test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

idea regarding Federation ship roles

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
Now, I have no illusions that this even could be impleented at this point, but i'm curious what other people think.

I think the ship types don't really "feal" right. And I think the problem has to do with the way niche protection is handled. So here is my perposed solution.

first some observations and design principles:
1. there are several "niches" that players expect to see in MMOs: tank (tough, able to draw fire), DPS (all about damage), healer (keep others in the fight, and counter controll), and controll (keep enemys at bay).
2. In STO we have 3 things to deffine a player's niche (class, ship, and BO choice).
2 a. Bo choice is more closely tied to ship type than charcter class
3. To keep the feal of star trek there are three ship roles are Cruiser (versitile, big, and the most common type seen on the federation side), Science (small, and fragile but able to do things a cruiser can't), and Escort (fast, tough and heavily armed).
3 a. Cruisers should be the most commonly played ship type (most often seen in the series)
3 b. Escorts should feal tough (Deffiant being the iconic escort and "tough little ship")
3 c. Science ships should be uncommon but valuble (excepting Voyager [which arguably was more cruiser than science ship], we never see them except when performing missions that couldn't be handled by a cruiser)
4. Since any captain can use any ship class, we can't design ship classes to rely on any captain abilities.

I recomend, making cruisers the "workhorse", by changing their BO slots thusly: instead of keeping them engineering focused, make them have a single universal BO slot (higest level slot on the ship), and one leutenant (ensin at tier 2) slot for each officer type (the RA ships still get their extera science or tactical slot). This way a cruiser can fill any role, based on what class the captain and officers are. Additionally a cruiser will be best able to "multi-class". Cruisers should also have the strongest shields, but middel of the road hull (they rely of their shields to keep them intact because even though they are very large they are not well armored).

The escort and science ships will the have to be changed to make them specialists is a more limited area. Escorts will be combat (dps and tank) while science ships will be support (healing and controle).

Escorts need the strongest hulls and middel of the road shields (unlike cruisers who are usually doomed when they loose shields escorts just keep on fighting). Escorts will also remain the only class able to use high end cannons, however they have limited support capabilities from their BO slots which should be changed thusly: one high level tactical slot (tier level - 1 like they have now) one leutenant (ensin at tier 2 lt thereafter) universal slot, and one ensin engineering slot. The RA ships still gain their extra engineering or science slot. This way escorts can't do much other than fight. They can be DPS or tanks depending what they do with that universal slot, but they'll be a joke in support roles, and will do dps better than tanking.

Science ships remain mostly unchanged, except they get the weekest shields (what escorts have now), and their engineering console should contimue to increase in level at the same rate as their second science console rather than stoping at LT. This will mean that science ships are fragile but have the best support powers (which in turn can make them seem rather tough as they can heal themselves if they come under fire).

Ideally, this will mean that most players use cruisers outfitted for their chosen role, with players who want to maximize their effectivness as dps opting for escorts and those who really want to optimise support being science. Escorts will feal tougher, because they are tougher, but more importantly their shields account for a smaller percentage of their surviability thus capturing the "tough little ship" effect by being hard to kill even when seemingly vulnerable. Science ships will be less common on the front lines as they are a tempting target given their realative fragility but their unmatched controll will make them valuble and worth protecting. Cruisers become the workhorse of the fleet, able to fill any role though being best at tank/healer and less effective at controll and dps when compared with science and escort ships.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Meh. I don't really like the universal station concept so much, but would like for cruisers to have an extra engineering console to replace the extra tactical or science console at T5.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Turtlewing wrote: »
    I think the ship types don't really "feal" right. And I think the problem has to do with the way niche protection is handled. So here is my perposed solution.

    first some observations and design principles:
    1. there are several "niches" that players expect to see in MMOs: tank (tough, able to draw fire), DPS (all about damage), healer (keep others in the fight, and counter controll), and controll (keep enemys at bay).

    I think that's the problem right there. Instead of trying to force a captain and their ship into a one-trick-pony niche, try making them self-sufficient instead. Sure some classes are better than other classes in certain area's, but I don't know of any ship in Star Trek that behaved like a fantasy MMO class.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Escorts of any era are not tough. Nor do they carry a lot of firepower, they are the firgates and destroyers of the modern navy relying on speed and manouverabily to get in quick do some damage and get out again dodging return fire.
    Cruisers are the heavily armoured and heavy fire power ships moving slower but able to take and dish damage.
    So your analogy is all wrong.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Kevscar wrote: »
    Escorts of any era are not tough. Nor do they carry a lot of firepower, they are the firgates and destroyers of the modern navy relying on speed and manouverabily to get in quick do some damage and get out again dodging return fire.
    Cruisers are the heavily armoured and heavy fire power ships moving slower but able to take and dish damage.
    So your analogy is all wrong.

    You're comparing the name not the source material. In the series and movies we see the ships STO has classed as escorts reffered to as being suprisingly well armed and tough. The only ship ever called an escort on screen was the Deffiant and it was clearly being used as a cover not an accurate designation "officially she's an escort, unofficially she's a warship", which was follwed up with "I didn't think the federation believed in warships" which implies that the larger ships weren't meant for combat as their main role and therefore aren't comparable to modern navy cruisers.

    If you don't like role i imaging for escorts that's fine, but if your only basis is that you've imagined a 1 to 1 mapping between star trek and real world clasification system i think you might change your mind after rewatching the deffiant in action when compared with the galaxy class (Enterprise D et al.), and thinking "how would I classify these ships based on what they do", rather that starting with "This ship is classified as a cruiser therefore it does X".
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Turtlewing wrote: »
    You're comparing the name not the source material. In the series and movies we see the ships STO has classed as escorts reffered to as being suprisingly well armed and tough. The only ship ever called an escort on screen was the Deffiant and it was clearly being used as a cover not an accurate designation "officially she's an escort, unofficially she's a warship", which was follwed up with "I didn't think the federation believed in warships" which implies that the larger ships weren't meant for combat as their main role and therefore aren't comparable to modern navy cruisers.

    If you don't like role i imaging for escorts that's fine, but if your only basis is that you've imagined a 1 to 1 mapping between star trek and real world clasification system i think you might change your mind after rewatching the deffiant in action when compared with the galaxy class (Enterprise D et al.), and thinking "how would I classify these ships based on what they do", rather that starting with "This ship is classified as a cruiser therefore it does X".

    The Defiant is constantly referred to as being "Surprisingly well armed" and a "Tough little ship"...
    The point being that is a small ship, but for her size she has lots of firepower.

    Exactly the way the game has them set up.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I think that's the problem right there. Instead of trying to force a captain and their ship into a one-trick-pony niche, try making them self-sufficient instead. Sure some classes are better than other classes in certain area's, but I don't know of any ship in Star Trek that behaved like a fantasy MMO class.

    That's a valid view point, but from a game design perspective it has serious disadvantages. The most sigifigant of which is that MMOs give up a lot in the area of "realistic" and imersive world design in order to allow interaction between real people when compared with modern single player RPGs (compare wow to dragon age or STO to Mass Efect you'll see the difference in writing and storytelling style). So in order to capitalise on the medum they have chosen they use mechanics which encourage cooperation between player, and that leads to specialization.

    Once you're allowing specilization, you quickely run into the "multi-class delema". Where you have to deal with the ecconomic truth that all else being equal a team of specialists will ALWAYS be more effective than a team of generalists. And one generalist on a team of specialists is a very special sort of fail. This means that in order to encourage social play and maintain game balance the best solution is typically to use strong niece protection and designe several specialist roles for players to fill such that a typical party should want to have at least one of each (and it's very difficult to make a character that isn't at least passably good at their class' role).

    The "clasic class set" is basically a derivation of the 5 man band trope which is previlent in one form or another in prety much all fiction. It's not just a result of fantasy RPGs so much as one of the simpler working implementations of niche based cooperation in social games.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Turtlewing wrote: »
    That's a valid view point, but from a game design perspective it has serious disadvantages. The most sigifigant of which is that MMOs give up a lot in the area of "realistic" and imersive world design in order to allow interaction between real people when compared with modern single player RPGs (compare wow to dragon age or STO to Mass Efect you'll see the difference in writing and storytelling style). So in order to capitalise on the medum they have chosen they use mechanics which encourage cooperation between player, and that leads to specialization.

    Once you're allowing specilization, you quickely run into the "multi-class delema". Where you have to deal with the ecconomic truth that all else being equal a team of specialists will ALWAYS be more effective than a team of generalists. And one generalist on a team of specialists is a very special sort of fail. This means that in order to encourage social play and maintain game balance the best solution is typically to use strong niece protection and designe several specialist roles for players to fill such that a typical party should want to have at least one of each (and it's very difficult to make a character that isn't at least passably good at their class' role).

    The "clasic class set" is basically a derivation of the 5 man band trope which is previlent in one form or another in prety much all fiction. It's not just a result of fantasy RPGs so much as one of the simpler working implementations of niche based cooperation in social games.

    I don't disagree that a team of specialists can function more effectively than a team of generalists can. However I would counter that a team of generalists might be better to adapt to the unexpected than a team of specialists.

    It will depend on how the game is designed as well. One thing I loved about City of Heroes was that a team did not have to be a team of specialists to succeed and do so quite effectively. Heck I remember when Villains first came out and the Dominator class was considered "teh sux" by the forum specialists. Because we couldn't find teams at the time, I grouped up with an all-Dominator team. Needless to say it was one of the best teams I can remember playing on. We plowed through the missions faster than a specialist set up.

    Another consideration is the overall customer base and targeted demographic's for the game. By allowing for the generalists to succeed, it would most likely cater more to the casual player. I might be overly easy for the specialists, but if the casual crowd is larger, that might explain it.

    I guess my concern is that when games get geared towards specialists, then the player elitism starts creeping in, as well as cookie cutter builds that are mandated by the player base. Don't conform, you don't play. I like being able to not have to follow some build guide, and can freely experiment with different configurations of my characters, and still succeed. Sure some methods are more effective/easy in certain circumstances than others, but as a player I enjoy the freedom that comes with it.

    Plus it's based on Star Trek, where ships really didn't do that. They were out in space where they were expected to be able to function across the board, and not just in a specific area. We never saw;

    Data: There is an unusual anomaly off the port side Captain.
    Picard: Hail any scientific vessel in the area to come scan it for us.
    Data: Captain?
    Picard: We're just here to tank if the Romulan's cross the neutral zone. We don't do science.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I don't disagree that a team of specialists can function more effectively than a team of generalists can. However I would counter that a team of generalists might be better to adapt to the unexpected than a team of specialists.

    It will depend on how the game is designed as well. One thing I loved about City of Heroes was that a team did not have to be a team of specialists to succeed and do so quite effectively. Heck I remember when Villains first came out and the Dominator class was considered "teh sux" by the forum specialists. Because we couldn't find teams at the time, I grouped up with an all-Dominator team. Needless to say it was one of the best teams I can remember playing on. We plowed through the missions faster than a specialist set up.

    Another consideration is the overall customer base and targeted demographic's for the game. By allowing for the generalists to succeed, it would most likely cater more to the casual player. I might be overly easy for the specialists, but if the casual crowd is larger, that might explain it.

    I guess my concern is that when games get geared towards specialists, then the player elitism starts creeping in, as well as cookie cutter builds that are mandated by the player base. Don't conform, you don't play. I like being able to not have to follow some build guide, and can freely experiment with different configurations of my characters, and still succeed. Sure some methods are more effective/easy in certain circumstances than others, but as a player I enjoy the freedom that comes with it.

    Plus it's based on Star Trek, where ships really didn't do that. They were out in space where they were expected to be able to function across the board, and not just in a specific area. We never saw;

    Data: There is an unusual anomaly off the port side Captain.
    Picard: Hail any scientific vessel in the area to come scan it for us.
    Data: Captain?
    Picard: We're just here to tank if the Romulan's cross the neutral zone. We don't do science.

    I'm not saying you're wrong, because objectively speeking your viewpoint has merit. It's just that I think your design goals would be better met by a single player RPG where you can have a more imersive world and a deeper story at the cost of interaction with other players (mass effect but in the star trek universe) than a MMO where you get to socialize with real people at the cost of storyline depth and the ability to be totally self sufficent.

    As to your comment about the Enterprise not calling in specialists, they did on several occasions "ask starfleet to dispatch a science vessel for prolonged study" of the wierd think they just encountered.

    In either case I think my originall recomendation would satisfy you as my sugested cruiser is more of a jack of all trades than any federation ship curently in play (your highest ranking BO slot can be from any discaplin). It's mostly the science and escorts that I sugested be forced into a given specialty, and even then there's options as an escort could take their optional slot as an engineer or science officer to gain healing and be a better tank, or as a tactical officer to have better dps. Similarly a science ship can focus on healing or controle abilities with their engineering and science slots, they'll never be able to tank though since they get the weakest shields.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    There should be a greater variety of ships to choose from once you make admiral, since that's the "end game." For example, I'd like a cruiser that looks like an oversized version of the Reliant.

    Since we're nitpicking about ships -- why don't the wings on a bird-of-prey stay up while cruising and drop down while attacking?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Science ships are too powerful for combat. They should be performing ECM/ECCM/AWACS type rol.es but no way should a science ship outgun a cruiser.

    i would propose the follow respec: Tier 2 cruiser should be 3 forward/2 rear weapon slots.

    Science ships would retain their high turn rate (even though the Grissom ship seemed to turn like a slug or Galaxy lol), but would be 2/1 at Tier 2, 2/2 at Tier 3, and 3/2 (even with the Tier 2 cruiser) at Tier 4. Science ships should want cruisers for the tank role or escorts as the hammer, if not both, going into combat situations.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Looking at these "ship x is supposed to dps! ship y is supposed to heal! ship z is supposed to tank!" threads, I thank Cryptic every single day that the space portion of STFs doesn't require the holy trinity. Yes, I rail against the trinity all the F'in time, but they're ships, not a wizard, a priest, and some guy wearing platemail.

    Currently PVE content, even STFs, can be completed with a mix of classes. I've completed Infected with no sci officers (healer). There was no space paladin in the group either (tank). It was all about coordinating and synchronization. No tac officer? fine. No engineers for bunkers? Might be hard but it's doable. No healer? fine.

    In space, I've seen ships of all classes use sci team, eng team, extend shields, jam sensors, VM, and any other ability on each other. Coordination > sci ship only healing / sovereign do subpar damage and just tank / escorts can't take any amount of fire or else, not even from a lousy turret.

    To me they're all designed for one role, to come out on top in an engagement. They just have 3 different playstyles in achieving that role.

    Burn holy mmo trinity, burn! /desecrates the altar of tank/dps/healer
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Uxi wrote: »
    Science ships are too powerful for combat. They should be performing ECM/ECCM/AWACS type rol.es but no way should a science ship outgun a cruiser.

    i would propose the follow respec: Tier 2 cruiser should be 3 forward/2 rear weapon slots.

    Science ships would retain their high turn rate (even though the Grissom ship seemed to turn like a slug or Galaxy lol), but would be 2/1 at Tier 2, 2/2 at Tier 3, and 3/2 (even with the Tier 2 cruiser) at Tier 4. Science ships should want cruisers for the tank role or escorts as the hammer, if not both, going into combat situations.


    What? Your is science ships should be barely able to handle combat and need an other ship to handle combat?

    How would that balance then for the cruiser and escort.. they have NO special abilities, and need sci for specials?

    Science ships already have less weapon points than a crusier, and clearly no one is going to say an escort needs more DPS (or does less than a science).. so why does science need a nerf?

    All the ship classes should be able to solo AND work with a team... I did a deep space with a random team that happened to have one ship class each, it was fun... but I wouldn't want to NEED that to fight.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Balance is supposed to be had in the cost and crew requirements. Science ships, like escorts are specialized, but on the opposite ends of the spectrum with the cruiser in the middle. Voyager should get expect to get vaped pretty quick by both the Enterprise-D and Defiant that are it's tier equivalents (along with the Vor'cha on the Klingon side), shouldn't it?

    Part of the root problem goes in the weakness of science and diplomacy that were as much a part of any of the Star Trek shows as the combat (but are obviously much more difficult to game).

    Part of my premise is predicated on the idea of the purpose for science ships being misplaced in the game so far. Starfleet of the TV and movies isn't concerned with a Galaxy-class being balanced with an Intrepid (or a Defiant)... Starfleet would probably easily spend 100x the amount of resoures building a Galaxy versus an Intrepid, no? The Defiant was supposed an odd-duck in the show... vastly overpowered and maintenance heavy while lacking the creature comforts and science labs, etc present on the cruisers that were the maintstay before...


    that said, I think we need more missions more specifically oriented around science ships, along with bigger starmaps with more stars, to show where the science ships should wipe the floor with cruisers much less escorts:



    Survey missions: Minimal to no combat, mostly scientific
    science ships best (easy/fast), followed by cruisers (moderate), followed by escorts (hard/slow)
    Report activity for fleet/diplomatic action

    -- would need more star systems. 2-3x as many. WHOLE star systems from star to heliosphere
    -- unusual spacial phenomena (black holes, wormholes, solar activity, nebulae)
    -- unusual terrestrial feature (volcano, atmosphere, etc)
    -- identify first contact situations for diplomatic follow-up
    -- ECM/ECCM duty (jam hostiles, break through jamming to friendly)
    -- AWACS duty (track hostiles from long range sensors) on the move
    -- Intel missions (scan foreign planets from long range for duration).

    Patrol missions: Intermittent combat with smugglers, odd surprise of battle squadron
    cruisers best. Report battle squadrons for fleet action. Report unusual phenomena for science

    -- patrolling main worlds and outer systems.
    -- diplomatic missions (ferry diplomat from A to B)
    -- science missions (identify unusual phenomena for science follow up)
    -- Battle line duty

    Battle missions: Current "patrol" system with mostly combat (identified by cruisers and sci).
    Escorts best. Report anomolies for cruiser and/or science follow up

    -- attacking inner systems, bases, and main worlds
    -- escort mission (protect cruiser/sci ship from A to B)
    -- attack duty

    Ships would make reports after eqch mission. These would queue up to starbases/contacts for contextual/instanced
    follow up. Awards based on successful reporting and coordination to actually clear areas

    Science missions: analyze for duration (2-5 minutes). Spend time on interior of ship
    for duration. Maintenance and calibration of equipment, shuttles,
    samples, etc.

    Diplomatic missions: carry ambassador to negotiations (cruiser - native ? NPC for escorts?)
    Conversation trees with Ambassador on point A (world, ship, base), on
    board-interior, until destination is reached.
Sign In or Register to comment.