Remove ads

To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)

Linked contents
To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) Starfleet Ship Design Bureau, Refit ("To Boldly Go...")
Reader mode
Briefvoice said:
Which to my knowledge has never been supported in a statement by Oneirosthewriter or any other GM, ever, and exists solely in the realm of a lot of posters insisting that, "It just makes sense that Events DCs will rise. It just makes sense."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Even if it doesn't exist, skilling up the ambies at the expense of the excelsiors should be a priority.
 
Not to be overly saucy, but I feel the answer is kinda obvious with all the stat creep. Does it seem like a desirable outcome from a game design perspective that you eventually auto pass all events?
 
Iron Wolf said:
Not to be overly saucy, but I feel the answer is kinda obvious with all the stat creep. Does it seem like a desirable outcome from a game design perspective that you eventually auto pass all events?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
While you're not wrong, it doesn't make sense for a design to be incapable of the exact same things it handled with ease two decades prior. Things that would make sense to me would be like:

  • "Tamed" and "untamed" space have tables that increasingly diverge
  • At a certain point, high-stat ships are so capable of handling easy events that they auto-pass them and get to draw again for something more challenging
  • The new and most difficult events represent the kind of thing that Starfleet wouldn't have attempted to deal with/investigate without the current generation of bleeding-edge equipment
  • The higher difficulty is represented narratively by having these new superhard events be the consequence, in some way, of the very same rapid advancement that allows us to handle them

(These are just ideas to be taken piecemeal depending on their applicability and utility, not some comprehensive plan.)

Aside from that, on a certain level, we actually do want a lot of events to be, in effect, auto-passed. The fleet is expanding at a breakneck rate, but our ability to handle write-ups of their conduct is necessarily capped to a level not far above what we're currently at.

In the long run, it's absolutely essential that our major-event-per-ship ratio goes down.

With that said, I think that the impact of that reduction on the Explorer Corps specifically should be muted; that's the heart of the game, after all. Increasing the difficulty of their work makes perfect sense! It just shouldn't happen in a one-size-fits-none adjustment felt across the board.
 
Last edited:
Iron Wolf said:
Not to be overly saucy, but I feel the answer is kinda obvious with all the stat creep. Does it seem like a desirable outcome from a game design perspective that you eventually auto pass all events?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is the basis of our assumptions. And yeah? It's an assumption, but to think otherwise is ridiculous.
 
75% Certain said:
While you're not wrong, it doesn't make sense for a design to be incapable of the exact same things it handled with ease two decades prior. Things that would make sense to me would be like:

  • "Tamed" and "untamed" space have tables that increasingly diverge
  • At a certain point, high-stat ships are so capable of handling easy events that they auto-pass them and get to draw again for something more challenging
  • The new and most difficult events represent the kind of thing that Starfleet wouldn't have attempted to deal with/investigate without the current generation of bleeding-edge equipment
  • The higher difficulty is represented narratively by having these new superhard events be the consequence, in some way, of the very same rapid advancement that allows us to handle them

(These are just ideas to be taken piecemeal depending on their applicability and utility, not some comprehensive plan.)

Aside from that, on a certain level, we actually do want a lot of events to be, in effect, auto-passed. The fleet is expanding at a breakneck rate, but our ability to handle write-ups of their conduct is necessarily capped to a level not far above what we're currently at.

In the long run, it's absolutely essential that our major-event-per-ship ratio goes down.

With that said, I think that the impact of that reduction on the Explorer Corps specifically should be muted; that's the heart of the game, after all. Increasing the difficulty of their work makes perfect sense! It just shouldn't happen in a one-size-fits-none adjustment felt across the board.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Alternatively, we found all the events in "claimed" space that we were capable of finding. Now we find or deal with more difficult events.

Extrapolate it to modern day earth. We can't see *any* of these events.
 
75% Certain said:
Aside from that, on a certain level, we actually do want a lot of events to be, in effect, auto-passed. The fleet is expanding at a breakneck rate, but our ability to handle write-ups of their conduct is necessarily capped to a level not far above what we're currently at.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
My pet hypothesis of how this is being done, via just adding higher tiers of difficulty to the event tables in both response and stat checks:
lbmaian said:
Third, it would be just bad game design if event DCs did not rise over time. This is a point I'm willing to argue with QMs with if it's not already happening. And I'm pretty sure it is already happening given the recent increasing failure rates of even Excelsiors.

I suspect that the way the QMs are ramping up difficulty without insta-killing Mirandas is by adding additional levels of DC with corresponding higher response requirements to the event tables, while keeping all the existing DCs. So Mirandas would still be able to succeed at events, but those events they can succeed at become proportionally less and less likely to be randomly picked as time goes on.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

75% Certain said:
In the long run, it's absolutely essential that our major-event-per-ship ratio goes down.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Except for FYMs, events are not per ship, and the event-per-ship ratio actually is going down a bit. Events are per sector, which in turn is influenced by # major worlds, and TF, which is its own beast, and per FYM, which is for obvious reasons per ship. Since we haven't been expanding as much recently and AFAIK there haven't been new graduations to major world status, and we're still producing more and more ships, the event-per-ship ratio should be going down.
 
pbluekan said:
Alternatively, we found all the events in "claimed" space that we were capable of finding. Now we find or deal with more difficult events.

Extrapolate it to modern day earth. We can't see *any* of these events.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not quite sure that's right. Things like plague outbreaks, engine failures, colonial conflict resolution, and the occasional judicial interdiction will never go away. Further, less routine events happening inside the Federation often reflect the tensions inherent within the Federation model itself, and dealing with them helps to deepen the story considerably.

That said, I certainly wouldn't complain if there were fewer events with more straightforward resolutions relating to the reality that she ships handling them are damn well equipped these days.
 
Something something the further you are away from massively scientifically charyes space, the more likely you are to run into new and exciting things.

Also adding on tiers of success to everything. Pass an easy DC might mean "you got some neat temporal data...Shame the courage recorded near identical data 20 years ago."
 
In addition to higher tiers of difficulty, what about higher tiers of success? A ship with very high stats could ocasionally turn a normal event reward into a somewhat bigger event reward, or uncover a hidden second stat test with higher DC.
 
Derpmind said:
In addition to higher tiers of difficulty, what about higher tiers of success? A ship with very high stats could ocasionally turn a normal event reward into a somewhat bigger event reward, or uncover a hidden second stat test with higher DC.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We've had hints this is already the case. Iirc Mines are that way already.
 
Iron Wolf said:
Not to be overly saucy, but I feel the answer is kinda obvious with all the stat creep. Does it seem like a desirable outcome from a game design perspective that you eventually auto pass all events?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's similarily disappointing to get the shiny new tech just to discover that the 'transport diplomat from A to B' now has a difficulty of 20 instead of 2.
 
Iron Wolf said:
Not to be overly saucy, but I feel the answer is kinda obvious with all the stat creep. Does it seem like a desirable outcome from a game design perspective that you eventually auto pass all events?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
MTB said:
It's similarily disappointing to get the shiny new tech just to discover that the 'transport diplomat from A to B' now has a difficulty of 20 instead of 2.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Pretty much.

Increasing the difficulty is ofc necessary, somehow, but please take care to let us players feel that our work to increase/better the fleet matters.

Tiers of success look good to me. The better ships we have, the better the rewards, but because the Federation keeps growing, those greater rewards remain a similiar % of our income.

I know little of game design mind.

Edit:
Shard said:
Or maybe we just stop getting such events - They simply get aggregated.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I have considered this, but how would you handle it narratively?
Maybe scrap the easiest events and add some mechanic to boost the Federation economy based on the number and capabilities our responders? Its kinda what they are for, humanitarian (or whatever the equivalent is. Sophontarian?) efforts and defence aside.
 
Last edited:
MTB said:
It's similarily disappointing to get the shiny new tech just to discover that the 'transport diplomat from A to B' now has a difficulty of 20 instead of 2.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's unlikely to happen, at least for mundane transports that can take their time rather leisurely. Instead, they just become less likely due to the fixed event occurrence probability per major world and the supposed additional difficulty tiers added to the event tables.

Meanwhile, harder missions like critical transports that must be cross the whole breadth of the Federation in 3 weeks (which requires high D stat that couldn't be achieved until recently) conversely become available. So you'd still have both (+ more) types, just with a larger overall difficulty spread. Mirandas aren't going to suddenly become useless, even disregarding mutual support.
 
lbmaian said:
That's unlikely to happen, at least for mundane transports that can take their time rather leisurely. Instead, they just become less likely due to the fixed event occurrence probability per major world and the supposed additional difficulty tiers added to the event tables.

Meanwhile, harder missions like critical transports that must be cross the whole breadth of the Federation in 3 weeks (which requires high D stat that couldn't be achieved until recently) conversely become available. So you'd still have both (+ more) types, just with a larger overall difficulty spread. Mirandas aren't going to suddenly become useless, even disregarding mutual support.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If the added tier approach is used, yes.
 
There's actually a very straight forward reason for this, you realise.

The sort of thing that used to get you credit twenty years ago, no longer does.

Do you think that the tenth shuttle flight earned NASA the pp of the first shuttle flight? Do you think that there are still resource deposits yet to be found in the core systems that the old methods can find? Do you think that the people causing problems for your diplomats will not study your old successes?

The universe does not become more difficult arbitrarily - rather, you run out of easy things, and today's extraordinary becomes tomorrows ordinary.
 
OneirosTheWriter said:
There's actually a very straight forward reason for this, you realise.

The sort of thing that used to get you credit twenty years ago, no longer does.

Do you think that the tenth shuttle flight earned NASA the pp of the first shuttle flight? Do you think that there are still resource deposits yet to be found in the core systems that the old methods can find? Do you think that the people causing problems for your diplomats will not study your old successes?

The universe does not become more difficult arbitrarily - rather, you run out of easy things, and today's extraordinary becomes tomorrows ordinary.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sure, as long as the ore confiscated from Orion Syndicate smugglers doesn't magically shrink when we transport it into the cargo bay. Paris can be as stingy as it wants with our PP, but that BR and SR is ours dammit :V
 
At the same time, though, things like natural hazards really do represent a "fixed difficulty setting" that doesn't get easier or harder to cope with as time goes on, unless something distinctly unnatural is happening.

Exploring entirely uncharted planets has a more or less fixed average difficulty, in objective terms, unless there's some very strange anthropic principle at work that makes all the planets close to the Federation's core territory tend to be 'soft and easy' compared to the ones farther away.

The fundamental point being made here is that while we have a reasonable expectation that some classes of mission will get progressively harder or less rewarding, we'll also have a reasonable expectation that other classes of mission will not. It's a nuanced thing, and players are trying to stick up for the idea that the nuances be respected and noticed rather than just passively getting bulldozed over.
 
Simon_Jester said:
At the same time, though, things like natural hazards really do represent a "fixed difficulty setting" that doesn't get easier or harder to cope with as time goes on, unless something distinctly unnatural is happening.

Exploring entirely uncharted planets has a more or less fixed average difficulty, in objective terms, unless there's some very strange anthropic principle at work that makes all the planets close to the Federation's core territory tend to be 'soft and easy' compared to the ones farther away.

The fundamental point being made here is that while we have a reasonable expectation that some classes of mission will get progressively harder or less rewarding, we'll also have a reasonable expectation that other classes of mission will not. It's a nuanced thing, and players are trying to stick up for the idea that the nuances be respected and noticed rather than just passively getting bulldozed over.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
On the one hand yes, on the other hand, you naturally stop getting logs that bother to mention natural hazards that have become thoroughly defanged by experience and technology advances. This is part of the work of Starfleet - the further out you go, the larger the area you are now exploring, and the more potential dangers. Plus dangers that may have in the past been left alone are now looked into.

Starfleet is always looking to push the envelope. Risk is your business, and the march of technology simply expands what fits into "calculated risk".
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top