View Single Post
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 366
# 19
12-09-2013, 08:23 PM
Originally Posted by virusdancer View Post
I'm still trying to get the gist of why you think it's worthless. When I took the ability on Willard, it was based solely on the comparison of the two tooltips and what it looked like it would do. That it turned out to do far more than that after taking it...well...that doesn't change that I made the initial decision based on what the tooltip said - which is basically what they're making it do now.

If it is a case that it's now worthless for a particular build you have, where the other selection would have been better...well, that's no different than saying equipping Photon consoles for a Disruptor build without any Photons is kind of silly. Not everything is going to be of equal value to every build...and just because something may be useless to Build X, that doesn't mean that it is useless to Build Y. Calling something worthless in that way over the top.

If you picked the ability based on what you heard, rather than what the tooltip said - looking to get more out of it than it said it was going to do - that's on you...nobody else. In one of the few recommendations I've ever made, I recommended folks wait and see what Cryptic said on the matter - since the actual passive was much better than the tooltip suggested. Unless they were sure they wanted exactly what it said vs. what the Active Hardening said or the Hardening over the Advantage, it would be best to wait, no?

Blaming anybody else but yourself on the selection - well - that's just silly, imho. Cause if it was a case of picking based on the tooltips, that hasn't changed...if you picked based on hearing that it was much better...heh, that's your own fault.

Still though, would have liked them to do have done a two step process with it. Fix the obvious issue with pets...get that out of the way...then check on the stacking itself over a period of time to see if it needed to be adjusted. Then again, maybe they did...hrmm...but there's so many things they could have done, eh?

Reduced the number of times it could stack from multiple players - didn't have to be 5, could have been 4, 3, 2...would have been a decent way to do further testing, no? Reducing the individual benefit to reduce the overall benefit...meh, that would have sucked.

As it stands though, it will be a case of making the argument one way or another than Tactical Advantage is not on par with other T4 abilities, including Active Hardening. Taking a look at it from various builds, since again - for Build X it might be complete garbage while for Build Y it might be an early Christmas.

The other thing, mind you, that I didn't see mentioned - was about the T3 showing up at times as well...I didn't take it, so I can't test it - so it's been hit or miss with running with folks that did have it to see it as a continuous problem and what might be the cause of that.

Cause that's something that could have come into play with making this decision on their part as well...was the data just from the T4 or a combination of the T3 and T4, so you had the equivalent of 10 stacks instead of 5?

It's being changed to do what it says it does. If somebody picked it because of hearing that it did something other than what it said it would do...Cryptic should offer a token for that? Er...
And it has never happened that a tooltip was inaccurate on an item or ability that cryptic has had to change it. Neither has anyone ever gotten input from others regarding an item/build/ship/etc to optimize whatever it is they are doing. The passive doesn't say it shouldn't stack so when it was found out it did it made perfect sense to pick that passive over the other. Now, its being changed to not stack and therefore a respect token should be given. Its one thing with ships where "subject to change" is blatantly shown but no where on rep passives does it say that.