Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,000
# 11
09-26-2013, 07:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by doffingcomrade View Post
Engi Captains have better energy management abilities: This allows them to deal with the simultaneous demands of managing a ship that demands more energy than is normally available, since anyone else would have to cut weapons or shields or engines to fill the demands of Aux.

Science Captains have the Subnookie, which allows them to remove the defenses the target could have otherwise used to counter those abilities.

All, of course, be flying a different flavor of Sci ship, either in the exact type, or the powers chosen.

Of course, whether or not an Engineer is useful at all in ANY ship is often questioned. It is widely acknowledged that Engi captains are easily the weakest of the 3 captain options regardless of the ship chosen, as they don't contribute as much to a team environment as Tac or Sci Captains.

The difference is not as much as it once was, with the Conservation of Energy trait. A Sci Captain can gain a permanent +30% damage with science that, unlike the Tac Captain's 45%-ish APA, is always on. Additionally, a Tac Captain can only use a science ship for ONE thing: Damage. A Tac captain running anything except damage on his Sci ship is mostly wasting his tactical abilities on a ship that isn't going to do damage. Sci Ships are the "magic" class of STO ships, and a Tac Captain in a Sci ship is basically your blaster wizard. A Sci captain can use the Sci ship to do so many other things.

However, your question does bring up a valid point: There's a reason why there are so many Tac captains out there, and that's because PvE content is entirely damage-centric. All content in the game is about hurling as much damage as possible against large bricks of hitpoints. This in turn creates the impression that non-Tac captains are useless, especially on a ship that is already the weakest in raw damage potential.

But Sci Captain is Best Captain. If you don't believe this, see the composition of serious PvP teams: The more Sci Captain, the better.
I have seen that thread and said it was a fair evaluation in PvP. The thing is that you can't make PvE exactly like PvP. The reason for this is because while subnuc is a 10 in PvP using it on anything but a boss is just wasted or not even needed. Scattering field is nowhere near as useful in PvE either as many captains seem almost suicidal and run away from it. The one ability a science captain has that really shines in PvE is sensor scan. Even then as I explained it's only useful once past shields and enemies only drop shields for about 10s before starting to excessively regenerating them.

Then again should we automatically say PvE should conform to PvP when it is the minority? Who decided that was more deserving, why should PvP not conform to the majority and it be based on competing to complete objectives faster than the other team? Who said it always has to be direct fire versus?

Science is not the best captain in this game as it's performance lacks in certain areas and ships both ground and PvP but it is not the worst.

"A Tac captain running anything except damage on his Sci ship is mostly wasting his tactical abilities on a ship that isn't going to do damage."

Well why is s/he running a science ship if all he wants is damage? S/He should be using science abilities to put him/herself in a better position to be sending that 50% buffed THY straight to hull or for those tranphasic mines that are 50% stronger to fully finish off the opponent where another captain would need another pass.
------
It is through repetition that we learn our weakness.
A master with a stone is better than a novice with a sword.

Has damage got out of control?
This is the last thing I will post.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,170
# 12
09-26-2013, 08:34 AM
Tactical buffs should improve every attack that deals damage. That happens to include a fair number of science abilities. I'm afraid I don't see the problem.

And most science captain abilities are pretty even with tac captain abilities. Sensor Scan is incredibly powerful. Scattering Field is a great tanking ability. Subnuc is what is. Photonic Fleet sucks, but what are you going to do?

Engineer captains need an offensive debuff ability on par with Sensor Scan or FOMM.
Ensign
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 7
# 13
09-26-2013, 08:42 AM
I feel much butthurt in this thread...
Commander
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 463
# 14
09-26-2013, 09:35 AM
How about switching it up a bit?

We already have the basic concept in game of +X% to damage type Y in the form of PG skills and boosts, the various tactical consoles, and even some 'type specific' abilities - CRF, HY, etc.

What if there was far more separation of buffs acquired from Boff abilities in that same vain?

Under this system, current Attack patterns would only increase damage from (or decrease resistance to) weapons fire - ie Torps, Beams OR Cannons.

Dipsersal Patterns would be NECESSARY to increase mine damage.

Then there would be space for something like 'Attack Pattern Psi' - similar to Beta or Omega, but for exotic damage.

We could make Tac Team Energy buff only, Eng Team (simply to put it somewhere) increase Kinertic in the way Tac Team does and Sci Team could increase Exotic in the same way.

I don't have time to present a fully fleshed out idea here, and besides, I kinda only just thought of, but the basic idea is that in the same way a Skittleboat is less effective in the long run, so too should a 'Rainbow' Bridge Crew set up.

Sure, it would mess with a lot of existing combos and keybinds, and might feel like a massive Tac nerf to some - and maybe they'd be right - but Ubernerfs have happened before.

Maybe it's time we entered the 3rd Age of STO combat?

Wanted: 200,000 Dilithium Special Feature Projects for Romulan skinned Fleet Holdings.
Captain
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 523
# 15
09-26-2013, 09:36 AM
From my observations what I see the devs doing seem to focus on + or - ideologies. This is not what sci needs. Some good material in this thread, certainly some fields of facts to consider all the same,.. however...

I refer to voyager in a number of instances where all they had to do was do something sci in pressing situations but there was always something out of place. They either had to get close enough or far away enough or redesign engines/aux or shielding to polish the enduring effect they were looking for.

I often wonder if the devs have even watched star trek sometimes.. In my opinion revamping sci ships could be relatively easy without all the philosophy being tossed back and forth. So here's what I mean:


Science ships have skills that at face value seem great so why not have the skills work off a base value (so that even tacs can use those skills) appropriate to both or rather all 3 classes just like it does now but with a bit of a nerfed implication.

The abilities should diverge from base skills depending on 99 value(All fields) and begin to snowball in effectiveness from whatever makes that skill reach 100 or greater.


Break down:

Tactical ships devote their console slots to minimum or maximum defense/additional crit consoles and other status quo elements but you rarely see a tac captain stack 4 particle generators in their builds.

Sci captains stack said consoles/flow caps etc and by doing so those devoted slots should provide the power sci captains are looking for. So if sci decides to stack sky high, those results should return be it GW(damage/increased pull), PSW(Longer cooldown, shield disabling above 149 skill) etc etc


***
I'm outlining what I have here because the gruff here is that tac captains APA a science skill and poof you got extra damage but if they haven't specced for it above 99(thus sacrificing other valuable tac skills) that base damage should be depreciating in return. As you know APA isn't a continuous wheel so that would be fair. Just as fair if they DID stack a sci ship they should gain some unique benefits to their choice in build.
***

That way devs could add more teeth to sci skills without the fear of a super class.


* I thought I'd add a mathematical example just in case(none of the values are presented with actuals. These are only made up numbers for the rough idea):

Tac/Sci:
9 levels of particle generators(99) no particle generator consoles and a typical tac ship/layout per canon.
Using Feedback pulse should provide the deflection and operate as intended(With 99 it should be .5 of energy damage). 4000 damage received, 2000 sent back, 1000 makes it to the hull. If the tac pops an APA 45% increased damage could be very fair.

Sci/Sci:
9 levels of particle generators(99) and 2 particle generators(179) with your run of the mill sci layout. Using feeback pulse should provide the deflection and operate as intended with 4000 damage received(Yet with 179, instead of .5 that scale would increase according to the # of consoles up to a total of .99 refracted back). So with maxed particle generator devotion you could have nearly 100% energy weapon damage refracted back.

Last edited by kortaag; 09-26-2013 at 09:55 AM. Reason: Math
Lieutenant
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 49
# 16
09-26-2013, 09:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shyedar View Post
I feel much butthurt in this thread...
you should get a girl friend then u dont have to butt hurt strangers
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 5,587
# 17
09-26-2013, 10:06 AM
I used to be in the park of saying no they shouldn't. Now I am in the park of, yes they should.

BUT...hear me out.

They should be able to buff anything that does damage. Anything however that gets out of line for what the devs intended should be put on an 'exception list'.

Basically it'd be a list of any items, powers, BOFF abilities, etc that tacs were able to buff too far and if it is on the list, a tac could no longer super-buff it. Now of course, the list wouldn't include anything that was simply bugged after all. I mean, bugs are bugs, if the game isn't working as it should, how could we know how the ability or whatever is supposed to work until it is fixed?

This would do two primary things:

1. Devs wouldn't have to nerf something to insanely low levels just because tacs could super-buff it, and thus ruin any decent use the other two classes could get out of it.

2. Any new items/powers/etc or any adjustments they made to anything that deals damage could be done without worry, since if a tac is found to be able to super-buff it, all they have to do is put it on the list, and no more problems.

On the other end of the spectrum:

If tacs are allowed to keep it, they can keep buffing sci damage powers, that is true. But they wouldn't lose any potential effectiveness unless something was said to be errant.

Captain
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 523
# 18
09-26-2013, 10:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimey2 View Post
I used to be in the park of saying no they shouldn't. Now I am in the park of, yes they should.

BUT...hear me out.

They should be able to buff anything that does damage. Anything however that gets out of line for what the devs intended should be put on an 'exception list'.

Basically it'd be a list of any items, powers, BOFF abilities, etc that tacs were able to buff too far and if it is on the list, a tac could no longer super-buff it. Now of course, the list wouldn't include anything that was simply bugged after all. I mean, bugs are bugs, if the game isn't working as it should, how could we know how the ability or whatever is supposed to work until it is fixed?

This would do two primary things:

1. Devs wouldn't have to nerf something to insanely low levels just because tacs could super-buff it, and thus ruin any decent use the other two classes could get out of it.

2. Any new items/powers/etc or any adjustments they made to anything that deals damage could be done without worry, since if a tac is found to be able to super-buff it, all they have to do is put it on the list, and no more problems.

On the other end of the spectrum:

If tacs are allowed to keep it, they can keep buffing sci damage powers, that is true. But they wouldn't lose any potential effectiveness unless something was said to be errant.
My view is that if tac wants to run a dps sci build, let them. This game has always been on a basis of give/take. Classes shouldn't be uniform but rather able to be blurred but in order to do so the console allocations have to supply that to the captain. It's the fairest thing devs could ever do given its makeup and established systems.

You wouldn't have tac captains with pure tac builds taking enormous leaps with sci damage anymore.. unless that captain shops and specs for it.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,501
# 19 Sure it is.
09-26-2013, 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpharma View Post

It is not a simple thing and is not as clear cut as you might think.
That was the original design and intent and....that's how it used to be baby!

Where've you been?

So sure. It is EXTREMELY clear cut and simple.
If I don't respond to posts on this forum don't be offended. I don't sub or follow any of them.
Captain
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 523
# 20
09-26-2013, 10:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thissler View Post
That was the original design and intent and....that's how it used to be baby!

Where've you been?

So sure. It is EXTREMELY clear cut and simple.
Yup.. If it's anything this game needed back it's clarity. You know how many times over the past 2 years I've methodically planned out a build, spent the time to build it and watched it waffle like lame stream media while everybody was watching?

Mostly pure challenge comes from the number crunching geeks of this universe who know the ins and outs of gimped systems and that should never be the case. Every system and skill should be clear and face valued and allow players to combine/create or exemplify their play styles. That's what makes a team unique, players happy and less frustration over all.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:25 PM.