels part of the question there's a whole thread to explore that here (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=175352). Here's the gist of how it could work, keep in mind this is all based on UGC, so we control what it does.

First, you could either grab a "stock" starbase UGC mission (which just proivdes a generic starbase shell) or you could create your own using the tools and put the Transporter room just where you want it. Let's call this a "Level 0 starbase".

Next, the owner of the starbase, can either create missions or inport "stock" missions that have already been created that are launched from his starbase. This is essentially creating a "door" to a pre-existing mission.

Now, lets say one of these missions is a PvE starbase missions - you launch it and your starbase comes under attack. Enemies beam aboard and to be successful you have to fight them off until reinforcements arrive (I'm assuming it's a timed mission, but obviously there could be a lot of varieties). If you do succeed, you get a reward. This should be a pretty much a vanilla UGC toolset mission.

Now, here's where we get tricky. Remember you got a reward? Let's say that reward is a Level 2 Starbase defense grid that grants a 10% bonus. Next time you run any mission, that missions see you have that, and it gives you 10% bonus. Now you can run harder missions, and get better rewards!

From there, you just expand the system out getting all the crazy/wonderful ideas in UGC Starbases (like UGC Crafting). Possibly, a whole framework could be built that any designer could tap into it - now you really have something. :D

Going back to the ranks/levels part - I see that as something that could specifically be built into missions; but I'm not sure how you'd apply it to specific levels unless low level players could get cool rewards high level players couldn't get. They might not be as powerful as what the high level players got, but every little bit helps!

[Archived Post]

What we were talking about was getting all levels back into the fleet actions like it was when the game launched. Lots of us loved fleet actions this way the only problem was Admirals farmed the fleet actions for the lower level rewards. Like Star Base 24 the Lieutenant level fleet action this made some new players angry because they couldn't win gear rewards.

What we were talking about was mobs scaling to the players level. Like if I was lieutenant and you were a Admiral and we were attacking the same NPC. He would be an Admiral to you and a Lieutenant to me. This is in other games and we were wanting to fill fleet aactions up again.

Darren_Kitlor was suggesting that we have options for lower level characters. Like Miranda's would fight fighters to protect civilians and move some cargo. If no T1 one players were in there the next tier up would do them and so on.

I suggested that players could do them with their own T1 ships. Or play as one their lower level bridge officers which might get put in game. Or some objectives could be failed and still be able to complete the fleet action. If no lower levels were in it.

We were trying to get all ships and tiers in fleet actions to make it feel like Fleets on Star Trek. In DS9 you would see Galaxy, Excelsior and Miranda class star ships fighting together. Also give it a feel that other things were needed to win battles not just combat.

This. I'm still working on a rewrite to better explain how the mechanics work. What may be clear to Englebert and I is apparently not clear to others.

The onus is on me now to rewrite and make sure that these ideas are communicated in the most effective way possible.

[Archived Post]

What we were talking about was mobs scaling to the players level. Like if I was lieutenant and you were a Admiral and we were attacking the same NPC. He would be an Admiral to you and a Lieutenant to me. This is in other games and we were wanting to fill fleet actions up again.

Darren_Kitlor was suggesting that we have options for lower level characters. Like Miranda's would fight fighters to protect civilians and move some cargo. If no T1 one players were in there the next tier up would do them and so on.

We were trying to get all ships and tiers in fleet actions to make it feel like Fleets on Star Trek. In DS9 you would see Galaxy, Excelsior and Miranda class star ships fighting together. Also give it a feel that other things were needed to win battles not just combat.

Ahhh, on this, what I would instead recommend doing is to avoid the multi-scaling of NPC's, as it is, quite a number of the problems with this game have to deal with Database Pointer problems, no need to exasperate them. I am really digging your (respective) ideas on giving folks different marching orders in a fleet operation. The only worry is when everyone is the same rank but have different or equal grades and the logic necessary to assign mission objectives come into play. If let's say the LT level of tasks/rewards is assigned to the lower ranking Admiral in the room, the level of grouching and complaining will go through the roof! On a slight tangent, there's something about flying about in a Runabout which I find quite entertaining. Mobs of runabouts in the random encounter instances...

Hmmm, on that note, mayhap as part of the mission requirements folks might have to pop into their older ships (and thus cause a corresponding increase in the necessary number of ship slots each toon has available) along with keeping them fitted for just such an occasion, this might be a suitable substitution instead of using a character's level for the assignment within such a mission.

So, I'd avoid using any form of scaling, but would instead use ship restrictions after x number of a level of character ship is present for the mission. I'd also suggest a safe rendezvous point where the players could get their UI's in order prior to hopping into the mission as a fleet.

[Archived Post]

Ahhh, on this, what I would instead recommend doing is to avoid the multi-scaling of NPC's, as it is, quite a number of the problems with this game have to deal with Database Pointer problems, no need to exasperate them. I am really digging your (respective) ideas on giving folks different marching orders in a fleet operation. The only worry is when everyone is the same rank but have different or equal grades and the logic necessary to assign mission objectives come into play. If let's say the LT level of tasks/rewards is assigned to the lower ranking Admiral in the room, the level of grouching and complaining will go through the roof! On a slight tangent, there's something about flying about in a Runabout which I find quite entertaining. Mobs of runabouts in the random encounter instances...

Hmmm, on that note, mayhap as part of the mission requirements folks might have to pop into their older ships (and thus cause a corresponding increase in the necessary number of ship slots each toon has available) along with keeping them fitted for just such an occasion, this might be a suitable substitution instead of using a character's level for the assignment within such a mission.

So, I'd avoid using any form of scaling, but would instead use ship restrictions after x number of a level of character ship is present for the mission. I'd also suggest a safe rendezvous point where the players could get their UI's in order prior to hopping into the mission as a fleet.
Popping into older ships might help a little but you have to keep in mind the combat effectiveness. You'd have to delevel powers and such (Photonic Fleet/SubNub for Lt.10, anyone?)

However, shifting how STFs and Fleet Actions are done to be more inclusive of all ranks would take this game to the next level.

[Archived Post]

Some interesting thoughts from dstahl in another thread:
We are in the process of designing some possible End Game features that players have been asking for. This is tentatively scheduled to be part of Season 4.

In the short term, we're working on more gear and sets of gear for end game. We are also hoping to go back and revisit the STFs and possibly rework them to be more playable by more people. Those mission are some of the most detailed work we've done on missions and it is a shame that they aren't played nearly enough.
People like the larger missions: it's just that they dislike level-banding or waiting till RA5+/BG5+ to reach the really good content. Those are fairly sizable barriers to nailing that larger fleet scale.

Would a shift in designing objectives by rank within a shared instance be fun? Would it irritate people? Would i be too challenging to implement in the near-term?

:)

[Archived Post]

I firmly support this idea and would like to see it implemented in game.

Regarding dstahl's comment, maybe if the trash mobs were toned down and the timers on stuff such as spawns and devices were lengthened by about 25% people would play the stuff more. As it is most give up because of the time commitment (amazing for a game that has gone on record as being a casual friendly experience) and high failure rate.

[Archived Post]

I firmly support this idea and would like to see it implemented in game.

Regarding dstahl's comment, maybe if the trash mobs were toned down and the timers on stuff such as spawns and devices were lengthened by about 25% people would play the stuff more. As it is most give up because of the time commitment (amazing for a game that has gone on record as being a casual friendly experience) and high failure rate.

I think part of the problem was definitely that only high-end players could be involved and only select levels at that (until they added the Vice Admiral versions of STFs).

I'm not sure how feasible this would be on the coding end but I would imagine it's possible to create.

[Archived Post]

I think the issues across the board (difficulty, technique, griefers, level banding) could probably be solved by redoing the FAs and STFs in a few ways:

- Merge FAs and STFs into a single playstyle. Just call them "raids" or "Fleet Task Forces" or one name to refer to the overall system. Rebranding every mechanic for the game confuses people.

- You do them in prefab groups, 5 person and 10 person size. (This would mean adding support/scaling for ten person groups.) 20 is too many to organize for this game although you might add support for 20 later. Having two size brackets is pretty ideal although I always liked City of Heroes' 4 to 8 person groups, which scaled to size.

- You can queue for a group rather than assemble one. Rather than insta-port you, maybe have something like ********'s summoning stones, a "transwarp relay" at the entrances of the STF that has to be manned/activated by two or more players.

- The technique/difficulty scaled down... But allow people to adjust difficulty up for increased emblem rewards. (Ie. maybe regular gives 1 emblem per leg of an STF completed and 5 for a fleet action. Elite difficulty triples the rewards. More advanced/progressed STFs might offer bonus emblems as well.)

- Offer a unique reward or accolade for each raid, similar to the Borg Drone. Some might be rare drops. Some might be accolades. Some might be original and some might be C-Store items repurposed as incentives.

- Take the STF trophies and award them for completing the 10 person raid. Competing with your friends for DPS is detrimental to community building. Whereas offering a reward for dealing with a large group is community building.

[Archived Post]

Here's a winning idea of a Weekly Series to test these new design concepts:

The M'Kieru Sector
a weekly series suggestion

The M'Kieru Sector sits between the Psi Velorum and Pi Canis sector Blocks. It's on the border between between Federation, Klingon, and Romulan space. It's home to both the Federation's first contact with the Garidians (TNG: "A Final Unity") as well as the Dyson Sphere (TNG: "Relics"). It's close to Iconia and Iccobar too. It even has the Dynasia system. The 'Tin Man" (see TNG episode) was also there: a living starship called the Gomtuu.

In short, it's prime real-estate for a weekly episode series to be laid out and test the waters with more competitive PvE areas (Warzones), new Fleet actions, and also PvP.

It consists of five missions (with the usual patrols to flesh it out) but some would be Fleet Actions or Warzones (rather than just regular story missions - increasing the re-playability) or even more PvP maps.

It's the perfect juncture for the current (and near future) factions to meet up. It's a great spot to set-up the Iconians - as well as revisit many unanswered questions from TNG lore.

Suggested Missions (create some and they'll get added:
1) ?
2) ?
3) ?
4) ?
5) Ground Warzone (differing ranks have different objectives in this ground warzone). For some it's to cut off supply lines for NPC ground forces; for others it's to take out patrols; still others must protect mortar launchers. The world's atmosphere interferes with transporters - so shuttles can be seen flying overhead. Romulans are trying to study the Iconian artifact; Klingons are trying to weaponize it; Feds are trying to stop both parties.

If you like the idea, like the location, and like the design ideas in this thread - please help contribute and flesh out this "seed idea."

:D:D:D

[Archived Post]

I think it would make a huge difference if the amount of spawning enemies was proportional to the number of people playing a fleet action. The last 3 times I've tried to do DS9 ground action, the 3 or 4 people playing couldn't get out of the first tunnel.

[Archived Post]

I think it would make a huge difference if the amount of spawning enemies was proportional to the number of people playing a fleet action. The last 3 times I've tried to do DS9 ground action, the 3 or 4 people playing couldn't get out of the first tunnel.

Any thoughts on the idea for a weekly series in the post above yours (one that would incorporate ideas from this thread)?