Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 41
10-02-2010, 08:38 AM
I agree we need more variety, but I like my setup and I have no intention of supporting a suggestion that says "nerf" without saying the word.

I can live with having a slightly lower dps compared to someone else who has a console that takes away engine power. Sure. But don't start talking about tearing up whats already in the game to make others play by your ideal rules. Diminishing returns are in-game, and they're fine as is. No one is able to run around w/ 100% resist to anything, and thats good. No one can one shot a full health fully shielded target. I see no need to change whats already implemented.

More variety, fine, but don't penalize the rest of us who like how things are atm.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 42
10-02-2010, 09:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavilier210 View Post
I agree we need more variety, but I like my setup and I have no intention of supporting a suggestion that says "nerf" without saying the word.

I can live with having a slightly lower dps compared to someone else who has a console that takes away engine power. Sure. But don't start talking about tearing up whats already in the game to make others play by your ideal rules. Diminishing returns are in-game, and they're fine as is. No one is able to run around w/ 100% resist to anything, and thats good. No one can one shot a full health fully shielded target. I see no need to change whats already implemented.

More variety, fine, but don't penalize the rest of us who like how things are atm.

I have seen this time and time again in sooooo many games. No matter how much things are changed (IE Nerfed) people will always call for change. The game is about as good as it is going to get when it comes to game mechanics. The more changes made, the more problems it will bring. I run PvP every single day in this game. And from what I can see on *both* sides, PvP is about as evened out as it's going to get. Anymore change will just add more issues and more cry for nerfs.

When running my Star Cruiser, I find my shields can hang in there with the best of focused attacks. I do not get many kills, bt I never die more than 2 or three times per match. Most just give up on trying to destroy me until I am the last man standing. I like that, it's fair. My damage can kill nothing all on it's own, but nobody is taking me out without focused attacks either. To me, I have reached a goal.

My Tac ships on both sides, die easy. But they rack up the kills at the same time. If I want to survive a fight, I have to know when to get the hell out of Dodge. I have to actually use focused attacks and tactics to survive battles. My damage is great, and my survival outside of skill and tactics is slim. Just the way it should be.

It is a perfect balance. Why people want to change that, I will never know. Perhaps the problem is not with the mechanics, but the way people are building and how they play?

Let's not turn this game in to another one of those other games.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 43
10-02-2010, 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sworoth View Post
Right now there is already diminish returns if you look at your stats, when you use the same console over and over again it does not stack fully. Also after reading your post what your actually asking for is op parts for your ship, What comes next is the request that these op consoles be put in stfs.Currently the way the game is setup is fine. We don"t need op consoles, and we cant just stack one console without having diminish returns. Ive seen this line of thought before and i know where it leads, and i am not in favor of it.
If you read my posts, you'll see that it's not the case, save armor. I demonstrated it with weapon consoles, and I know all skill buff consoles work the same, as do power consoles and EPS consoles. There are no diminishing returns, save a few. Armor is the only one I've seen that seems to have a lesser effect, but it's a small difference. I think the third one was about 80% or something of what it should be. Hard to figure the math on percentage based consoles.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 44
10-02-2010, 12:39 PM
You guys are missing the point. You're getting wrapped around fear of 'nerfs' to the point you're paralyzed to any possibly positive changes. The RSP argument is a perfect example of this. The idea is to make the game more fun and balanced, and sometimes that means making things more challenging.

But enough of that. The idea here, again, is to find some way you can have your cake and eat it too. I'm not asking any ship class to loose firepower or effectiveness in any way. I'm asking for a way that if someone -wants- to, they can get some tradeoffs, to gain an even greater advantage somewhere. I want more options, not less. Right now, there's one viable option. I want more than one. I want escorts that can use purely beams and do almost as much DPS as cannons. I want the ability to have more interesting tradeoffs with consoles. If you don't want that, cool, keep it the way you have it, but some of us enjoy digging into those tradeoffs and experimenting with ship design. I want to be able to sacrifice some turning power on my escort in exchange for a damage benefit. I'm NOT asking others to have to do this too. I just want the choice.

Why even have tactical consoles at this point? You could just have an option that says 'Click here for +88 to your weapons', since that's the only thing people do with tactical consoles now. Yeah, you can work for a small upgrade, but in the end, it's still '+xx to your weapons' That's the only option you have.
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 08:41 AM.