Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 1 varying ships moving forward
02-15-2011, 10:10 PM
Since so many ships seem to be coming out with no end in sight to the new ships they are introducing, such as all the klingon faction vessels, fed, and now the d'kyr, soon they will run out of ways to make ships different.

What would be wrong with changing the current Bo formula of CMDR, LTCMDR. LTx2, ENSIGN (5 in all)

something like... for example a tactical ship: Commander Tac. Commander ENG. Ensign SCI.

or Eng ship: Commander ENG, Commander SCI, Lt TAC

specialized ships so to speak.

or 5 Commander bridge stations, but no 'console' slots.

These are just some suggestions to provoke though, because it seems to me that currently there cant be much variation left in the current formula, sure they can change a console here, and an ensign power there, but how much different is it really?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
02-15-2011, 10:21 PM
Cryptic could come out with a 'Prototype' class of ship that players can mix and match BO slots, console and device slots, fore and aft weapon slots, etc. That way you could get a ship with a Commander Tac and Sci, but there would be trade-offs for that.

The 'Prototype' class should also be able to draw from most of the current ship pieces for appearance, so that each ship could actually be unique.


Z
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
02-15-2011, 10:30 PM
id like to be able to retrofit my defiant to my style exactly, they could probably come up with a system whereby it works off of allocation construction points.

You start with 100 construction points and the empty hull of the starship. It comes with only the weapon, engine, shield, deflector space. No console slots yet, or bridge stations.

Then adding stuff to your hull; say a Commander level Bridge station = -15 points from your construction point pool. Adding a engineering console slot might = -5

So the more important thing you add to the configuration or the hull of your ship the more points it takes, so if you add a whole bunch of fancy stuff, your left without a whole bunch of other stuff.

Might be easy for them to do using current tier 5 as a guide line. Divide 100 points but 5 bridge officer stations and the 8 console slots most tier 5's have, thats 100/13. So on average each thing added to the hull = 7.3 points.

Now go through the list and see which should be worth more than others, certainly a bridge commander slot should be worth alot, so put it at 35-50 point cost. If you spend all your points on two commander slots, you have no construction points left to install console slots.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
02-15-2011, 10:44 PM
Construction points works. I'm sure Cryptic has internal guidelines on ship design that they use to try to maintain balance as they add new ships that works on a similar principle. They could extrapolate from that.

Very cool idea, sir.


Z
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
02-15-2011, 11:33 PM
What Klingon factions vessels should be released?
Have I missed something?

The only next Klingon ship I know of was the shuttle.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
02-15-2011, 11:50 PM
Quote:
Construction points works. I'm sure Cryptic has internal guidelines on ship design that they use to try to maintain balance as they add new ships that works on a similar principle. They could extrapolate from that.

Very cool idea, sir.


Z
I don't think they do, to be honest. IME, most character generation systems that are point-based have severe abusal potential.

It's better if there are are some "base packages" you can customize somewhat.

For example, if you pick "Cruiser Package", you get a low turn rate ship that _must_ have a Commander in Engineering and 4 Engineering Consoles, and at Tier 5, you need a mimum of 2 consoles from each class, and you need at least a Lt. (or higher) from every class. You might be able to reshape some BO slots to be "universal", but that comes at a cost.

Not all combinations of Bridge officers, Turn Rate and Hull Points are balanced against each other.
A major power advantage of the Bird of Prey is its flexibility in BOs - but it prays a hefty price for that, in form of shields and hulls. In a free-form construction system, you could build any combination the BoP could do - and minimize the disadvantages. Maybe you don't need a turn rate of 23 or whatever the BoP currently has - a turn rate of 16 might be sufficient to you, as long as you can get that combination of Commander Tactical and Lt.Cmdr Science... And who needs Battle Cloak if he can get the decent hull and shield rating of an Escort instead? Or even Cloak, and instead get yourself a snazzy Engineering Console for more power? Who needs science consoles these days anyway? more Engineering and Tactical consoles is what you want!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
02-16-2011, 09:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MustrumRidcully View Post
I don't think they do, to be honest. IME, most character generation systems that are point-based have severe abusal potential.

It's better if there are are some "base packages" you can customize somewhat.

For example, if you pick "Cruiser Package", you get a low turn rate ship that _must_ have a Commander in Engineering and 4 Engineering Consoles, and at Tier 5, you need a mimum of 2 consoles from each class, and you need at least a Lt. (or higher) from every class. You might be able to reshape some BO slots to be "universal", but that comes at a cost.

Not all combinations of Bridge officers, Turn Rate and Hull Points are balanced against each other.
A major power advantage of the Bird of Prey is its flexibility in BOs - but it prays a hefty price for that, in form of shields and hulls. In a free-form construction system, you could build any combination the BoP could do - and minimize the disadvantages. Maybe you don't need a turn rate of 23 or whatever the BoP currently has - a turn rate of 16 might be sufficient to you, as long as you can get that combination of Commander Tactical and Lt.Cmdr Science... And who needs Battle Cloak if he can get the decent hull and shield rating of an Escort instead? Or even Cloak, and instead get yourself a snazzy Engineering Console for more power? Who needs science consoles these days anyway? more Engineering and Tactical consoles is what you want!
Cryptic has to have some internal ship design guidelines. Otherwise, whenever they put out a new ship they're basically hoping / praying that it won't unbalance things. That seems extremely inefficient. Of course, I know nothing of game design so...

If this system ever came out, I would assume that steps would be taken to prevent gross abuse. The options would need to be weighted against each other. Using this, you should be able to come up with any ship currently in-game, and some that aren't. Instead of ship packages I was thinking you would choose hull size (from shuttle to star cruiser), have minimum slot requirements (at least one fore weapon slot, must have deflector, impulse, shield slots, etc.), and so on. I think faction-only options like battle cloak, ablative armor and universal BO stations should stay faction-only.

At worst, this could be a useful Foundry tool. You could create your own time-travel missions, complete with new ships for players to fly.


Z
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:54 AM.