Post by metalize on Apr 26, 2020 0:50:03 GMT -5
I see a few problems with current Ship Hull Meta that need to be addressed somehow.
1) Overabundance of hulls. The shop is overwhelming, especially for less experienced players.
2) A lot of hulls are redundant, with "strictly-better" options in the same price range available.
3) Restrictive design space. Hard to introduce hull variety into system.
Suggestions vary between small/cheap system adjustments to complete overhaul. Some suggestions would work better if implemented together with others, synergistic effects.
Some suggestions will, of course, touch neighbouring systems as well (modules, shops, money...)
Suggestion 0: Local shop with component-specific inventory instead of starport level-based component availability
A lot of suggestions below would be... Hard to implement without a Hull / Component shop being tied to a particular Location, with limited Inventory (as opposed to current "everything is available everywhere" system).
Local shop would also help with UI bloat.
And allow some neighbouring systems happen, like introducing inventory diversification; I.e. High Tech and Lux Pop planets with high Economy might have bigger/better Shops, et cetera.
It would also make sense to introduce "Search shop inventories" feature to avoid "Needle in the haystack" frustrations.
Suggestion 1: Procedural generation of hulls.
There is no need to go all-in and make hulls 100% procedurally generated. The reasonable approach would be to recognize key ship archetypes, and introduce procedural variations of those.
Example:
Sword BattleCruiser would cover "9000 Mass Weapon Platform" archetype. Introduce procedural variations of it's Mass/Amor/Shields/Craft/EvasionCap/HullPoints within 5% of original. Minor variations in Slots and Crew could also be considered. Officer amount should probably be kept constant, though.
Cautela Titan would cover "9000 Mass Carrier Platform" archetype. Compared to SBC, this one would have drastically higher amount of possible Craft, different Slot configuration (more High/Mediums to accomodate for Craft, less Lows); Lower inherent Armor/Shields. Larger Crew to accomodate Craft Crew specialists, at the cost of less Slots overall. Again, some procedural variations within 5% of original.
The approach should still be fairly open-ended and allow for creative "misuse" of hulls.
Suggestion 2: Procedural generation of Components.
The main tradeoff here would be Mass vs. Damage(/Cargo/Fueltank/...) vs. Price.
It already exists to an extent (some weapons have variations within 10 mass of each other), but I'd like to see system expanded. A lot of time I have excess 40 Mass I can't take advantage of, or I'm 5-10 Mass short of making that perfect fit work.
Suggestion 3: Hull-specific abilities and traits
This one is the way EVE Online achieves infinite design space. In EVE, hulls have abilities like "+25% to Missile damage", or "Small Craft have 50% more HP".
The problem with this approach is how confining it is. If a hull has a huge Small Craft bonus, you wouldn't want to use it for anything else; And you wouldn't want to make Small Craft build in any other hull. This goes against STF open-endedness.
I think, though, with careful Trait design, this tool could still be a useful one. It's probably still possible to come up with numerous open-ended Traits that are not currently covered by Components and would be hard to balance if put on Components. Maybe some abilities that are currently on Components would make more sense on Hulls as well.
Suggestion 4: Make better hulls cost considerably more, introducing a price/power progression
Currently, price is something of only mild concern you consider when evaluating how good is the hull. However, it could be more important! If powerful, opulent hulls cost a lot, you would require stepping stones of more humble alternatives to eventually get there. It would create some design space for otherwise "redundant" hulls.
While this currently does exist to some extent (you usually do use a "midgame" ship before upgrading to "endgame" ship), I'm suggesting many of currently "optimal" midgame ships (like Wolf Vector, Paladin Cutter etc) be made into a more expensive, but viable endgame ships. This would open some space for currently underwhelming 3400/5000/6000 ships to serve as stepping stones towards them, being significantly cheaper but offering 1 less Slot / a bit less Crew / worse Armor / etc.
Also, "Better" hulls would not necessary mean "More Slots/Crew". See suggestion 6 below.
Suggestion 5: Make better hulls available later in the game, introducing time/power progression
Just as time goes on, Galaxy technologically progresses and starts manufacturing better ships. This would also create a niche for otherwise redundant hulls as stepping stones, similar to Suggestion 4.
However, I think Player should have some ability to influence this. Maybe somehow promote the "Trader" part of "Star Trader", and speed up technological advancement of planets that regularly have their demand served?
Suggestion 6: Make inherent Hull numbers more malleable
This goes together with two previous suggestions. "Better" hulls would not necessary mean "More Slots".
Slot configuration, Officers and Crew, (and maybe Craft amount) IMO, should serve more of a niche-defining function and correlate directly with Ship Mass — the heavier is your Ship, the more Slots, Craft and people you can fit in it. I think using these parameters as a Power Progression would be incorrect.
It's possible, of course, to make Sword Battle Cruiser be gated behind time/technological progress AND a huge price, to make acquisition of one a big strategic goal, but it's just not granular enough.
We could have more granular inherent Hull numbers grow with time and price investment. I'm talking about things like Armor, Shield, Cripple Resistance, Evasion, Craft Evasion, Hull Dice Pools, Range Change bonii.
Suggestion 6.5: Make inherent Component numbers more malleable
In the same vein as previous one; We currently have 8 tiers of weapons in the game. We could instead use procedural generation to grow the numbers on these components with time by themselves, there are a lot of those and they are granular enough — Damage, Mass, Crippe Chance, Critical Chance, Dice Pools.
Suggestion 7: Introduce Hull Dice Pools
Speaking of which, how come all the modules in the game have Dice Pools, but Ships don't? That looks like a huge Design Space waiting to be utilized!
I'm specifically looking at Command and Tactics dice pools, which currently are uncapped and have no modules tied to them.
Other ideas might include Stealth Dice Pool that would improve Encounter Evasion Chance (like Sig Dampeners), Explore and Repair Dice Pools for god knows what.
Suggestion 8: Reevaluate Bridges, Engines, Warp Drives, Mass Dampeners, Crew Quarters
Ability to equip Scout, Medium and Battle Bridges already serves as invisible Hull trait.
Engines and Jump Drives define mobility, taking that away from possible Ship Hull customization.
Mass Dampeners make variations in Hull Mass redundant.
Scout Bridge is basically "You lose a Low Slot, but gain 2 Medium Slots because you no longer have to equip Officer Quarters" when compared to Medium Bridge, making the hidden Bridge distinction redundant in a way. The recent Reach Vindex is just a better version of Longbolt / Scout Cutter because of this.
Since you always want to have maximum crew that a Hull can house, the only meaningful decision about Crew and Officer Quarters is whether to spend Medium or Small Slots on these.
Now, I'm not saying that this is bad; I actually like Engines for instance. Choice between Chaser/Traveller/Longhaul/Combat versions is meaningful. I see no point in making Chaser/Traveller/Longhaul/Whatever variation of every single Hull in the game.
But these things do step on toes of Ship Hull customization/diversity. Almost everything important about the Ship boils down to Slot layout (and Crew size), because of Component diversity.
Key question
At this point the overarching design question should be asked and answered — do we want many different Ship Hulls or do we want less Ship Hulls, but let players configure them to their liking via Components?
It feels like in early design stages of STF the answer was "We prefer few Hulls, but extensive Component configuration", and now/later the answer is "We actually changed our mind and think that Ship Hulls are fun".
But design space is too constrained because Components occupy it.
It's important to reevaluate which properties of the Ship should be covered by Hull and which should be covered by Components.
IMO, removing Bridge size diversification and Crew Quarters makes sense. Jump Drives seem weird too. Mass Dampeners... Maybe? Removing these would be a very drastic change to buildcrafting.
Engines I'd keep as-is.
1) Overabundance of hulls. The shop is overwhelming, especially for less experienced players.
2) A lot of hulls are redundant, with "strictly-better" options in the same price range available.
3) Restrictive design space. Hard to introduce hull variety into system.
Suggestions vary between small/cheap system adjustments to complete overhaul. Some suggestions would work better if implemented together with others, synergistic effects.
Some suggestions will, of course, touch neighbouring systems as well (modules, shops, money...)
Suggestion 0: Local shop with component-specific inventory instead of starport level-based component availability
A lot of suggestions below would be... Hard to implement without a Hull / Component shop being tied to a particular Location, with limited Inventory (as opposed to current "everything is available everywhere" system).
Local shop would also help with UI bloat.
And allow some neighbouring systems happen, like introducing inventory diversification; I.e. High Tech and Lux Pop planets with high Economy might have bigger/better Shops, et cetera.
It would also make sense to introduce "Search shop inventories" feature to avoid "Needle in the haystack" frustrations.
Suggestion 1: Procedural generation of hulls.
There is no need to go all-in and make hulls 100% procedurally generated. The reasonable approach would be to recognize key ship archetypes, and introduce procedural variations of those.
Example:
Sword BattleCruiser would cover "9000 Mass Weapon Platform" archetype. Introduce procedural variations of it's Mass/Amor/Shields/Craft/EvasionCap/HullPoints within 5% of original. Minor variations in Slots and Crew could also be considered. Officer amount should probably be kept constant, though.
Cautela Titan would cover "9000 Mass Carrier Platform" archetype. Compared to SBC, this one would have drastically higher amount of possible Craft, different Slot configuration (more High/Mediums to accomodate for Craft, less Lows); Lower inherent Armor/Shields. Larger Crew to accomodate Craft Crew specialists, at the cost of less Slots overall. Again, some procedural variations within 5% of original.
The approach should still be fairly open-ended and allow for creative "misuse" of hulls.
Suggestion 2: Procedural generation of Components.
The main tradeoff here would be Mass vs. Damage(/Cargo/Fueltank/...) vs. Price.
It already exists to an extent (some weapons have variations within 10 mass of each other), but I'd like to see system expanded. A lot of time I have excess 40 Mass I can't take advantage of, or I'm 5-10 Mass short of making that perfect fit work.
Suggestion 3: Hull-specific abilities and traits
This one is the way EVE Online achieves infinite design space. In EVE, hulls have abilities like "+25% to Missile damage", or "Small Craft have 50% more HP".
The problem with this approach is how confining it is. If a hull has a huge Small Craft bonus, you wouldn't want to use it for anything else; And you wouldn't want to make Small Craft build in any other hull. This goes against STF open-endedness.
I think, though, with careful Trait design, this tool could still be a useful one. It's probably still possible to come up with numerous open-ended Traits that are not currently covered by Components and would be hard to balance if put on Components. Maybe some abilities that are currently on Components would make more sense on Hulls as well.
Suggestion 4: Make better hulls cost considerably more, introducing a price/power progression
Currently, price is something of only mild concern you consider when evaluating how good is the hull. However, it could be more important! If powerful, opulent hulls cost a lot, you would require stepping stones of more humble alternatives to eventually get there. It would create some design space for otherwise "redundant" hulls.
While this currently does exist to some extent (you usually do use a "midgame" ship before upgrading to "endgame" ship), I'm suggesting many of currently "optimal" midgame ships (like Wolf Vector, Paladin Cutter etc) be made into a more expensive, but viable endgame ships. This would open some space for currently underwhelming 3400/5000/6000 ships to serve as stepping stones towards them, being significantly cheaper but offering 1 less Slot / a bit less Crew / worse Armor / etc.
Also, "Better" hulls would not necessary mean "More Slots/Crew". See suggestion 6 below.
Suggestion 5: Make better hulls available later in the game, introducing time/power progression
Just as time goes on, Galaxy technologically progresses and starts manufacturing better ships. This would also create a niche for otherwise redundant hulls as stepping stones, similar to Suggestion 4.
However, I think Player should have some ability to influence this. Maybe somehow promote the "Trader" part of "Star Trader", and speed up technological advancement of planets that regularly have their demand served?
Suggestion 6: Make inherent Hull numbers more malleable
This goes together with two previous suggestions. "Better" hulls would not necessary mean "More Slots".
Slot configuration, Officers and Crew, (and maybe Craft amount) IMO, should serve more of a niche-defining function and correlate directly with Ship Mass — the heavier is your Ship, the more Slots, Craft and people you can fit in it. I think using these parameters as a Power Progression would be incorrect.
It's possible, of course, to make Sword Battle Cruiser be gated behind time/technological progress AND a huge price, to make acquisition of one a big strategic goal, but it's just not granular enough.
We could have more granular inherent Hull numbers grow with time and price investment. I'm talking about things like Armor, Shield, Cripple Resistance, Evasion, Craft Evasion, Hull Dice Pools, Range Change bonii.
Suggestion 6.5: Make inherent Component numbers more malleable
In the same vein as previous one; We currently have 8 tiers of weapons in the game. We could instead use procedural generation to grow the numbers on these components with time by themselves, there are a lot of those and they are granular enough — Damage, Mass, Crippe Chance, Critical Chance, Dice Pools.
Suggestion 7: Introduce Hull Dice Pools
Speaking of which, how come all the modules in the game have Dice Pools, but Ships don't? That looks like a huge Design Space waiting to be utilized!
I'm specifically looking at Command and Tactics dice pools, which currently are uncapped and have no modules tied to them.
Other ideas might include Stealth Dice Pool that would improve Encounter Evasion Chance (like Sig Dampeners), Explore and Repair Dice Pools for god knows what.
Suggestion 8: Reevaluate Bridges, Engines, Warp Drives, Mass Dampeners, Crew Quarters
Ability to equip Scout, Medium and Battle Bridges already serves as invisible Hull trait.
Engines and Jump Drives define mobility, taking that away from possible Ship Hull customization.
Mass Dampeners make variations in Hull Mass redundant.
Scout Bridge is basically "You lose a Low Slot, but gain 2 Medium Slots because you no longer have to equip Officer Quarters" when compared to Medium Bridge, making the hidden Bridge distinction redundant in a way. The recent Reach Vindex is just a better version of Longbolt / Scout Cutter because of this.
Since you always want to have maximum crew that a Hull can house, the only meaningful decision about Crew and Officer Quarters is whether to spend Medium or Small Slots on these.
Now, I'm not saying that this is bad; I actually like Engines for instance. Choice between Chaser/Traveller/Longhaul/Combat versions is meaningful. I see no point in making Chaser/Traveller/Longhaul/Whatever variation of every single Hull in the game.
But these things do step on toes of Ship Hull customization/diversity. Almost everything important about the Ship boils down to Slot layout (and Crew size), because of Component diversity.
Key question
At this point the overarching design question should be asked and answered — do we want many different Ship Hulls or do we want less Ship Hulls, but let players configure them to their liking via Components?
It feels like in early design stages of STF the answer was "We prefer few Hulls, but extensive Component configuration", and now/later the answer is "We actually changed our mind and think that Ship Hulls are fun".
But design space is too constrained because Components occupy it.
It's important to reevaluate which properties of the Ship should be covered by Hull and which should be covered by Components.
IMO, removing Bridge size diversification and Crew Quarters makes sense. Jump Drives seem weird too. Mass Dampeners... Maybe? Removing these would be a very drastic change to buildcrafting.
Engines I'd keep as-is.