Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 61
05-02-2011, 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celestial_Fury
I am sorry but your answer indicates that you think BFAW is indeed overpowered ( which i did not disagree with ) but ignores completely the other concern i talked about.

Beside that, a BFAW Escort monkey on a team of 5 Escort monkeys will met everything just as fast ( probably faster actually ) than Cruiser /Sci version.
I don't think so.

1) 8 WeaponSlots > 7 Weapon Slots, if you're using beams anyway.
2) Having Emergency Power to Weapons and space for EPS Consoles is highly useful for a good BFAW build.
3) Having the remaining slots full of healing skills can do a lot to ensure that you outlast anyone else on the battlefield trying to use your "shtick".

Quote:
I do not doubt that BFAW damage output is a bit over the top, i am questioning the lack of Tactical options left for Cruisers and Sci ships in general and the lack of engineering/Science options for Escorts.
But why question is? Do they need these options? Those 8-Beam broadsides are pretty powerful, and if you want to increase your damage output, there are engineering skills for that as well. The gap that remains - that's still smaller than the gap that Escorts would have to make up for to achieve the Cruiser survivability.

If you want that Cruisers can inflict more damage, don't look for an uber tactical power. What you need is a new tactical power that gives them that, something they have to take _instead_ of a survivability boost.

I have no problem with the concept of a DPS Cruiser that can either reach the average damage output or the spike damage of an Escort. But it has to require a sacrifice in healing powers.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 62
05-02-2011, 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MustrumRidcully View Post
I don't think so.

1) 8 WeaponSlots > 7 Weapon Slots, if you're using beams anyway.
2) Having Emergency Power to Weapons and space for EPS Consoles is highly useful for a good BFAW build.
3) Having the remaining slots full of healing skills can do a lot to ensure that you outlast anyone else on the battlefield trying to use your "shtick".


But why question is? Do they need these options? Those 8-Beam broadsides are pretty powerful, and if you want to increase your damage output, there are engineering skills for that as well. The gap that remains - that's still smaller than the gap that Escorts would have to make up for to achieve the Cruiser survivability.

If you want that Cruisers can inflict more damage, don't look for an uber tactical power. What you need is a new tactical power that gives them that, something they have to take _instead_ of a survivability boost.

I have no problem with the concept of a DPS Cruiser that can either reach the average damage output or the spike damage of an Escort. But it has to require a sacrifice in healing powers.
Well then, i don't know what to say, maybe i have it all wrong.

It's just that, i always find it amusing that my Engineer is running around in a Nebula Sci ship with built-in Subsystem Targeting and 4 Tactical slots over that while my i only get 2 on my Star Cruiser.

So i stick with my Nebula, i can use HY1, BO1, FAW1 and FAW2. Add over that a Commander Science and still LTCom Engineer and a Tachyon thingy as a candy. What's not to like?

I only wish more Cruisers and Sci ships were more like the Nebula and Excelsior. But hey, it's just my opinion.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 63
05-02-2011, 02:32 PM
I think the new ships like the Excelsior, Nebula and Prometheus pretty clearly show that the Devs are going in that direction. Hybrid ships are becoming much more readily available, for the Feds anyway. Can't expect everything all at once though. On a side note, I think it's bogus that the Excelsior is a much better Assault Cruiser than the Sovereign (talk about backwards).

I just hope that as they release more of these the variation in game play, which is good, finds a balance that doesn't leave all of the other ships obsolete.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 64
05-02-2011, 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveHale View Post
I think the new ships like the Excelsior, Nebula and Prometheus pretty clearly show that the Devs are going in that direction. Hybrid ships are becoming much more readily available, for the Feds anyway. Can't expect everything all at once though. On a side note, I think it's bogus that the Excelsior is a much better Assault Cruiser than the Sovereign (talk about backwards).

I just hope that as they release more of these the variation in game play, which is good, finds a balance that doesn't leave all of the other ships obsolete.
I totally agree with you. I really have no interest in seeing any class of ship becoming obsolete.

I am not a competitive PvPer to begin with. I am just here to experience a cool and exciting Star Trek experience. For me, every ships have to be fun to pilot, fun to play with. I am all for balance as long as the fun factor remains a top priority.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 65
05-02-2011, 06:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MustrumRidcully View Post
That was SWG. Was that change brought by listening to well-reasoned player feedback complete with statistical data and experimentation backing the feedback up?

Stop just generalizing and point to the example where everything went wrong. Look at the specifics. The world is not black & white.
YES, In fact, Rubinfield, Freeman, Blixtev, Deadmeat, and other developers have told the story that they were listening to player feedback for the CU, NGE, and C6CD. There were constant complaints, on the forums, just like here for these, before each catagory of CHANGE that resulted in devs getting the ideas for these specific CHANGES and pushing them live, even after testers told them they would destroy the game. And to tell the truth, getting to watch that terrible slide downhill, MOST of the complaints came from the 10% of the playerbase (THEIR NUMBERS) that actualy chose PVP as their perferred playstyle. In each case, it was a vocal minority of forum users that started the process. In each case, the majority of players learned about the CHANGES post patch. In each case, subscriptions ran lower. Best estimates are at CU (Combat Upgrade), aprox 50,000 player loss and then as Rubinfield stated in his blog, another drain of 10,000 subs per month after. At NGE, (New Game Enhansements), best estimates were a 200,000 loss of players within the next 90 days after the patch. (it is interesting to note here that The NGE happened on Nov 15, 2005 and Lucas Arts began discussions with Bioware for SW:TOR 1 month later in Dec, 2005). At C6CD (The Chapter 6 Combat DOWNgrade) about 70,000 loss in subs as the Pres of SOE anounced at C6CD they still had 100K subs and just a few months later the best player estimates came to be around 30K and shortly thereafter, the 1st server transfers/mergers happened. Now? Best guestimates are around 10K active subscriptions and SOE has just instituted FREE server transfers every 90 days for the playerbase to find a server with actual people on it. The 2nd server merger is being looked for in just a matter of a month or 2. Down from 26 servers in it's hayday to maybe 2 or 3 now.

This is the perfect example of what NOT to do in the management of an MMO. There are still people and complete websites dedicated to "I hate SOE" and stateing that "they will NEVER play another SOE game" over these CHANGES. MMORPG.COM had sooo many of the SOE "haters" come to their forums, they made a specific forum just for the former players of SWG, The Vet Refuge Forums. It would be wise for Cryptic to consider SOE's past as to not make those mistakes, if your in the minority that wants a particuliar CHANGE/NERF, or not.

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/g.../313238/page/3

T2 (now the Producer of SWG, and Hjal (who would be considered the Lead dev basicly due to the fact that they only have 2 full time devs left) are listening to the playerbase for ADDITIONS, NOT take-away development that caused these sub losses, are currently trying to do some re-balance among the 9 remaining professions via prof re-vamps and ADDITIONS to same. However, how much can 2 devs actualy do? How many devs can a gaming company assign to an MMO that has fell to aprox. 10K subs? I seen Hjal log onto the SWG forums on Easter Sunday, reading, listening, and working but with only 2, that do work many more hours than 40 per/week, nothing is going to happen much anylonger. Either "fixing" the mistakes of the past nor ADDING new content, balance, etc.

Have you not seen it here? Did you like all the CHANGES/NERFs to Klingons? How many people left over that or simply do not play their Klings anylonger? Do you like the NERF for the EFF engine? How about "new FaW"? Like that CHANGE alot do you? I already know your in the camp of wanting the FaW NERF but even if you like all of these, there will end up being one you don't like. There are already MANY who have posted their objections to all of these CHANGES/NERFs and Cryptic would be wise to consider their feelings, their subscriptions, and their money also.

You know? One of the things that SOE did do that actualy worked for all the PVP players wants/needs of NERF this NERF that, CHANGE this, CHANGE that was a 25% DAMAGE REDUCTION ACROSS THE BOARD IN PVP ONLY which affected PVE 0%. What that did do was to enable "group" play and tactics alot more from PVPers as it took the group to take people out but it did tend to strech out combat somewhat. Maybe that's the answer to "new FaW" and people still complaining about all the spike damage in this game via escorts/Klings even in this thread (and many others I've seen).
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 66
05-02-2011, 07:18 PM
Wow. Obviously there is a good chance that whatever they do will be screwed up again. For all that they've made mistakes they have managed to get some stuff right. Still, if something is wrong should it really just be left alone? How is that any better than trying to effect a change?

Cryptic doesn't need anything drastic. They just need to make some tweaks, and some people to let go of their fear of losing broken mechanics.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 67
05-03-2011, 08:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MustrumRidcully View Post


But why question is? Do they need these options? Those 8-Beam broadsides are pretty powerful, and if you want to increase your damage output, there are engineering skills for that as well. The gap that remains - that's still smaller than the gap that Escorts would have to make up for to achieve the Cruiser survivability.

If you want that Cruisers can inflict more damage, don't look for an uber tactical power. What you need is a new tactical power that gives them that, something they have to take _instead_ of a survivability boost.

I have no problem with the concept of a DPS Cruiser that can either reach the average damage output or the spike damage of an Escort. But it has to require a sacrifice in healing powers.
I agree on the sacrifice concept. I wonder though if the escorts (in luei of the BFAW mechanics) have already had thier biliwack of being the highest Damage vessels laid on the altar.
I vote raise CRF/CSV buffs to even the field of battle and give escorts thier purpose back.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 68
05-03-2011, 10:11 AM
Personally I do not use FAW for single targets, thats what Overload is for. As long as it gets rid of the spam I will be happy. The thing that you will notice when using FAW focussing on a single target, is that it very often ( more than not) goes after the spam around the target and allows the person you are focussing on to reheal etc. That is why I would use it when I chase someone down and I am getting hit by spam.

I do understand however, that if it just you and another ship using FAW can be a bit low budget.

Question: Are you sure it does more damage than the Cannon version? I seem to get better results with my Tac/Escort with the Cannon one. Smaller field of spam but highly effective.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 69
05-03-2011, 10:48 AM
My understanding is, it isn't that beams with FAW do more damage than Cannons, it's that beams are receiving a much larger buff than cannons. Balance dictates that Beams are supposed to do less damage than Cannons. When a power like FAW comes a long and boosts them too much it makes Cannons, which are harder to use because of their limitations, less desirable.

When you have one skill making another higher level skill too much of a liability then something needs to be done.

---------------------------------------------------
I took the time to type all this crap out so I don't want to delete it, but this is the long road I took to try to explain if anyone is interested:

My understanding is, and I could be off here, that Beam damage does not compare 1:1 with Cannon damage. Beams, which have fewer and weaker limitations than Cannons do less damage when compared directly. I think this holds true when Beams are buffed with FAW versus Cannons buffed with a comparable level skill too. Looking at the numbers strictly 1:1 we'll see FAW will have lower DPS than CRF, for example. The problem occurs when an ability, in this case FAW, increases the potential damage by a percentage that is much higher than another ability of a superior rank, in this case either CRF or CSV.

When you consider that FAW3 is a Lt. Commander level skill that boosts Beam DPS by 180%, and then look at CRF which is a Commander level skill offering only a 50% boost, that pretty clearly shows an imbalance in the DPS. Cannons, with a much smaller arc and heavier restrictions on firing range and power levels, still have the potential to put out more damage but FAW increases beams in a way that ruins the balance for a weapon type that doesn't require that much effort to use effectively.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 70
05-03-2011, 05:15 PM
Keep complaining about carriers, you feds are still jealous of them even though you have twice the number of ships klingons have to choose from. Your tears are enjoyed by the carrier group of House Korax.
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 07:07 PM.