View Single Post
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 143
03-27-2012, 05:10 PM
Originally Posted by USS_Ultimatum
It's really difficult to continue giving constructive feedback when you feel totally ignored, and when new patch notes go up with no mention of this issue.
So far, with few exceptions, this thread doesn't much qualify. MightionNY posted his actual in-game numbers. This isn't a massive nerf in terms of the game. (Indeed, less than 10% of shield effective strength loss.)

Yes, the console nerf is pretty big. But, it isn't the only factor. A 50% (or 49 point something nerf) on a console does not translate to a 50% survival nerf. Indeed, the highest numbers (avoiding power usage) still come out as no more than 25% in the far edge case scenario (with a 10-13% range for most other folks).

As far as I can tell, the biggest hit by this isn't the tac/sci ships that people feared - it's the cruisers (but the delta here is only 1-3%, not a huge number).

What is there to understand and test?
See MightionNY's post in this thread (I also quoted it on page 14 of this thread for a reminder). Do the same in game. It isn't as big as people are making it out to be.

You have either lost a big chunk to each shield facing (about 1k per facing for an escort for example), or you have lost available console slots to slot universals.
Ultimately, this still translates to mostly a universal drop for anyone using any number of these consoles. Isn't it the point to be required to make a trade-off? If there's no benefit or loss to doing something, there's little point in engaging in it (or against it). So far, this won't be a compelling argument for them to make a change.

What would be a compelling argument then? Play it on Tribble and say, "Hey, my survivability is drastically lower than it was pre-nerf" and provide a reproducible set of things for them to test and confirm (to verify that either new bugs haven't been introduced and/or that the changes made are causing unforeseen problems).

Tribble is what developers and QA would call UAT. UAT means "User Acceptance Testing" or "beta" for the layman. This is a destructible environment for them to make changes and test them. Indeed, it allows you as a user to do that. So far, only a couple of people have actually tested it and everyone else is launching into theoretical arguments about how bad it is. Only one set of data can Cryptic work with (those who actually tested it and can provide feedback).

Providing solutions to the nerf is fine, provided testing is done to confirm/deny conclusions related to said hypotheses. I'm actually trying to give everyone the best shot at getting what they want and the feedback routed to the people who can affect said changes. Yet, oddly, this is getting more resistance, not less. Would it have been better to simply say, "Yeah, me too", "Not me", or instead said, "Here's the format that makes the most sense to the ones who can make the changes and puts it in a context they can work with"? I'll choose the latter every time. (And it has indeed gotten results with Borticus and Heretic this week even.)