Ship categories and types - a way to use current content for more variation.

projectfrontier

As per title the topic of this post is "Ship categories and types - a way to use current content for more variation."

Ships are described in game first by "categories" (e.g. escort, cruiser, science vessel). These categories tell you how many weapons/devices you can expect to have as well as the primary bridge officer power station focuses (escort = tactical, cruiser = engineering, science vessel = self-explanatory). And while some may be quick to claim these also describe displacement characteristics (hull, shield, turn values) basic math (plotting ships relative to those values) demonstrates it is not a mutually inclusive arrangement.

Ships are then described in game by "types" which are prefixes applied to the "category", save for the Tier 1 ships that are referred to as "Escort", "Cruiser", and "Science Vessel, (e.g. light, heavy , advanced, star, assault, tactical, reconnaissance, deep space, long range, etc).

What this system fails to do is give a player the ability to match the ship-model with the abilities they want to use. For example at VA/RA the "rank-up-token" escorts have 7 tactical powers and some combination of science/engineering in a 3/2 arrangement. As a result of this design Cryptic tied ship models to professions without any real need to do so which has only reduced the variety of potential opportunities for players to fly around in the hull of their choice.

So why not take the current ship system and alter it "slightly".

Instead of breaking ships into categories like "Escort", "Cruiser" and "Science Vessel" break them down into "displacements", e.g.:

"Destroyer"
"Escort"
"Cruiser"
"Dreadnought"

These displacements would be used to describe hull-strength and (maybe) turn rates, but not boff function and maybe not shields.

Then instead of breaking ships down into "types" like "light", "heavy", "support", "advanced" as subset of "profession-related categories" they would be redefined to provide precise designations of specialization and utility. These could be determined by answering the following example concept questions:

(1) "what is the ratio of primary/secondary boff powers?", e.g.:
- "Light" = 1:1 (or 6 primary and 6 secondary)
- "Heavy" = 2:1 (or 8 primary and 4 secondary)
- with no mention of "Light" or "Heavy" granting 7:5 (or 7 primary and 5 secondary) powers.

(2) "What is the primary focus?", e.g.:
- "Tactical" = "self-explanatory"
- "Operations" = "Engineering"
- "Science" = "self-explanatory"

(3) "What is the secondary focus with the highest ranked chair?" (the strongest rank-wise non-primary profession), e.g.:
- "Assault"/"Combat" = "tactical Lt+En"
- "Advanced" = "science Lt+En"
- "Patrol" = "engineering Lt+En"
- "Battle" = "tactical LTC"
- "Support" = "Science LTC"
- "Exploration" = "engineering LTC"
- "Long Range" - "tac/sci balanced"
- "Deep Space" - "eng/sci balanced"
- "Reconnaissance" - "tac/eng balanced"

(4) "Is it a carrier? yes/no"
- "yes" - "add the suffix carrier after the vessel displacement.
- "no" - do nothing

(5) "is it a refit/retrofit of some earlier ship that looks identical? yes/no"
- "yes" - "add the proper suffix at the very end of the ship type.
- "no" - do nothing.

EDIT: ("refit" and "retrofit", as they currently are used, say "this is an upgraded version of another ship". "Refit" is used to describe a ship which is parallel tier-wise to its counterpart, "Retrofit" is used to describe a ship which is several tier's beyond. It would function in a near identical manner within the system proposed here-in.)


Our current "Long Range Science Vessel Retrofit" with its 8 sci 2+2 eng/tac setup would roll-over into becoming a "Heavy Science Long Range [Vessel-displacement-type] Retrofit".

Our current "Tactical Escort Retrofit" with its 8 tac 2+2 sci/eng setup would roll-over into becoming a "Heavy Tactical Reconnaissance [vessel displacement-type] retrofit"

Our current "Odyssey Operations Cruiser" with its boff station arrangement including Universals doesn't fall in this system (yet) so it cannot be renamed - and you thought it would be, didncha?

And our:
"Star Cruiser" = "Research Operations [vessel displacement type]"
"Assault Cruiser" ="Combat Operations [vessel displacement type]"
"Advanced Escort" = "Advanced Tactical [vessel displacement type]"
"Patrol Escort" = "Patrol Tactical [vessel displacement type]"
"Reconnaissance Science Vessel" = "Combat Science [vessel displacement type]"
"Deep Space Science Vessel" = "Patrol Science [vessel displacement type]"

And though it isn't a perfect naming-convention system within this initial conceptual presentation it does demonstrate a "proof of concept" that can be readily fleshed out using "reasonable keywords" and that ultimately would allow for greater flexibility in the use of ship models by players.

For the "too long; did not read" crowd:
"Players who want to use ship models currently stuck in specific professions would be able to use practically any model for practically any purpose within a system as described above. There would no longer be anymore of the current 'you must use power setup Z to fly model B'."

virusdancer

projectfrontier wrote: »

For the "too long; did not read" crowd:
"Players who want to use ship models currently stuck in specific professions would be able to use practically any model for practically any purpose within a system as described above. There would no longer be anymore of the current 'you must use power setup Z to fly model B'."

What if we already /facepalm folks that try to tie ship classes to careers?

What if we already /ignore folks that try to say you must run X to fly Z?

In the end, it appears that you're just suggesting that we change names...and well...really?

Whether Ship X is called Monkey or it is called Gelatin, the ship is still the ship...

...and in the end, this is Star Trek. At least STO is trying to stick with canon.

virusdancer

Can check out some info on classifications...here: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Starship_classification

projectfrontier

virusdancer wrote: »

What if we already /facepalm folks that try to tie ship classes to careers?

What if we already /ignore folks that try to say you must run X to fly Z?

In the end, it appears that you're just suggesting that we change names...and well...really?

Whether Ship X is called Monkey or it is called Gelatin, the ship is still the ship...

...and in the end, this is Star Trek. At least STO is trying to stick with canon.

The entire purpose of my proposed topic is to separate "classes" (which are fundamentally only the models you get to use, e.g. "Galaxy", "Dakota", "B'rel", "T'Varo") from "types" (the functionality provided, e.g. "Heavy Cruiser", "Bird of Prey", "Warbird") as part of a redefinition of how these game-properties (and some of the others) are represented to players while allowing players to have a greater range of flexibility in their choices between a ship's hull-models and said ship's functionality.

Given that even the "too long; did not read" synopsis points that out and how the developers do "...try to tie ship classes to careers..." and they also "...say you must run X to fly Z...", which is part of what motivated the concept in the first place, I'd like to ask a single question -

Do you even play STO?

projectfrontier

skollulfr wrote: »

prometheus vs dakota

lol canon.

though there is the issue of the feds referring planetary bombardment platforms as civilian aid transports to suit their ideological mantra rather than their function.

nope. it'd be a frigate.
tac escort = defiant = fed brel that ate all the pies.

Frigate is a hull displacement defined by tonnage which in game would be represented by base-hull strength as per the system proposed. The "Defiant" would most definitely not be a Frigate.

projectfrontier

virusdancer wrote: »

Can check out some info on classifications...here: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Starship_classification

I've read that before, it highlights how naming conventions are often used as a rhetorical device in Star Trek (and how it really isn't used that way in STO though it could be and if it were it would let people fly any ship they wanted with practically any form of functionality they desired - barring exceptions such as wanting to zip around the room like a gocart in a Galaxy model).

ursusmorologus

Model size (which I assume you mean to be displacement) is an irrelevant stat in the game. For one thing, there are more size categories than ship classes. Second, Cryptic has gone out of their way to make size irrelevant. Basic model sizes as I have been able to distinguish more than one instance: frigate, corvette, escort, destroyer, cruiser, heavy cruiser, capital ship [BS and Carriers]. The last category includes all of the carriers and also most of the heavy flagships (Odyssey, D'Deridex, etc), but then cryptic comes along and makes the Ha'nom science ship that size with 10 turn-rate. Its completely irrelevant and unpredictable stat, has no meaning to anything except in PVP, where size affects visibility and ease of clicking something after you were placated.

There are 3 axis here that are significant which are agility, survivability, and firepower. None are directly represented by in-game stats, but have to be derived/calculated in some way. You can look at some stats and get a thumbnail ideal, things like turn-rate vs hull strength vs hard-points, but its more complicated than that. EG, turn-rate without speed (impulse and inertia) is irrelevant, shield strength (modifier) is almost as significant as hull strength (hull is more important, once it reaches zero, you lose), and damage potential is not just limited to weapon hard-points. And then when you do all the thinking and the calculations and get ships where you think they should be, you have a sort of grey soup of ships with no clear segmentation.

That's when you realize it really comes down to functional roles. What is the purpose of the ship? An attack ship rushes in and unloads and then runs out (high damage, high agility, low survival), its the tip of the spear, sharp and painful but fragile. Escorts are there to defend other ships, so they beat on attack ships and 2nd wave ships. Cruisers capture territory. Heavy ships support the advance from behind, with long-range weapons and pet spam. Unfortunately the current gameplay does not really support this. However it seems to me that it is the most accurate representation of the ship "types" in terms of "performance"

http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=973351 for more

virusdancer

projectfrontier wrote: »

The entire purpose of my proposed topic is to separate "classes" (which are fundamentally only the models you get to use, e.g. "Galaxy", "Dakota", "B'rel", "T'Varo") from "types" (the functionality provided, e.g. "Heavy Cruiser", "Bird of Prey", "Warbird") as part of a redefinition of how these game-properties (and some of the others) are represented to players while allowing players to have a greater range of flexibility in their choices between a ship's hull-models and said ship's functionality.

There are kitbashes...so "classes" as such don't really exist, unless somebody's not customizing their ship or not flying a ship you can customize.

There's a reason that the various models are tied to the various classes.

Assault Cruiser
Imperial
Majestic
Noble
Regent
Sovereign

It's because those are Assault Cruisers. The hull-models/kitbashes/etc...are tied to the ship.

A Sovereign is not a Heavy Cruiser. A Sovereign is an Assault Cruiser. Cheyenne, Dakota, Stargazer are Heavy Cruisers. Check out the stats...they're different! Cause...they're different types of ships.

So your original premise wasn't even as in-depth as I thought...

...you just want X ship to look like Y. Lol...

projectfrontier wrote: »

Given that even the "too long; did not read" synopsis points that out and how the developers do "...try to tie ship classes to careers..." and they also "...say you must run X to fly Z...", which is part of what motivated the concept in the first place, I'd like to ask a single question -

Nope, they don't.

projectfrontier wrote: »

Do you even play STO?

Not only is it a question of do you even play STO...but it's a question of did you just stumble upon this person's account before posting this...as if you've never ever seen/heard a thing about STO?

virusdancer

skollulfr wrote: »

all this comes down too is replacing one mary sue system with another.

I'd say it's more of a Barbie System than Mary Sue. He basically just wants to fly X ship with the stats of Y ship. It's not even something along the lines of your BOFF layout thing where folks could have some additional customization...he just wants how ship X looks with ship Y's stats. :rolleyes: