Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 1 Call for diminishing returns.
10-01-2010, 04:10 AM
Ships in STO need to have a little more depth to their configurations. Right now, people just pick one thing they want to do, and max it out, while ignoring all else. The way consoles work currently, to get any appreciable buff to an ability, you have to max it in every way you can on your ship. One console won't make a big difference to any ability. (Save that +30% to shield strength one!)

There are two ways games use to alleviate this, and add depth to your gear setup.

First is to add tradeoffs with every part. Sure, this console may give a buff to phasers, but it lowers your engine power (or something), while this beam buff may just lower your deflector. So, you can put both on for minor penalties to each of those, while adding a lot to your phaser beams, or pick the one that you're more willing to sacrifice, and go with those. But in any case, this adds some complexity to ship layout that we currently don't have.

The other big method games use is diminishing returns. Make one console matter, a lot. Heck, you only get a few anyway. So make one console powerful enough that it makes a significant difference in your abilities. Adding a weapon console at this point isn't any better than +5 to weapon power. Penalize adding more than one, so people don't stack them like they do now. Make it a pretty harsh one, so that players start looking at mixing consoles up on a regular basis. Maybe the second only gets half, or a third the listed bonus. Maybe adding more of one type starts penalizing other useful stats, or both. Don't make it dumb to stack a couple, but don't make it the obvious choice, either. Add more tradeoffs and bigger benefits.

This also brings up the crew stat, among others. Make it meaningful too. Make having a small crew not mean you get penalized in one engagement easier, but more that you can't sustain several days of combat without some help from your cruiser or science buddies. I've got a whole 'nother post somewhere about crew. But stats and add-ons need to matter more. Only about half of them are really very meaningful at this point. Needs to be more variability in engine types, shields need to be looked at, etc.

This game would get a lot more fun for a lot of people if fitting a ship and ship stats had a little more depth. Sometimes simpler isn't better.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
10-01-2010, 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spots
First is to add tradeoffs with every part. Sure, this console may give a buff to phasers, but it lowers your engine power (or something), while this beam buff may just lower your deflector. So, you can put both on for minor penalties to each of those, while adding a lot to your phaser beams, or pick the one that you're more willing to sacrifice, and go with those. But in any case, this adds some complexity to ship layout that we currently don't have.
Conventional diminishing returns would be ok, IE you add two phaser upgraders they the second isn't as effective, but lowering another power thing would be bad. I wouldn't recommend it as to the limited amount of upgrading we can actually do.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
10-01-2010, 08:24 AM
Someone plays EVE, I see. Okay, well it does make sense. Not the "install this console for this system and you shoot your foot off" notion - that's absurd. But the laws of diminisiing returns would be effective. And here's an example:

First console (of a type) in the slot get's 100% of whatever bonus it supplies. (i.e., an Anti-proton Mag console at MK 10 get's a +26 (?) I think - roughly). We'll say +26 anyway.

Second AP Mag console only recieves a partial of that bonus (downgrade -15% on the first copy). So now, that +26 AP console only provides +22 (reality it's 22.1)

Third AP Mag console would downgrade further (-30%) making the console a +18 (again, reality it's 18.2)

Stick a fourth AP Mag console and you're down to only (-45%) +14 (14.3)

So, instead of having an Escort that is utilizing 4x (+26) AP Mag consoles (+26, +26, +26, +26), in addition to the Anti-Proton skill at admiral; which is over +104 to Anti-Protons; diminishing returns would kick in. Looking like this:

+26, +22, +18, +14 = +80 to AP weapons.

It could also be done so that the drawback is applied to the prior consoles slot. Yeah, that doesn't read right; I'll explain.

First console - +26
Second console - +22.1 (15% of the first console)
Third console - +15.4 (30% of the second console)
Fourth console - +8.47 (45% of the third console)

Stacking three consoles still gives you a good boost, plus your Capt's skills; however, that fourth console really becomes useless. Sure you can still use it, but it's not to the full effect. I only use the AP Mag consoles as an example, cause ... well, that's what I use.

But, CK ... this will nerf everything!!!!111oneoneoneonRAWRzorz!!!!! RAGE!!!! .... relax. Breathe in ... and out (repeat that as you feel needed).

What this does, is allow for some more interesting builds, some more builds with THOUGHT involved. Not just, "hey, I use AP weapons, let's max the crap out of them!!!" And believe me, I know - I fly a Fleet Escort with AP weapons. Or instead of using 3x EPS Power Relay Consoles MK11 @ +98 to power transfer; that's a lot. Right now the mantra of the community is - find your weapon choice (Phaser, plasma, AP, polaron ... etc) and max it. Find your BO powers and max it. Skills and consoles and max the crap out of the final build. Don't believe me, read Zone chat once in a while when (they are not talking ******) a new player ask's advice on a build. There's no strategy in that. There's no tactics. And I'm not even talking about this compared to EVE, since that game goes way beyond with skills, modules (consoles), implants for the character, ammunition type, movement, ship bonuses ... all that is factored in on that game. Here it's much simpler.

It doesn't have to be complicated or overdone. Instead of nerfing RSP, or SNB, or <insert FOTM skill here>, applying a diminishing return on console's would balance out the ships output damage, and intake as well.

Either way, I'm happy with the game. That's just a suggestion and opinion.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
10-01-2010, 01:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerealKillerSD
Someone plays EVE, I see. Okay, well it does make sense. Not the "install this console for this system and you shoot your foot off" notion - that's absurd. But the laws of diminisiing returns would be effective. And here's an example:

First console (of a type) in the slot get's 100% of whatever bonus it supplies. (i.e., an Anti-proton Mag console at MK 10 get's a +26 (?) I think - roughly). We'll say +26 anyway.

Second AP Mag console only recieves a partial of that bonus (downgrade -15% on the first copy). So now, that +26 AP console only provides +22 (reality it's 22.1)

Third AP Mag console would downgrade further (-30%) making the console a +18 (again, reality it's 18.2)

Stick a fourth AP Mag console and you're down to only (-45%) +14 (14.3)

So, instead of having an Escort that is utilizing 4x (+26) AP Mag consoles (+26, +26, +26, +26), in addition to the Anti-Proton skill at admiral; which is over +104 to Anti-Protons; diminishing returns would kick in. Looking like this:

+26, +22, +18, +14 = +80 to AP weapons.

It could also be done so that the drawback is applied to the prior consoles slot. Yeah, that doesn't read right; I'll explain.

First console - +26
Second console - +22.1 (15% of the first console)
Third console - +15.4 (30% of the second console)
Fourth console - +8.47 (45% of the third console)

Stacking three consoles still gives you a good boost, plus your Capt's skills; however, that fourth console really becomes useless. Sure you can still use it, but it's not to the full effect. I only use the AP Mag consoles as an example, cause ... well, that's what I use.

But, CK ... this will nerf everything!!!!111oneoneoneonRAWRzorz!!!!! RAGE!!!! .... relax. Breathe in ... and out (repeat that as you feel needed).

What this does, is allow for some more interesting builds, some more builds with THOUGHT involved. Not just, "hey, I use AP weapons, let's max the crap out of them!!!" And believe me, I know - I fly a Fleet Escort with AP weapons. Or instead of using 3x EPS Power Relay Consoles MK11 @ +98 to power transfer; that's a lot. Right now the mantra of the community is - find your weapon choice (Phaser, plasma, AP, polaron ... etc) and max it. Find your BO powers and max it. Skills and consoles and max the crap out of the final build. Don't believe me, read Zone chat once in a while when (they are not talking ******) a new player ask's advice on a build. There's no strategy in that. There's no tactics. And I'm not even talking about this compared to EVE, since that game goes way beyond with skills, modules (consoles), implants for the character, ammunition type, movement, ship bonuses ... all that is factored in on that game. Here it's much simpler.

It doesn't have to be complicated or overdone. Instead of nerfing RSP, or SNB, or <insert FOTM skill here>, applying a diminishing return on console's would balance out the ships output damage, and intake as well.

Either way, I'm happy with the game. That's just a suggestion and opinion.
EVE is hardly the only other game that does this, and agreed, the point is to get rid of the 'I have AP weapons, I just fill with AP consoles'. But two things you're not taking into account here..

First is the number of console slots we have available. Where as in a game like EVE, you have a lot (Could be up to 8), in STO, we have a max of 4, and often not even that much. To make it a big enough change to encourage people to try other consoles, you need it a sharp enough penalty that the most they'd want to put in is 2, maybe 3. Thus, you have the penalty at 50% for the second, and 75% for the third. Could maybe go 66% for the second, 33% for the third, something like that.

Second, to keep firepower levels about the same, you boost the value on consoles again. Instead of +20, now it gives +40. This would keep the average max modifiers the same on a ship as they are now. This makes it not so much a nerf as just an adjustment.

The goal here is to make individual consoles more useful and interesting, AND to encourage a little variety and thought into your console layout, not just making them all <X>. A +20 to something is almost unnoticeable in the game. If you had some parsing engine looking at your logs, yes, you could see a statistical difference. But when you're flying around, one console doesn't do enough to stand out without doing math on your logs. The consoles should really feel like they make a difference, and not only if you put 4 of the same kind on your ship.

You to force people to consider putting something other than 3 of the same console on a ship.

This would give escorts a little more punch, since they could put say, Phasers, then Cannons, and get a higher total damage than they do now. And even consider putting in a torpedo console or beam. But escort pilots whine enough anyway, let them have it.

Another idea is sort of like a reverse version of the component synergy DStahl was talking about on that radio interview. Have penalties crop up if you have too many buffs to a single system. One may be harmless, but 2 starts adding penalties, 3 adds even more. If you can stand the penalties, then sure, stack them to the ceiling. But again, if you add penalties, the buff they give needs to be higher to compensate.

I think space combat is fun as well, but during discussions of how mechanics work, often things come up to the effect of 'Wouldn't it be even better if....' So here you go. An idea to make STO better.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
10-01-2010, 01:20 PM
No thanks, I've had enough of diminishing returns in CO and CoH.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
10-01-2010, 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT-0R13
No thanks, I've had enough of diminishing returns in CO and CoH.
Then attach drawbacks, so we get some variety to consoles.

Either way, with the number of consoles we have able to affect a system, one console needs to be noticeable. Right now, they're not, for the most part. Again, are a couple engineering consoles that are noticeable, but not many.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
10-01-2010, 01:26 PM
I was under the impression that STO already has dimminishing returns on the effectivness of stacking consoles.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
10-01-2010, 01:28 PM
Yes, EVE gives more slots to a ship. Theory being; the bigger the ship, the more the slots. That doesn't work here, and I understand EVE is not the only MMO to employ this - it's just for similarities sake.

The overall bonuses of the consoles do not need to be raised. We don't need +45 or +50 to whatever system console out there. That's to much and reduces the effectiveness of the "diminishing returns". Otherwise if you going to raise everything, and then start reducing multiple consoles, you're right back where you started and ... what's the point of starting?

The individual console is still useful, and having two is still useful. The third becomes useless to a point, and you'd probably get a better return on a different console. Yes, not all ships have a lot of consoles, but they have what they need. Tac ships have 4 Tac slots (at higher tiers), Engie ships have 4 engie slots and so on. Much like in EVE, smaller ship have lesser slots.

It would still work out fine and here's why. Take your average Fleet Escort. It has 4 Tactical console slots. You could (if using AP weapons - or whatever, bare with me) stick 2x AP Mag consoles in there, and the use the other Tac consoles that give +xx to beam weapons. You're still getting a huge boost to the AP weapons, plus you're boosting your beams (if you're running beams). I think there is one for cannons too.

So now, you're ship doesn't need 4x Mk XI AP Mag consoles @ 400k Energy Credits each. You only 2. Ship loadouts get cheaper and you can design one to be just as good damage wise, or with decent survivability.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
10-01-2010, 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spots
Then attach drawbacks, so we get some variety to consoles.

Either way, with the number of consoles we have able to affect a system, one console needs to be noticeable. Right now, they're not, for the most part. Again, are a couple engineering consoles that are noticeable, but not many.
The drawbacks is silly, IMO. What, I'm going to use a Tac console and have it kill my speed? I'm an escort - speed is life!! That isn't going to work well.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
10-01-2010, 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roach View Post
I was under the impression that STO already has dimminishing returns on the effectivness of stacking consoles.
There is, at least there is when I am working my consoles..
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 02:59 AM.