My STO
2010-03-15
After one of the previous posts, Rik asked what I thought was in store for STO. I'll answer that, but I've heard some good rumours and announcements about what the developers have planned for it, and I should really go and check which were which before I start speculating.
Instead, for the moment, let me make another list of random thoughts, this time what I'd do differently.
Skills:
Some of these things are almost bugs rather than design decisions. Here's hoping they fix some. Anyway, some thoughts:
Use one row for each ship type, with two admiral columns so that the two variants at that tier can remain on the same row. Put the general ship skill on the top or middle row and band the background to make it clear it's related to all three rows. Move the team leader skills out of the way (or if you really need to save some rows, put the general ship skill alone on one row, then the team leader ones on the same rows as the ship types.)
Apparently the ship-specific skills don't help when you've got out of that tier: the bottom one and the first role-specific one work right the way up, but the specifics don't. Fix: give them manageable stacking bonuses so that they're all useful at the top. Alternative: if you can't manage stacking bonuses, just make each one prerequisite to the next. Same mechanical effect (with regards player choice), less friendly to players. Also, what's with some of those skills unlocking officer abilities? Some serious asymmetry there.
The skills aren't paced right. Rear Admiral is such a short level range and the skills so expensive that you can only cap one. I would commit to players being able to get the same number of skill boxes in each rank and scale the number of skill points required accordingly, : having decided how long you want the player spending in each rank I'd then set SP awards that provided the right SP/hour. If you need to, make Admiral skills better; if you can't do that it may be that they shouldn't be any more expensive (although that would ruin the SP/hour curves).
Somewhere, possibly not on the skill list but accessible from it, there should be a directory of all the abilities that depend on a given skill, and vice versa. All of them, searchable, and generally making sense. Link to it from the items that affect the skill scores, too.
Ranks on items
I think they missed a trick with the ship tiers. There's some potential there for reducing the epic gap that tends to exist between low levels and high levels; it goes some of the way, but could easily have gone further. Consider the following:
Of course, then you have to give incentives for players to step down like that. That's the hard part; I don't have a great answer.
The Tier 5 ships
At tier 5 the ships are no longer symmetrical; where each previous tier favoured the speciality and kept the secondary ones balanced, tier 5 instead ranks them primary, secondary, tertiary and provides one ship per ordering. However, the distinction is almost negligible. Tier 5s have an officer spread like this:
While we're at it, some part of the Cryptic publicity claimed that tier 5 ships weren't intended to be a huge step up from tier 4, so that if players wanted to stay in tier 4 they wouldn't be heavily penalised. That's mostly true: it's two additional abilities, two additional console slots but otherwise mostly the same. Currently the officers on a tier 4 look like this:
Now there's a real choice: tier 5 ships give you a chance to complement your speciality with a strong element of a secondary field, at the cost of some of the focus you had available in tier 4. It's not a clear choice, and as a player I'm not even sure I'd be comfortable with it: that's a good sign in my opinion.
Instead, for the moment, let me make another list of random thoughts, this time what I'd do differently.
Skills:
Some of these things are almost bugs rather than design decisions. Here's hoping they fix some. Anyway, some thoughts:
Use one row for each ship type, with two admiral columns so that the two variants at that tier can remain on the same row. Put the general ship skill on the top or middle row and band the background to make it clear it's related to all three rows. Move the team leader skills out of the way (or if you really need to save some rows, put the general ship skill alone on one row, then the team leader ones on the same rows as the ship types.)
Apparently the ship-specific skills don't help when you've got out of that tier: the bottom one and the first role-specific one work right the way up, but the specifics don't. Fix: give them manageable stacking bonuses so that they're all useful at the top. Alternative: if you can't manage stacking bonuses, just make each one prerequisite to the next. Same mechanical effect (with regards player choice), less friendly to players. Also, what's with some of those skills unlocking officer abilities? Some serious asymmetry there.
The skills aren't paced right. Rear Admiral is such a short level range and the skills so expensive that you can only cap one. I would commit to players being able to get the same number of skill boxes in each rank and scale the number of skill points required accordingly, : having decided how long you want the player spending in each rank I'd then set SP awards that provided the right SP/hour. If you need to, make Admiral skills better; if you can't do that it may be that they shouldn't be any more expensive (although that would ruin the SP/hour curves).
Somewhere, possibly not on the skill list but accessible from it, there should be a directory of all the abilities that depend on a given skill, and vice versa. All of them, searchable, and generally making sense. Link to it from the items that affect the skill scores, too.
Ranks on items
I think they missed a trick with the ship tiers. There's some potential there for reducing the epic gap that tends to exist between low levels and high levels; it goes some of the way, but could easily have gone further. Consider the following:
- Rather than (or as well as) having a required rank on a piece of space equipment, require a ship tier. For example, Mk VII Wotsit, requires tier 4 ship. It implicitly requires Captain (since only Captains and Rear Admirals can fly tier 4) but bars it to them if they are in a lower ship.
- Then do the same to their abilities: a Captain in a Commander ship gets the Commander rank of his special abilities (or has an ability locked out completely if there isn't a Commander rank).
Of course, then you have to give incentives for players to step down like that. That's the hard part; I don't have a great answer.
The Tier 5 ships
At tier 5 the ships are no longer symmetrical; where each previous tier favoured the speciality and kept the secondary ones balanced, tier 5 instead ranks them primary, secondary, tertiary and provides one ship per ordering. However, the distinction is almost negligible. Tier 5s have an officer spread like this:
Primary: Commander (4), Lt. Commander (3); Secondary: Lieutenant (2), Ensign (1); Tertiary: Lieutenant (2)A single Ensign slot really isn't much of a distinction (nor is the single extra console of the secondary speciality); being limited to Lieutenant abilities in the non-primary specialities severely limits their effect. Instead I'd arrange them like this:
Primary: Commander (4), Lieutenant (2); Secondary: Lt. Commander (3), Ensign (1); Tertiary: Lieutenant (2)The totals haven't changed much (6/4/2 rather than 7/3/2) but access to a Lt.Cdr. ability in the secondary field allows that bit more specialisation. It does mean that the Science/Engineering ship would be a little closer to the Engineering/Science one (for example), but the primary speciality already provides various traits that would continue to distinguish them, and access to a Commander ability slot is a large distinction.
While we're at it, some part of the Cryptic publicity claimed that tier 5 ships weren't intended to be a huge step up from tier 4, so that if players wanted to stay in tier 4 they wouldn't be heavily penalised. That's mostly true: it's two additional abilities, two additional console slots but otherwise mostly the same. Currently the officers on a tier 4 look like this:
Primary: Commander (4), Lieutenant (2); Secondary (each): Lieutenant (2)That's 6/2/2, which sounds a fair bit like I'm recommending for tier 5s (6/4/2). I've already closed the gap a little: the main advantage of [my] tier 5 over 4 is the ability to diversify. I'd go a little further:
Primary: Commander (4), Lieutenant Commander (3); Secondary (each): Lieutenant (2)I've added a whole extra ability, closing the gap a little more (12 over 11, rather than 12 over 10) and I wouldn't change the distribution of consoles (4/3/2 over 3/2/2) but crucially the tier 4 now has something the tier 5 doesn't: an additional Lieutenant Commander ability, making it the only way of one ship having two Lt.Cdr. slots in the same speciality.
Now there's a real choice: tier 5 ships give you a chance to complement your speciality with a strong element of a secondary field, at the cost of some of the focus you had available in tier 4. It's not a clear choice, and as a player I'm not even sure I'd be comfortable with it: that's a good sign in my opinion.
Comments