Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[X] Type-2 Impulse Thruster (Type-3: Theoretical -> Experimental, Size: Standard)

not seeing the need to go super experimental

also can we put the bridge like in the center of the ship and not on top. never made sense to me.
 
Last edited:
[X] Type-2 Impulse Thruster (Type-3: Theoretical -> Experimental, Size: Standard)

I know I asked about the rules and have advocated that bad rolls on new tech should not hamper future classes, and I hope that going forward that will be the case when Sayle decides on a final ruling.

But I think the risk to this class represented by three rolls is a bit steep: it would be a shame to have a really good design compromised by two bad rolls.
 
[x] Type-2 Impulse Thruster (Type-3: Theoretical -> Experimental, Size: Standard)
 
With all things taken into consideration, here's a potential updated system for experimental/prototype technology that I could see everyone largely agreeing on:

As has been the case thus far, Tech comes in three tiers: Theoretical Tech (where there are two other variables as well as the prototype's performance), Experimental Tech (one less variable), and Prototype Tech (just the performance check).

All the variables get a roll, as we've done before. However, as with @Mechanis's suggestion, we get the chance, on failed rolls, to try and reroll one failed variable of our choice to get the chance to at least bring it up to the standard that it wanted to be at, with perhaps only a critical success netting us the bonus we missed. We could also accept it as is, warts and all, and release it into the wild.

Now, this would not be the end of the tech's lifespan, as prototype technology maturing over time lessens the negative effects we accept (even if only a little in terms of small drawbacks) without our direct input or any kind of rolling needed. Given enough time, matured technology can even offer a slightly more expensive sidegrade of itself compared to prototype technology, given as an option on some pieces of technology to let Theoretical or Experimental options placed against it cook in the oven a little longer as desired while still giving a slight boost compared to the standard tech.

It's by no means perfect I'm sure, but it would take what I feel is the best parts of the current system and what has been proposed thus far and blend them together into something that makes sense from a story perspective on how technological advancement would be handled while still producing notable, distinct quirks, but still rewards us with big wins when the dice roll in our favor.
 
Sayle said:
My feelings are as follows:

1. Next-Generation Tech is always better.
2. Even rolling badly on Next-Generation tech is always better.

Therefore:

1. The current system trades immediate improvement/tech advancement for opportunity cost.

You could get superior technology compared to canon, but you probably won't. You are actually more likely to get worse technology than canon. But since you still get access to the tech ahead-of-time, what it basically means is you get an immediate capability boost for the cost of probably having inferior technology in the usual lifetime of the tech. So for the engines you'd get better engines than expected for 2220-2235, and worse engines for 2235-2265 or something.

So in that sense the whole 'roll for decrease/increase' performance is a bit deceptive. That's just a bit of wiggle on the process. The staging just means that the closer you get to the ordinary introduction date, the less worse the technology is meant to be.

Honestly just having a 'rush technology' mechanic would probably be a more transparent and immediately understandable version of the current system.


So what are alternative versions. The way I see it there are a couple of options.

1. Technology is introduced and goes from prototype (early)->standard->mature technology with incremental improvements over time. Maybe the incentive when you have a mature technology is that it's close-performance and notably cheaper than an early introduction of prototype Next-gen tech. Maybe for the Ambassador-class you want to use a super-charged Excelsior-class impulse engine because it's 50% the cost, even if one of those fancy new thrusters from Avidyne gives you +25% thrust and pushes you up the tech tree.

2. Like the current system you can gamble on technology early, and those rolls are set for the ship you build. Then with each new ship, the underlying tech is refined stage-by-stage. So you roll on the Type-3 and it's a giant fuckoff engine that underperforms. Well the Halley is stuck with that. But the next ship has fixed the size issue down to a normal footprint, even if it's having issues with thrust still. Then the third ship is all smooth sailing. The catch for that will be that you don't get positive bonuses anymore. All tech will eventually have zero penalties, but no extra bonuses.

I welcome more suggestions: I wouldn't have considered the incremental improvement model otherwise. As it stands the three in consideration are:

1. The current system, just more transparent/rushing technology framing.
2. Technology improves over its lifetime, with next-generation leaps being less potent and more expensive.
3. Current system, but no bonuses and components normalize over time.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Reading through, I like model (2) here (1. In your longer explanation), because I think the idea of a tradeoff between mature older tech and temperamental and expensive new tech is very true to life. If we look at the introduction of diesel-electric drive, jet engines, guided missiles, or any new technology, the last iteration of the older tech was often pretty damn impressive and a known quantity, and the costs of a switchover steep, even when it was obviously the future in the long run.

It would be nice to keep some randomness in this model, perhaps with the bonuses/maluses both being limited to a particular design they're rolled for? It makes sense that a prototype torpedo launcher might integrate well with a particular frigate, but take longer to mature across the rest of the fleet.

EDIT: I like Mechanis' suggestion, although I worry about the amount of path dependence if it's combined with the vote option to swap back to a mature technology, as we might in practice be more likely to want to do go back to a mature then gamble on fixing a really bad prototype roll.
 
[X] Type-2 Impulse Thruster (Type-3: Theoretical -> Experimental, Size: Standard)

I don't think we can afford to fail on size roll unless it's decided that it will get better with the next design. Cost being high, sure. Performance not as good as expected for the next generation but still a generation up? Worth the risk.
But not size.
 
DeltaV11.2 said:
With the current system there's only 2 "permanent" rolls for a theoretical project, the third performance roll is just for the prototype itself and doesn't apply to later versions. Adding essentially a second saving throw to the roll means a considerable odds increase.

For an experimental, it's 1/3 bad, 1/2 standard, 1/6 better. With two rolls it becomes 1/9 bad, 2/3 standard, 8/36 better, so it's pretty much always optimal to take experimental techs. Theoretical becomes about equal to what experimental is now.

I think for this to work the base rolls would need to be significantly worse, something like making a 3 a bad result instead of a standard.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
honestly part of the problem with this kind of thing is simming bell curves (even uneven ones) on single dice just... doesn't really work very well. This would be a lot easier if it was, say, 2d6, because then you could say, 4- is low results, 11+ is high results, 5-10 is standard; it's a lot harder to accurately sim the sort of probability desired here when any given roll has an exactly equal chance to happen.
Redhead222 said:
[X] Type-2 Impulse Thruster (Type-3: Theoretical -> Experimental, Size: Standard)

not seeing the need to go super experimental

also can we put the bridge like in the center of the ship and not on top. never made sense to me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Bridges (and ST ship design in general) are as they are because in Star Trek the fundamental truth is that "armor is (almost) worthless." Once you lose shields, well, to borrow a line, "One photon each should do it, let's not waste ammunition."

There's no actual significant survivability improvement from putting the bridge in the middle of the ship, but with the amount of Weird Crap floating around in the ST-verse being able to "forget the sensors and look out the damn window" is more frequently usful than one might expect.
 
[] Type-2 Impulse Thruster (Type-3: Theoretical -> Experimental, Size: Standard)
A very logical choice. The Vulcan Science Academy will send your team accolades on their approach.

[] Type-3 Impulse Thruster [Theoretical] (Three Success Rolls: Size -> Thrust -> Prototype Performance)
♫"Bounce a graviton particle beam, off the main deflector dish.
That's the way we do things lad, were making shit up as we wish.
The Klingon's and the Romulans pose no threat to Us!
Because, if we find. We're in a bind.
We'll just make some shit up."♫
-Starfleet Engineering Corpse (Attributed)

Edit: After this quest, I now headcannon that Starfleet Engineering Corps are so chaotic that people trying to fuck with the time line inevitable change the ships the Federation uses with any small change, making it near impossible to use timetravel to manipulate the federation at large scale.
 
Last edited:
Dragonlord7012 said:
♫"Bounce a graviton particle beam, off the main deflector dish.
That's the way we do things lad, were making shit up as we wish.
The Klingon's and the Romulans pose no threat to Us!
Because, if we find. We're in a bind.
We'll just make some shit up."♫
-Starfleet Engineering Corpse (Attributed)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sung (roughly) to the tune of 'That's what Bilbo Baggins Hates', a popular drinking song among Starfleet engineers and designers.
 
Horologer said:
This seems like the most straightforward system to me, and the one that's truest to life. If you rush development, the best you can usually hope for is that it works as expected.

It also makes the tradeoffs clear. The upside to using prototypes would be that we get the technology early. The downside is that it's definitely going to be more expensive or complicated, and we won't know how well it's actually going to work. But we won't have to worry so much about development going forward, which makes things less complicated.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean maybe it's realistic but it's also just not... well it's not fun.

I like the sliver of a chance something might be better than expected, it genuinely makes it seem like it's unexplored science and technology. Somethings have a bigger impact than anticipated.

I dislike always being punished or at best getting the expected result for pushing the limits, it don't feel very Star Trek to me.
 
Sayle said:
So for the engines you'd get better engines than expected for 2220-2235, and worse engines for 2235-2265 or something.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Keep in mind that for non-critical tech where rushing does advance down the tech tree faster, this also means getting to the Type 4 ahead of canon, no matter how much of a disaster the T3 is. So it means you'd get better engines than expected for 2220-2235, worse engines for 2235-2265, and better engines for 2265-∞.

[X] Type-3 Impulse Thruster [Theoretical] (Three Success Rolls: Size -> Thrust -> Prototype Performance)
 
anyway, looking forward to the next design, I think we're probably going to be doing the Alt-Connie? The Sagas are also starting to show some age, methinks, and it is something of a Starfleet tradition to put the fancy new zoomier engine into an explorer.

I expect our version will be making certain people go "gee that whole Kelvin Timeline incident must be bleeding through" because I imagine it will, like the Kelvin-Connie, be a much larger, much more powerful vessel than the OTL-Connie. We like em BEEG, after all.
 
[X] Type-2 Impulse Thruster (Type-3: Theoretical -> Experimental, Size: Standard)

One roll of a 6 makes it all worthwhile. Odds of not getting a six are 125/216, or 57%, which is basically a coin flip, which is basically a guarantee of success.

That's how numbers work, right?
 
NavySeel said:
I mean maybe it's realistic but it's also just not... well it's not fun.

I like the sliver of a chance something might be better than expected, it genuinely makes it seem like it's unexplored science and technology. Somethings have a bigger impact than anticipated.

I dislike always being punished or at best getting the expected result for pushing the limits, it don't feel very Star Trek to me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, you do get rewarded for pushing the limits of science. You get next-gen tech years ahead of schedule, and depending on the circumstances that can be incredibly good.

The problem with adding bonuses to protoypes is that it skews the incentives. If the system balances permanent bonuses with permanent maluses, we risk getting stuck with bad tech for a full generation, which is a bit of a downer. If the system keeps all the maluses temporary, then it means that we're almost always incentivized to just gamble on the prototype, since we can iron out mistakes while keeping the bonuses.

I'd rather just keep things simple.
 
Mechanis said:
anyway, looking forward to the next design, I think we're probably going to be doing the Alt-Connie? The Sagas are also starting to show some age, methinks, and it is something of a Starfleet tradition to put the fancy new zoomier engine into an explorer.

I expect our version will be making certain people go "gee that whole Kelvin Timeline incident must be bleeding through" because I imagine it will, like the Kelvin-Connie, be a much larger, much more powerful vessel than the OTL-Connie. We like em BEEG, after all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We are going to be limited by the Type 2 phaser in this respect. Probably the best choice will be to adopt a heavy torpedo armament on a hull with good maneuverability. Maybe 4+2 can be swung? 2+2 or 3+1 if that would make Starfleet Command hate us too much.
 
Horologer said:
If the system keeps all the maluses temporary, then it means that we're almost always incentivized to just gamble on the prototype, since we can iron out mistakes while keeping the bonuses.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This isn't necessarily true, I think?

Like the assumption for most of the quest until the latest rules revision and the quest before that was that maluses were temporary, and it did not lead to people always going for prototype tech. This is party because cost was a major concern (and is a good method of balancing here which I think is being ignored by some of the discussion, and why I like Sayle's Proposal #2 most out of the three, but also simply because for certain classes, voters really did not feel we could afford a bad roll on a mission-critical piece of tech.

Indeed, this vote itself is sort of a demonstration. I think most voters expect now that whatever the new system ends up being, it is not one where they are going to be at a risk of a permanent malus to the engines of every future design from these rolls. But the vote is still narrowly trending towards keeping the Type-2, because the risk of completely screwing up the impulse performance of this design is enough of a deterrent in itself.

Permanent maluses and temporary bonuses might be problematic, I'd agree, but I think we could safely have maluses and bonuses based on rolls and have them both be temporary, and the incentives would still lead to players picking and choosing when to gamble on prototype tech, rather than always going for it. Notwithstanding the fact that people actually vote based on vibes and aesthetics about half the time anyway (like myself for Catamarans in the last vote).
 
Having had a look at the feedback I'm thinking something along these lines:

Tech has three levels: [Prototype] (+25% Cost), [Standard], and [Mature] (-25% Cost). That gives you incentive to pick mature tech because it's cheaper.

[Prototype] techs become available when the previous tech becomes mature.

Technology ages over time, transitioning from prototype to standard to mature.

Installing prototype technology accelerates the transition to a standard tech in X years. Very successful ships accelerate it substantially because of all the experience crews and technicians get. Less successful ships, less so. Testbeds are nice, but nothing compared to prolonged operation.

Prototype tech has a roll attached for its effectiveness. If it fails the 50% chance(?) effectiveness roll for rushing the tech, the improvement is reduced by 25% for that class. But you still get the progression towards the change to standard tech, so that malus will disappear when the tech is fully standardised.

My feeling is that strikes a balance between incentive (better stats, faster tech progression) with risk (higher cost, lower performance increases). My sketched-out table looks something like this:

ComponentImplementationCostReal CostEffectivenessUnknownsIf TakenImplementation Schedule
Type-1 Shield GridMature (-25% Cost)86+40% DefenseNo ChangeTech Matured
Type-1 Covariant Shield GridPrototype (+25% Cost)1215+60% Defense?Effectiveness+Tech ImplementationStandard: 2235
Electro-Ceramic HullMature (-25% Cost)32.25+40% DefenseNo ChangeTech Matured
Duratanium Alloy HullPrototype (+25% Cost)56.25+60% Defense?Effectiveness+Tech ImplementationStandard: 2230
Type-2 Impulse ThrusterMature (-25% Cost)32.25"100,000 Tons Standard Thrust"No ChangeTech Matured
Type-3 Impulse ThrusterPrototype (+25% Cost)56.25"150,000 Tons Standard Thrust?"Effectiveness+Tech ImplementationStandard: 2240

So from reading the table you might reasonably say something like "well this isn't a combat ship, but even a minor adoption of the more expensive hull plating will make sure it's available as standard for the next project". Or "the thruster is too expensive for a ship that doesn't need it and I'd rather lose twice the space to engines in future builds than pay more than double for the next couple of builds - or save it for a ship that needs the thrust".

Not applying this for the vote, obviously. But it gives you more transparent information about the cost/benefit between prototypes and existing technology. I don't see any major issues, but I welcome input to tweak things.

EDIT: If anybody observes that better tech is more expensive than older tech value-to-effectiveness, that's deliberate. The Intrepid/Nova/Sabre-class didn't get the same grades of shield as the Defiant/Sovereign/Prometheus, despite being built in the same window.
 
Last edited:
Sayle said:
Prototype tech has a roll attached for its effectiveness. If it fails the 50% chance(?) effectiveness roll for rushing the tech, the improvement is reduced by 25% for that class. But you still get the progression towards the change to standard tech, so that malus will disappear when the tech is fully standardised.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
All of this looks good, and I wholeheartedly support it. But I especially like the "malus from stress rolls on untested tech will eventually disappear" because that's always been one of the biggest arguments against taking tech advances, that performance loss from rolls would be permanent.

So that plus the cheap benefit from Mature tech grants a very useful and relatively equally weighted benefit of progress vs logistics. If this dynamic had been in play at the start of this current ship design, I definitely would have been more inclined towards the standard plating so we could have more manufacturing ships.
 
Skippy said:
This isn't necessarily true, I think?

Like the assumption for most of the quest until the latest rules revision and the quest before that was that maluses were temporary, and it did not lead to people always going for prototype tech. This is party because cost was a major concern (and is a good method of balancing here which I think is being ignored by some of the discussion, and why I like Sayle's Proposal #2 most out of the three, but also simply because for certain classes, voters really did not feel we could afford a bad roll on a mission-critical piece of tech.

Indeed, this vote itself is sort of a demonstration. I think most voters expect now that whatever the new system ends up being, it is not one where they are going to be at a risk of a permanent malus to the engines of every future design from these rolls. But the vote is still narrowly trending towards keeping the Type-2, because the risk of completely screwing up the impulse performance of this design is enough of a deterrent in itself.

Permanent maluses and temporary bonuses might be problematic, I'd agree, but I think we could safely have maluses and bonuses based on rolls and have them both be temporary, and the incentives would still lead to players picking and choosing when to gamble on prototype tech, rather than always going for it. Notwithstanding the fact that people actually vote based on vibes and aesthetics about half the time anyway (like myself for Catamarans in the last vote).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean we have almost always gone for prototype tech in the quest. We've been offered a prototype option 23 times, and voted for it 20 times. And two of those things we passed up were warp nacelle configurations that very much didn't do what we wanted on the ship. Experimental has been taken 3 times and passed twice, theoretical passed once.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top