Here is a power point presentation video of what Cryptic should do in the near future, or even ASAP. I'll let you decide!!!. Please note if you hit play the slides will progress faster than most people can read, so it is probably better just to advance each slide manually. It is something I threw together after a lot of feedback and in game discussions with players from a multitude of fleets. Even the notes after each section in the presentation are very important so you can get the feel and explanation behind the changes.
Remember use an open mind, and let you imagination loose before you judge.
I will be happy to receive feedback, keep it constructive, intellectual, and with supporting arguments.
Thanks again.
Balancing STO Presentation
Side note: I lost my ppt to video converter so I am unfamiliar with that upload site, otherwise I would have used youtube. be sure to let me know if the video does not work as it does on my end.
Comments
Have the damage increase depending on the targets impulse setting
As long as EM and ram are not included fine.
Evidence? Motivation? Desired outcome? Without those, I acknowledge the effort you put into this presentation, but the end result just comes across as arbitrary.
I put all that in the final notes of each section as well as the prelim. notes at the very beginning.
Thank you both though for quick feedback. If you still do not see those let me now, I will edit them into the original post, explaining them better.
By impulse setting I did not mean the actual impulse speed or anything effected by a buff I mean the actual slider on the bottom of your screen that you use to set an impulse setting. This makes sense with it not being based on a ships actual impulse speed because that means escorts would get damaged much more than cruisers, when actually with physics involved, a cruiser is just a larger ship with more mass it is pulling so if anything the pull effect from the tractor beam alone would damage the cruiser more than the escort. This way being dependent on impulse setting all ships can be damaged the same, and the damage wouldn't be high or anything.
1. In the abstract, a case for change should generally have the following components and connections:
Problem -> Solution -> Result
However, after reading the slides, I was only able to identify:
Problem -> Solution -> Result
This leaves the argument looking like the proverbial "solution in search of a problem". In order for the presentation to come across as reasonable, the missing pieces (including the -> arrows, which represent the logical connections between each piece) need to be filled in.
2. There's a second level that the solution needs to be strengthened at as well. Consider this more detailed breakdown of the reasoning process above:
Symptoms -> Underlying problem -> Solution strategy -> Solution details -> Desired result -> Measurable results
And here is what I was able to identify in your presentation:
Symptoms -> Underlying problem -> Solution strategy -> Solution details -> Desired result -> Measurable results
The specific link I think you should give some additional thought to is:
Symptoms -> Underlying problem -> Solution strategy -> Solution details -> Desired result -> Measurable results
I was not able to identify a solution strategy tying together the details of your proposal. Consequently, they seemed scattershot and difficult to understand as part of a systematic effort.
I hope that these suggestions help you to understand what additional elements I think should be communicated in order to make your argument more convincing. While such a presentation may still not achieve your desired results, it would at least be more understandable to your audience, and hopefully more effective as a consequence.
I added in quite a bit more explanation into the presentation and updated the video.
Also so simplify as an example
A problem would be not enough diversity, or distinguishable characteristics. Where you can tie the innate bonuses both positive and negative as being the solution to this problem. For instance there will be more individuality and gap between a Tac/Escort and a Sci/Escort, etc. Final Notes explanation and new Piecing the Puzzle explanation show the results.
Another problem could be broken, underpowered, or overpowered abilities. Whilst this is general, that is what the ability changes for both captain and bridge officers are the solution for. I just chose the ones that needed the most attention. Final Notes explanation and new Piecing the Puzzle explanation shows results (if they aren't obvious).
My solution connected to already widely known problems or problems explained in the presentation, is also a part of the solution strategy, and the results are quite obvious, even it if requires some imagination as stated in the beginning of the presentation. This is because without control over the devs I cannot just flip a switch and put all this on the Test server at a whim so you can see measurable results.
hope that helps. However I do not feel like adding anything else as I believe there is a at least a large portion of the community that will be able to piece it together as I am not the only person who has posted with related changes. I also did not want to have half of the entire presentation being explanations making it an hour long read.
If that's generally correct, then my feedback would be that the goal of additional functional diversity seems counter to some major design principles of STO - a high degree of uniformity seems to have been intentionally baked into the game's design. That's why every ship type can dps, heal, and tank - some in different ways, and to different extents, but superspecialization seems to be a distinct point Cryptic AVOIDED in class design.
Some of the details are unintuitive as well... for instance, why would a Tactical captain suffer an innate penalty to accuracy?
On top of that, innate penalties are generally undesirable from a player psychology point of view. Everybody wants advantages, nobody wants disadvantages. Penalties would be better implemented by lowering the baseline and adding bonuses the other captain types.
The balance changes really are about the details - I don't see any overall themes like "slow the speed of combat by 25%". Some of them are really wonky, like the use of immunity as a counter to stacking... it means anybody who uses Target Subsystem X rank 1 is really going to **** off his teammate who tries to land rank 3 a second later.
I'm sure others will have more to say about the details, but I hope the big picture is at least slightly more visible to readers now.
Yea that is a good summary, however one of the major influences behind it was increasing battle length a little more. Not to mention with the bonuses both positive and negative they wouldn't stop a ship from being viable at any one function but it does add a little unique specialization where it is due.
As to your question about the Accuracy bonus, as it is the accuracy of weapons is really tied to sensors, and the sensors ability to target and track. Where as a Tactical Captain would not be as fluent in operating sensors as a Science Captain, at the same time a Tactical Captain would have more knowledge of weapons and how to make them do more damage on hit.
I can see some of the Negative Innate bonuses being undesired by SOME of the community but really it was an idea spawned up in a large discussion with the some of the game community. Players from different fleets took part as well, so I think it will be welcomed. These negative innate bonuses show exactly where such a captain or ship could lack in the star trek universe when tied to it's application. None of the negative bonuses or positive bonuses are high-end when you think about it.
The innate bonuses ALSO add more to balance because for an example at the current time a science captain in an escort is capable of the same if not more damage potential a tactical captain in an escort is. That is why there has to be more specialization. You probably would also notice some Crit severity reductions here and there, well crit severity is the leading cause to the near one-shot-kill crits escorts are dishing out, accuracy being the secondary cause.
You would also notice science ships getting an actual crit severity buff because as Accuracy is and should be tied to Crit severity, where as Crit chance should be more tactical, it adds some small but needed damage to science vessels.
<Placeholder>