test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Ship Modules

ejsphcrispejsphcrisp Member Posts: 145 Arc User
Expanding on the idea:
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=189708

Why not have ship modules?

Each ship frame will have 10 module slots: [hull] [fore] [aft] [BOff x3] [consoles x3] [cannons\device]

Frames: T1-T5 (with escort, science, and cruiser frames)
[hull]: gives a hull increase
[fore]: number of fore weapons (no more than 5, and depending on the frame)
[aft]: number of aft weapons (no more than 4, and depending on the frame)
[BOff x3]: number of BOff in each profession (no more than 5 total)
[consoles x3] number of consoles in each profession (no more than 6 total)
[cannons/devices] whether you want more device slots, or able to equip cannons

Just for fun, I took my Miranda out and did "Rapier" at lv50 tac. It was hard to say the least, but wouldn't it be great if our favorite ships could compete with the big boys?
Post edited by ejsphcrisp on

Comments

  • aloishammeraloishammer Member Posts: 3,294 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    ejsphcrisp wrote: »
    Just for fun, I took my Miranda out and did "Rapier" at lv50 tac. It was hard to say the least, but wouldn't it be great if our favorite ships could compete with the big boys?

    So basically this is just the 10,374th "Tier 5 beginner ships" thread. Got it.

    Oh, and...still "How about no."
  • castsbugccastsbugc Member Posts: 830 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    a neat idea in principle, a nightmare proposition from the standpoint of game balance though.

    You know people are going to hot load weapons to the front and the same such. There should never be a miranda with 5 forward weapons, though I would really like to see pulse phaser beam emitters like on the miranda class
    You would need to temper it by making things cost multiple slots, probably introduce a required EPS conduit level where certain space frames can handle certain loads, and the like in order to try and maintain a sense or balance.
  • azurianstarazurianstar Member Posts: 6,985 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    With how things are recently with almost every ship now having a Fleet version, and them hitting the wall for Tier 6 ships, this would be the best method. Players get to fly the ships that they love all the way to endgame.

    Some ships like the Consitution, obviously would have limited upgrade capabilities. Like you could upgrade your TOS Consitution to a Refit, and having a final refit at Tier 3. While some Pre-TNG era ships would have a maximum refit up to Tier 5.

    And some ships that having multiple variants, players could decide on which upgrade module to choose from. Do you refit that Galaxy? Or do you retrofit her into a Galaxy-X? Do you refit that Sovereign, or you turn her into a Regent? This would allow players to decide which BOFF or Weapon layout they prefer, than going to the Fleet store and seeing their ship with a BOFF layout they do not want.
  • vivenneanthonyvivenneanthony Member Posts: 1,278 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    castsbugc wrote: »
    a neat idea in principle, a nightmare proposition from the standpoint of game balance though.

    You know people are going to hot load weapons to the front and the same such. There should never be a miranda with 5 forward weapons, though I would really like to see pulse phaser beam emitters like on the miranda class
    You would need to temper it by making things cost multiple slots, probably introduce a required EPS conduit level where certain space frames can handle certain loads, and the like in order to try and maintain a sense or balance.

    Actually, I suggested that idea before and I was basically yelled at. Let's say someone gets a Miranda. Let it be able to have 4 saucer weapons.

    4 saucer weapons slots (saucer frame) + fused torpedo bay if someone choose to the pylon bay on it.

    so technically 4 to 5 front weapons.

    BUT 1 eps conduit.

    If someone decides to do a 3xheavy cannon and one beam array. One shot will blow out the EPS conduit so now. It's a 2 mins cooldown.

    It will keep balance because no one will do a weapon configuration above the level of the EPS conduit.

    The higher someone skill up eps hmm power transfer. They can do 100% to 125% before overloading and frying all conduits and circuits.
  • ejsphcrispejsphcrisp Member Posts: 145 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    castsbugc wrote: »
    a neat idea in principle, a nightmare proposition from the standpoint of game balance though.

    You know people are going to hot load weapons to the front and the same such. There should never be a miranda with 5 forward weapons, though I would really like to see pulse phaser beam emitters like on the miranda class
    You would need to temper it by making things cost multiple slots, probably introduce a required EPS conduit level where certain space frames can handle certain loads, and the like in order to try and maintain a sense or balance.

    Kind of edited, maybe?
    ejsphcrisp wrote: »
    Expanding on the idea:
    http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=189708

    Why not have ship modules?

    Each ship frame will have 10 module slots: [hull] [fore] [aft] [BOff x3] [consoles x3] [cannons\device]

    Frames: T1-T5 (with escort, science, and cruiser frames)
    [hull]: gives a hull increase
    [fore]: number of fore weapons (no more than 5, and depending on the frame)
    [aft]: number of aft weapons (no more than 4, and depending on the frame)
    [BOff x3]: number of BOff in each profession (no more than 5 total)
    [consoles x3] number of consoles in each profession (no more than 6 total)
    [cannons/devices] whether you want more device slots, or able to equip cannons

    Just for fun, I took my Miranda out and did "Rapier" at lv50 tac. It was hard to say the least, but wouldn't it be great if our favorite ships could compete with the big boys?
  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,983 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    ejsphcrisp wrote: »
    Expanding on the idea:
    http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=189708

    Why not have ship modules?

    Each ship frame will have 10 module slots: [hull] [fore] [aft] [BOff x3] [consoles x3] [cannons\device]

    Frames: T1-T5 (with escort, science, and cruiser frames)
    [hull]: gives a hull increase
    [fore]: number of fore weapons (no more than 5, and depending on the frame)
    [aft]: number of aft weapons (no more than 4, and depending on the frame)
    [BOff x3]: number of BOff in each profession (no more than 5 total)
    [consoles x3] number of consoles in each profession (no more than 6 total)
    [cannons/devices] whether you want more device slots, or able to equip cannons

    Just for fun, I took my Miranda out and did "Rapier" at lv50 tac. It was hard to say the least, but wouldn't it be great if our favorite ships could compete with the big boys?

    I think this would be best suited as the basis of ship costumization in STO 2 (if we ever get to that point.) To incorporate this into an existing game (basically rewriting all ships) could be very catastrophic (to balance and potentially to this game's business model as a whole. When your ship frame decides your ships capabilities, why spend 2500 zen on a new hull? Would people spend the same on base stats and a costume or could you sell mere frames for the same price? Probably not on both accounts.)

    What Cryptic did with ground content was swell but that was only because it replaced a single, underappreciated, item with a customization system. Here you have an extant customization system (think of each ship as a kit frame unto itself) and are trying to add on what is just another layer of options. There's not nearly as much to gain but so much to loose.
    Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
    Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
    Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
  • lordsteve1lordsteve1 Member Posts: 3,492 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    See I could see something like that in the future if it wasn't too hard to implement.

    If you could limit how powerful a ship could be by having reaonable tradeoffs then sure it would be good fun.

    But the way things are at the moment it would not work. I mean look at your basic T5 escort. It's fast and can put out lots of dps but the trade off is meant to be its weak and can get shot down easily, it trades survivability for damage dealing. But that just isn;t the case is it? Escorts can stack eng. consoles to be almost unkillable so they don't really suffer any tradeoff.
    Same for cruisers putting out huge dps with FAW but also being massive damage sponges too.

    You'd need to bring in some realistic tradoffs so people can't make godbuilds and such like.
    SulMatuul.png
Sign In or Register to comment.