Making Science Ships More Scientific

posted on July 22nd, 2013, 6:27 am

Hey guys, I know a lot of new ideas have been thrown out there recently, but I thought I'd add this one to the pile...


What if science ships could research immunities to certain map objects?

For example, you just got a Nebula warp in. Instead of being frustrated that you didn't get a Galaxy, you could steer one of your Nebula's close to a nearby Nucleon nebula (a sickly red nebula that disables cloak and causes damage.) Now, you can have your ship research a damage reduction for all ships that drive into Nucleon nebulas.

Science ships could also 'survey' map objects, like the decretory planets used right now for background objects. This would give a random area of effect attribute to the planet, for instance, "+3 defense value for all support ships" or "+2 system value for destroyers". The synergy would only be effective for the player that did the research, although different factions can research the same planet.

Some factions would make use of this more then others - the Federation is the most openly 'scientific' faction. Other factions could also do research like this with the exception of the Borg - these effects would probably be triggered by some sort of 'information assimilation' ability that could be researched.


The benefits of this system are as follows:

1. Science ships now do something scientific and have more value
2. New strategic options are available for factions
3. Science ships become a new 'class' beside support ships, destroyers, frigates, and destroyers


The flaws of this system are as follows:

1. Some players may have more access to researchable items then others due to map layout
2. Feds in particular might become OP due to the abundance of Nebulas.

Anyone have any ideas on how to fix these flaws? What do people think?

Thanks for reading!
YWD

posted on July 22nd, 2013, 10:45 am

i very much like the idea of having support ships go do stuff other than combat for benefit.

to fix flaw 2 i'd have it apply to support ships instead of the vague and nontransparent "science" ships. nebula class ships in fleetops are combat ships, refitted for the dominion war. even the sensor neb uses its sensors to scan the field of combat.

perhaps if it doesn't pan out for all support ships, it could be a special for just one or two

perhaps vary it by race, so that klingons get more guns, feds get more defensive stuff.

in the next patch the destroyer/cruiser/battleship classification will be gone. as will size. so such a buff would have to apply to offensive/defensive/support.

posted on July 22nd, 2013, 2:34 pm

this idea is 'fun' but it will greatly impact game play and map creation would revolve around what map objects are good or bad for certain races instead of focusing on aesthetics of the map.

posted on July 22nd, 2013, 4:01 pm

this idea is 'fun' but it will greatly impact game play and map creation would revolve around what map objects are good or bad for certain races instead of focusing on aesthetics of the map.

we already have that to a degree.

shield healing nebs benefit federation more than others, and do nothing for the borg.

shield disabling nebs really benefit the borg as they have no shields to lose.

putting two bases back to back with not much blocking triggers (usually asteroids) between them benefits the dominion who have the longest range artillery. that was one of asteroid halma's weaknesses a while back, dominion players could shell your base.

i think that this idea could be balanced so that it doesn't dictate a game, like researching a special weapon. the bonuses given could be small, or temporary, or limited on which ships they affect.

posted on July 22nd, 2013, 8:40 pm

this idea is 'fun' but it will greatly impact game play and map creation would revolve around what map objects are good or bad for certain races instead of focusing on aesthetics of the map.

To be honest I don't think it would make that much of an impact. If it costs resources then I'm not sure many people would waste resources on it. It's effects don't have to render ships completely resistant to the nebula etc.

posted on July 23rd, 2013, 1:50 am

i very much like the idea of having support ships go do stuff other than combat for benefit.

to fix flaw 2 i'd have it apply to support ships instead of the vague and nontransparent "science" ships. nebula class ships in fleetops are combat ships, refitted for the dominion war. even the sensor neb uses its sensors to scan the field of combat.

perhaps if it doesn't pan out for all support ships, it could be a special for just one or two

perhaps vary it by race, so that klingons get more guns, feds get more defensive stuff.

That's a good call, we'll make it support ships instead of science ships. Faction specific buffs would be neat. It's good to know they're removing the destroyer/cruiser/battleship classifications, do you know why they are changing?

Also, anyone have ideas for the Borg?

posted on July 23rd, 2013, 10:59 am

It's good to know they're removing the destroyer/cruiser/battleship classifications, do you know why they are changing?

to make things more transparent and simple. to get rid of a steep learning curve.

don't use the guide, try figure out which ships are destroyers/cruisers/battleships. there's little mention of it in game. but it does affect gameplay. the breen torps do more damage to battleships, you'll probably guess that the sovvie is a battleship. but did you know that the defiant and avalon are too? the galaxy is obviously a battleship, but not the nebula or ambas. the rhienn torpedo refit does more damage to cruisers, you'd be right in assuming that the akira/e2 were cruisers, but the e1 isn't. the intrepid is chassis 1 like the monsoon, but it's a cruiser as well. the whole mechanic was overly complicated and only people who could memorise these classifications would know them.

size is going as well. currently small/med/large is used to calculate torp miss rate and pulse damage. that mechanic will go to the new offensive/allrounder/defensive profile system. size was also a bit opaque. the intrepid and monsoon look similar in size, but the intrepid is medium, not small, so gets hurt by torps a lot. there is no mention of size in game either.

i'm presuming the aim is to have as few different mechanics as possible so that tooltips can tell you what you need to know. ie monsoon: give stats, state defensive profile=gets shot first, doesn't dodge torps, absorbs pulse fire easily. it's going to be a big change, but it'll help new players join the game more easily.

posted on July 23rd, 2013, 3:27 pm

They're getting rid of that? Oh good. That's nice. There is actually plenty of mention of it in the game, you just have to read through the end game stats. The ships tab organizes each of your ships and what they did by ship type, so if you have a good memory, it's pretty easy to remember. It's actually kinda nice to know that one of your vet ships destroyed like 50 others. Dang, you should see the stats of my tavara I left in the middle of battle, often unattended, for long periods of time(vs AI). It took out an entire AI base and several fleets of ships all by it's lonesome. That list was long.

posted on July 23rd, 2013, 4:25 pm

They're getting rid of that? Oh good. That's nice. There is actually plenty of mention of it in the game, you just have to read through the end game stats. The ships tab organizes each of your ships and what they did by ship type, so if you have a good memory, it's pretty easy to remember. It's actually kinda nice to know that one of your vet ships destroyed like 50 others. Dang, you should see the stats of my tavara I left in the middle of battle, often unattended, for long periods of time(vs AI). It took out an entire AI base and several fleets of ships all by it's lonesome. That list was long.

admirals log isn't in game. you have to pause to access it. if you're gonna pause the game and do something else, you might as well just read the guide, it's more thorough. having to remember things from outside the game isn't good, it rewards simple/tedious acts of memorisation.

posted on July 23rd, 2013, 6:07 pm

By the sounds of it, the current implementation mixes up hull classification with role. For example, there is no way under any classification system that the Defiant Class would be a Battleship. It's an Escort or a Destroyer at best. However, role wise it certainly is more combat orientated than pretty much any other Starfleet vessel. So it's a warship yes, Battleship, no.

TMP era this stuff is easy to sort out, but TNG it does get confusing since a massive ship like a Galaxy is still more of a Heavy Cruiser than it is a Battleship (like the Sovereign). Also you have older types like the Miranda and the Excelsior that in their day were a Light Cruiser and a Battlecruiser, but by TNG are inferior to modern types and are so closer to a Destroyer and Heavy Cruiser in role, but not hull type.

It's not an easy thing to get right though so I'm not criticising the team in any way Just saying that the system is clearly confused and explaining why.

posted on July 23rd, 2013, 6:46 pm

By the sounds of it, the current implementation mixes up hull classification with role. <snip>

the whole idea of transplanting naval terms onto space vessels is dubious at best. calling a starship a destroyer/cruiser/battleship is silly. there are so many differences between naval and space combat that the classifications should just be ignored.

destroyers in fleetops are just what we call ships that are small and weak. the naval role of a destroyer was to protect larger ships from torpedo boats and other small ships. ie to stop zerg rushes. on the big slow ships. but in fleetops that just doesn't exist. if the enemy is spamming small ships, norexans and phalanges will tear them apart. even though they are big ships. never in star trek has a "battleship" needed a small ship as escort. larger ships have more powerful shields and usually are not threatened by ships much smaller than them.

battleships were named after the line of battle, something that disappeared from naval combat long ago, and never appeared in star trek.

the sooner this classification system disappears the better, it doesn't make sense in space.

posted on July 23rd, 2013, 7:15 pm

Well, Star Trek does clearly take it's influence from naval warfare. Gene Roddenberry did name the Constitution Class ships after US Carriers of WWII. They use naval ranks, not army or air force. They use naval parlance like bow, stern, decks, general quarters/battlestations etc they use those funny sounding whistles expressly designed to sound like those used on sailing ships. They have star docks, sensor buoys and so forth.

Just about the only thing they say that is directly against naval tradition is saying "fire" rather than "shoot". You never use the word "fire" on a ship in regards to weapons discharge. It only ever refers to an actual fire.

Tactics wise, the battles on DS9 quite strongly resemble something you might see in the days of ironclads.

Anyways I agree that it doesn't fit in a lot of circumstances, but I am not pulling this out of thin air, it's right there on screen

posted on July 23rd, 2013, 8:01 pm

Well, Star Trek does clearly take it's influence from naval warfare. Gene Roddenberry did name the Constitution Class ships after US Carriers of WWII. They use naval ranks, not army or air force. They use naval parlance like bow, stern, decks, general quarters/battlestations etc they use those funny sounding whistles expressly designed to sound like those used on sailing ships. They have star docks, sensor buoys and so forth.

yes all these things are derived from naval terms. but that doesn't mean ship classifications have to be as well. these words when used in the show are often even more silly than when used by fans, they never made a rigorous explanation of it. thankfully they stayed away from these words for the most part. i propose that we ditch them as well, they aren't helpful in space in any way. decks/ranks/whistles don't conflict with being in space.

also i'll let you off on colonel west, as i thought it was silly, too.

Tactics wise, the battles on DS9 quite strongly resemble something you might see in the days of ironclads.

i don't see where you're coming from at all. the predominant naval tactic in that era was to form the line of battle. that was wholly based on the fact that ships of the line could fire most guns using broadsides. compare with star trek ships where the primary weapons often face forward, not sideways. also, for a while, commanders gave up on shooting guns at ironclads, believing that they were too hard to damage, so ramming was a top strategy for a while. the only ramming in star trek was little ships ramming huge ones.

ds9's fleet battles were totally different, starting with everyone faces off against each other, takes small potshots at each other with fighters/small ships. then it pretty much all goes tits up with a big mêlée. sometimes battles skip straight to the tits up part from the start. there was definitely no line of battle, which wouldn't make an awful lot of sense in 3 dimensions anyway. ships often found themselves in 1 on 1 combat with enemy ships.

posted on July 23rd, 2013, 8:07 pm

Actually the line of battle was more age of sail. Hence why I said ironclads. When they started mounting guns in turrets, the tactics became to advance toward the enemy in line abreast (and often try and ram, as you mentioned) and then engage one on one (or two on one), with each ship basically fighting it's own battle.

Anyways we're heading way off topic, and I agree to disagree. I like my naval analogs hence why my mod plays like a space version of the Battle of Jutland. But thats not everyones cup of tea.

posted on July 24th, 2013, 3:55 pm

This is why I think the battles in fleet ops are a lot less spectacular than in star trek. In fleet ops, when two large fleets meet, you don't see each ship firing at ships near it, instead the whole fleet focuses it's fire on one or two ships at a time. It's good strategy wise but it kinda sucks theatrical wise... It would be interesting if the ships didn't always attack what you told them to attack but sometimes went after more immediate threats, like the ships shooting at them. As in clicking the attack button only assigns a weight to attacking that target. As I said it would be interesting but unrealistic etc. etc.