Ship-Based Item Research System
complete "crafting" aboard your ship
Synopsis:
There are many crafting ideas out there and at least one planned by the developers for Season 2.
However, this proposal is robust answer to many players' reservations over the existing Memory Alpha crafting. This proposal would not strictly replace that.
It would, instead, provide at least two more skills to level (which operate on their own skill tree). The items made would not be outshone by gear from daily missions - thus making it rewarding for end-game.
Table of Contents:
- Modify Item Menu
- Overview
- Researcher Leveling
- Reclaim Item Menu
- Overview
- Reverse Engineering Leveling
- Skill Tree Menu
Modify Item Menu
Overview
After going to their ship's engineering, medical bay, or armory: players would have drop-down lists to select from a variety of appropriate attributes for gear.
They'd select which attributes they'd like to change (less expensive) or add (more expensive).
Researcher Leveling
Players would progress from creating uncommon, low-Mk gear with lesser attributes to very rare, high-Mk gear with greater attributes.
For example:
- Beginner researchers could develop a Deflector Dish with a bonus to sensors.
- High-end researchers could develop a Deflector Dish with an extremely rare bonus (like a slightly higher bonus than Marks of Honor/Exploration gear or even unique abilities, much like ground shields have).
Reclaim Item Menu
Overview
In addition to researching new items, players could also reverse engineer items or "reclaim" them.
There's a maximum value for how many resources various attributes could yield, if reclaimed. Players would only get a % of this value - partially based on chance and partially based on their own level "reverse engineer" level.
This is similar to disenchanting from World of Warcraft but with the potential for minigames.
Reverse Engineering Leveling
Like Research, Reverse Engineers would have their separate leveling system. The greater their ability, the more powerful items they could reclaim: from Mk value to the number of attributes. They would also reclaim a greater percentage of the anomalous materials used to create that item.
Skill Tree Menu
From this menu, players could see their progress toward a variety of research fields and specialties.
This would be a large system - requiring significant time investment to research the upper-most tiers. Furthermore, it can scale to add new tiers of research.
Ideally, it would run parallel to level progression but would have it's own leveling and experience tracking. In practice, a player could be a Vice Admiral 1 but still only have the starter research abilities (and vice-versa).
Players select specialties as they reach each tier of research. This means players have mutually exclusive choice. I can make the best energy weapons and kinetic weapons but, in doing so, could not research the best ship, hull, consoles, etc.
You start very broad and then narrow in your research.
Attributes to apply toward items come in packs based on your level in chosen specialties.
Comments
Add minigames and it could be more involving that WoW's disenchanting.
If you check my thread that talks about mission re-playability, I offered a sort of an alternative crafting system that effectively results in the same abilities, namely for us to create our own variances in gear. I'd love either suggestion to blossom and eventually be implemented... are you listening... Cryptic? Do *you* guys get it, Cryptic?!
what i'm not a fan of would be potentially having to unlock crafting levels / abilities for what would be the third time. recognition of prior crafting would need to be taken into account in some manner.
admitedly, if new crafting abilities are introduced, that weren't available prior, some need for leveling of 'new' skills would be acceptable.
A robust system is definitely needed.
Thanks. Hopefully, with enough feedback or support, developers can move this up the priority list for Season 3 or 4.
Thank goodness! This post was so long I almost got lost if not for your table of contents
Some of them can be quite long.
In fact, I'm working on mock-ups for skill trees and variance thresholds for attributes (based on skill or even minigame performance).
Give em a reasonable lifetime, maybe between 1 - 20hrs but have em wear out?
Tie it to a mini-game's results so the duration has to so with your relative success?
I apologize if this is obvious, but I can hardly see those screen mock-ups.
What is the cost of doing this modification, is it anomolies?
What is the risk of doing this modification/tinkering; do you always succeed?
Maybe some of the time nothing happens? Is there a crit failure (boom!) or crit success (extra bonus) possibility?
Thoughtful idea!
1) IMO a crafting system similar to that of Pre-NGE SWG or EVE would serve the playerbase the best. gives countless hours for people to: quest for schematics to invent, allow mining operations and collections of resources [poor to rare], allow certain modular item drops used in crafting/reverse engineering to be dropped in STF's, allow players to design the pieces of their starships/weapons/armor/kits/shields/etc.. and lastly the interaction of trading resources/parts between players and Fleets
2) although i dont see much of a crafting system when there is no need to replace. ex. you or a fleet-member learns the whole craft-system and can make anything even to the rare's.
Then Waht??
there is no need to do anything more, it is just limited do-once and your ship is maxed. But if the penalty for being destroyed was to lose a module completely to where you had to buy another piece, say affixed to using ramming speed and auto destruct or catastrophic annihilation, then there would be an economy for crafting. if there was a degradation attached to ship modules the more it is used the more it degrades to failing permanently......using the repair stims works as a short term solution, but a master degrade is hard set and will not last beyond a value of time built into the creation of said module by the crafter.
3) should the crafting system be put into a skill tree similar to charactor progression?? this way you can choose to excel at either: making the parts of a star-ship, making the ship modules or making personal away-team gears??!! this way there isnt a monopoly of what one person can make and charge and should give fleets the ability to grow and make alliances all without having the crafting market sell absurd priced items.
4) Lastly, tieing into #3, would there be a money sink? crafters having to pay to use facilities to craft items, learn expertise, pay a fee to sell goods based on days and such?
Obviously, there would be an accumulation of wealth with crafters adding their fee of labor to the demand and value of which they created. this would leave non-crafters, Possibly, out of latinum to buy the modules they desperately need or wish to attain! even though crafters would buy resources from others at a price, that still marks up the cost of goods, but not trying to monetarily gimp the crafters for doing their jobs either. that is the catch!
does any of this have merit?
I was thinking of minute gradiations based on performance, i.e. 2.1, 2.2 instead of the base 2.0% for, say criticla.
Balance would be easier if the buffs were temporary - costs could go down too. I like it
Tie duration to skill stat or tie power to skill stat? Both?
Yes, the anomalies I posted under modify are those you'd need to use.
For reclaim, it's the number of anomalies you could potentially "get bacK"
Those are compelling parts of the crafting systems I enjoy.
If you forgo the crafting minigame, make it a small percentage of total failure (i.e. anomalies expended withou attribute gain).
If you do use the crafting minigame, you could be rest assured that you wouldn't lose all the anomalies upon failure.
You're reminding me of my days as a Weapons Dealer in SWG.
I'm working on bringing this idea closer in line with SWG. Nack's ideas are one path of doing that.
I'd love to see unique Attributes unlocked for various gear. Maybe a [Rep] attribute on a phaser beam that potentially has a repulsor effect on critical (and deals small but interesting kinetic damage).
I doubt full base item loss would be popular. However, anomaly/mats loss for failure is one option Nack suggested. I like it and had assumed there'd be more risk but also reward in a new crafting system.
I'd think that a skill tree would be best - hence the Researcher levels in the bottom right of the Modify Screen.
Have ability sets and attribute slots at different levels of proficiency. Also, let some of the work at Memory Alpha count toward your levels. No sense punishing those who use the old starter system with Romaine.
That's a possibility. I remember SWG having money sinks from harvesters, item creation, schematic manufacturing, etc. However, it shouldn't be so high as to discourage players from leveling the skills while going up in level. :cool:
I like your ideas and will be making another pass to modify the OP (after homework is done for tonight). You certainly don't need me to validate your contributions.
Let's see what other players say but I'll probably incorporate that with Nack's idea (I'll cite each of you as a contributor to those parts).
As a heads up, I'm working on improving the existing mock-ups to be clearer (i.e. having a base item in the modify slot, more directions) and adding a hypothetical skill chart and item gradient (based on level stats and minigame performance).
I'm still not sure if temporary or permanent buffs would be preferred by everyone.
What does the rest of the community say?
So why ask for a temp solution though Darren? Wouldnt be better to just get the wanted system in place instead of "settling" for something that will "hold us"? That said, sometime sooner or later, wouldnt it be better if they took the better lot of a season and focused soley on crafting, resource gathering, experimentation, resource location,research and all that stuff, I think it a better idea to go that route than to have to keep coming back every other month because people arent satisfied.
I'm going back and retooling it to be more audacious but have some of the framework I already laid-out.
Everyone seems to be leaning toward a SWG style - even me.
So, I'm working on stuff to pad it out and incorporate feedback from players like you.
I'd think crafting and resource gathering changes would be great to implement before Starbases on the time-table.
Make the gathering and construction of items more interesting before working on the Starbases and other construction projects, for example.
GREAT JOB!
I'm making another pass and adding more features.
Polish what's there, explain where necessary, and add features like skill trees and item variance (so it's not just some set recipe - it's a full-on experiment with levels of success or failure).
The great part is that I already have PSD files saved with the GUI layouts from previous proposals. This makes creating new menus quite simple.
Great Scott!!!
You know, Cryptic is hiring right?!?!?!
I wish they would give you a gold name...
Theres some stuff there.
surveying- http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Planetary_survey
Mining- http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Mining
Particle Fountain Project- http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Particle_Fountain_Project
Freighters- http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Freighter
As to the crafting method, dunno I guess it depends on whether you want modular or simple item combinations for item creation. Your more simple stuff for like consumables and equipable items, is likely going to be similar to UO, WoW or Fallen earth item crafting. There arent many other ways you can do that because its for the players personal use, or for the players person and used during ground game play, you nab a few resources, possibly some small components, hit combine, bamm theres an item. Player can then be on his way and use it. It doesnt hurt to throw experimentation into that process though.
Now if your after bigger crafting which is actually building more so, than you want modular crafting.
Your modular is going to be things we saw mainly in games like swg, aoc. Your creating large structures, bases, homes, ships, large extractors, ship parts ect.. those require several large components to make one big item.
Or, if your a crafting freak of nature like me, you do both.
i do wonder. if it is temp, is it going to be on a charge type basis that you can swap out or refill? if it is permanent how would that be, clarified, as the way it is now?
as per SWG method, the uniqueness of it individually and encompass as a whole was the best blending. depending on you mats, it was experiment to each part....i dont recall all of the minute` details but recollect my experience in that profession was it allowed you to determine how good each aspect of the overall item was going to be. So, if you had the very best mats you were going to turn out the best item to use......that is the style i relish to see in any new MMO's! even this one.
to me this always seemed to give the best results. just like Linux, modular designs make it easier to build, produce, design and usually have the most variation in the look and coloring of a item. one man crafting it all seems about as lame as making RA5 in 14 days, but the point is to make it worthwhile and diverse, that way you would need a team or to rely on someone else.....as is common in Star Trek.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw7YEbhtYcw#t=1m00s
However, Star Trek Online players won't be crafting space pants (I hope).
( --| click to see the Research Skill Trees Menu |-- )
Stuff I'm Working On:
(I know you posted in my "farming" thread)
And you know that the "farming" would tie in perfectly with this crafting system.
Alas I have to battle "Farmtown" or whatever it is called...I hate pre-judgeries!
(Keep up the good work!)
The variance tables resemble d100 / percentile dice in Dungeons and Dragons.
Good idea? Bad idea? Meh?
Fixes should be up in a couple days (unless my homework decides to attack again).
And be a better 'resource sink' in general for the game economy.
I wouldnt mess with variance tables, thats going to be all Cryptic anyway.
I would say that using a minigame would increase the extreme reactions (hands on tinkering) - for critical failure and success rates. As opposed to just clicking the button on the interface, no hands-on, = no critical reactions.
But I'll repeat - I really think they need something like this added to STO.
I think you're right about the variance tables. As much as I'd like to recreate my weapons vendor days in SWG, I doubt it'd happen in STO.
However, what about long-term research of c-store ship parts? D-stahl mentioned something to this effect - have a long enough time doing quests/grinding to get them may have the "bean counters" look the other way.
I support the notion of long term research, especially when it comes time for big stuff like player ships and starbases. I have a feeling 'long term' research may be related to a combination of (a) gathering anomalies, (b) using item-sub-combines and (c) time to research... and by that I mean literal RL timers (like SWG mining)
That said, any research system you design should be, in my not-so-humble opinion, thought out with two goals, (1) temp buffs/powers because of the higher chance it would get implemented and (2) a feeder system to "real" crafting, as a method of acquiring 'experience points' and materials in a larger crafting system.
A robust research (some mix of dis-enchant + craft or recombine) for the temp stuff would be a boost to those who just want the short term fix of the "potions/blessings" they could get, as well as the long-term crafter crowd that would use it for bigger/better crafts. double dipping. two birds with one system kind of thing.
I'd have to agree. While I'd love item variance and fine graduadtions between crafted items (ala SWG), it's a nightmare to code and would push "better" crafting out into infinity.
I wonder: