Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 131
08-15-2011, 12:37 PM
Just because things have been tooled and retooled in the past doesn't mean that those things are where they should be either. FAW was bugged. They tried to fix it but messed it up worse. They eventually got it right but messed with it again and made it even more over powered than it originally was when it was broken. It's still not right. That's the problem with healing and resists. They keep moving things around but they make big short sighted moves that either go too far (it's too easy to get more buffs and more healing) or not far enough (the effort to make shield resistance more about power level than BO skill was in good one cut too short).

Spreading SNB around among the classes isn't radical by any standard. It isn't lazy and unimaginative because it hasn't been done before, it's lazy and unimaginative because it's the easiest (and least balanced) possible option. We can reduce the dependence on buff stacking (and we should!), or buff removal, without giving everyone the ability to remove buffs.

Any of this stuff certainly needs to be on tribble first, and for a while. But not just the normal stress test BS like we got with all the feedback about Season 4. We had people testing but our threads and tickets went ignored, or more to the point, they were included in a list of known problems and the unfinished product was pushed through anyway.

And actually, better debuffing (like the enhancement to FoMM), is a very obvious way of addressing the problem of buff stacking by reducing the effectiveness of those buffs.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 132
08-15-2011, 12:48 PM
I kinda agree with the idea that in a "better" game, we might actually not have a single buff removal power, but several, each with a more focused application.

For example, the Beam Target Subsystem Skills, they could all also debuff some power.

Let's see we put powers in one of 4 categories:
  • Engine Group: Attack Patterns, Evasive Maneuver, Emergency Power to Engines, Attack Pattern Omega, Auxillary to Battery
  • Auxiliary Group: A2D, A2SIF, Aux2Bat, Hazard Emitters, Energy Siphon, Emergency Power to Auxiliary, Polarize Hull
  • Weapon Group: , Beam Overload, Beam Fire At Will, Cannon Rapid Fire, Cannon Scatter Volley, Emergency Power to Weapons, Directed Energy Modulation
  • Shield Group: Extend Shields, Emergency Power to Shields, Transfer Shield Strength, Science Team

Beam Target Subsytem would apply a buff dispel for the associated type (note that it also dispels the power that can in turn remove the debuff)

Aceton Field might dispel Auxiliary Powers. Tachyon Beam might remove shield powers. Energy Siphon might remove Engine Powers.

Of course, this might lead to another extreme - people only loading the debuffs so no one can ever use a power, and if a power is running, it's really strong. But maybe that's not so bad.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 133
08-15-2011, 01:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveHale View Post
Just because things have been tooled and retooled in the past doesn't mean that those things are where they should be either. FAW was bugged. They tried to fix it but messed it up worse. They eventually got it right but messed with it again and made it even more over powered than it originally was when it was broken. It's still not right. That's the problem with healing and resists. They keep moving things around but they make big short sighted moves that either go too far (it's too easy to get more buffs and more healing) or not far enough (the effort to make shield resistance more about power level than BO skill was in good one cut too short).
FaW is only one of many separate buffs that need short term addressing but is only just another buff adding to the zombie cruiser stack height. It does not have any direct relevance to the present SNB topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveHale View Post
Spreading SNB around among the classes isn't radical by any standard. It isn't lazy and unimaginative because it hasn't been done before, it's lazy and unimaginative because it's the easiest (and least balanced) possible option. We can reduce the dependence on buff stacking (and we should!), or buff removal, without giving everyone the ability to remove buffs.
"Lazy and Unimaginative" implies that old programming game code is being re-hashed, or tried and true methods being redone. I see neither being present since distributed buff removal would be completely new and revolutionary. "Easiest" doesn't fit either -- new code will have to be written to support new functions being proposed. "Least Balanced" doesn't make sense when the proposed changes grants all captains access to a vital game mechanic.

I'm approaching this subject without any bias nor favoritism towards any one class and making suggestions to balance the playing field for everyone. If you are also doing the same, then why keep buff-removal mechanic exclusive to sci-captains? Even if my proposed change goes live, SNB would still remain the uncontested king of buff-removal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveHale View Post
Any of this stuff certainly needs to be on tribble first, and for a while. But not just the normal stress test BS like we got with all the feedback about Season 4. We had people testing but our threads and tickets went ignored, or more to the point, they were included in a list of known problems and the unfinished product was pushed through anyway.

And actually, better debuffing (like the enhancement to FoMM), is a very obvious way of addressing the problem of buff stacking by reducing the effectiveness of those buffs.
Many numeric adjustments have already been tried and failed -- FoMM debuff quantities, shield resistances, defense caps, etc... if anything, these have been lazy band-aids because only numeric values were tweaked on a data-table with no new corrective source code generated. The fundamental issue present is how high buffs can stack, and what can be done to counter them. Buffs can stack VERY HIGH, and only the Sci-captain can knock such high buff stacks down. This present set-up is inherently flawed for everyone who plays STO.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 134
08-15-2011, 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shar487
FaW is only one of many separate buffs that need short term addressing but is only just another buff adding to the zombie cruiser stack height. It does not have any direct relevance to the present SNB topic.
FAW was used as a simple example of an ability that has been "done and redone" but still needs to be redone.

Quote:
"Lazy and Unimaginative" implies that old programming game code is being re-hashed, or tried and true methods being redone. I see neither being present since distributed buff removal would be completely new and revolutionary. "Easiest" doesn't fit either -- new code will have to be written to support new functions being proposed. "Least Balanced" doesn't make sense when the proposed changes grants all captains access to a vital game mechanic.
Giving the same thing to everyone is lazier (easier) than using ones imagination to establish a balance that is real but different rather than the same old thing.

Quote:
I'm approaching this subject without any bias nor favoritism towards any one class and making suggestions to balance the playing field for everyone. If you are also doing the same, then why keep buff-removal mechanic exclusive to sci-captains? Even if my proposed change goes live, SNB would still remain the uncontested king of buff-removal.
We all have our own bias no matter how objective we want to believe ourselves to be.

Some might be biased against the holy trinity. I don't even know if that's the best way to go but the game does a decent job of mixing things up without giving the same thing to everyone. If everyone can remove buffs then why not let everyone boost their damage exponentially while also letting them resist incoming damage? I personally don't think escorts should be fast moving fortresses to take the Eng/Cruisers roll. I certainly don't think that Cruisers should be all powerful burst machines like Escorts. The classes themselves are fairly balanced aside from the way some abilities (which are available to all classes) interact when there are multiple copies stacking.

Quote:
Many numeric adjustments have already been tried and failed -- FoMM debuff quantities, shield resistances, defense caps, etc... if anything, these have been lazy band-aids because only numeric values were tweaked on a data-table with no new corrective source code generated. The fundamental issue present is how high buffs can stack, and what can be done to counter them. Buffs can stack VERY HIGH, and only the Sci-captain can knock such high buff stacks down. This present set-up is inherently flawed for everyone who plays STO.
And again, just because it's been tried doesn't mean that it's right or that we can't try again. The problem is very clearly the buff stacking so why not fix the problem of buff stacking rather than making all of the captain types carbon copies of one another? We clearly agree on the basic issue that buffs are too powerful but I'm finding it hard to believe we'll come to an agreement on how to deal with it.

You want to treat the symptom and I won't to treat the disease.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 135
08-15-2011, 03:11 PM
Does this mean i can get a miracle worker on my intrepid? not as strong as your *engi* miracle worker just a weakened version.

I mean no other class has 1/2 the survivability of an engi. id like 1/6th of that. oh and a weakened attack pattern alpha.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 136
08-15-2011, 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigduckie
Does this mean i can get a miracle worker on my intrepid?
sure you can, just fly it with an engineer!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 137
08-15-2011, 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveHale View Post
FAW was used as a simple example of an ability that has been "done and redone" but still needs to be redone.
In other words, Trial and Error? This is the least efficient method of determining a solution given all the data, observations, and experience available.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveHale View Post
Giving the same thing to everyone is lazier (easier) than using ones imagination to establish a balance that is real but different rather than the same old thing.
Actually, trying to convince everyone that skill buff removal in the hands of only one captain profession generates no problems, given all that has been posted in this thread alone, flies in the face of reason. Buff stacking is a problem. Buff removal is the solution. And yet, Buff removal remaining accessible to only one of three professions is reasonable? The only possible conclusion I can draw is that you favor only one-third of the STO community being able to correct a global STO pvp issue.

I find it ironic that suggesting alternatives and changes to the existing evironment demonstrates "lack of imagination." Fear of change shows the greatest lack of imagination, especially when no viable alternative suggestions are being offered or explored in return.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveHale View Post
We all have our own bias no matter how objective we want to believe ourselves to be.
Do not confuse personal opinion with personal bias. It is possible to remain objective about a topic so long as you have no inherent conflict of interest. Given that STO is a game, the only thing I could possibly gain from captain profession parity is more enjoyment regardless of which class I play.

Is there a reason why you prefer to keep a critical game mechanic like buff removal exclusive to the sci-captain, especially when it is the only solution currently available to high-buff stacks?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveHale View Post
Some might be biased against the holy trinity. I don't even know if that's the best way to go but the game does a decent job of mixing things up without giving the same thing to everyone. If everyone can remove buffs then why not let everyone boost their damage exponentially while also letting them resist incoming damage? I personally don't think escorts should be fast moving fortresses to take the Eng/Cruisers roll. I certainly don't think that Cruisers should be all powerful burst machines like Escorts. The classes themselves are fairly balanced aside from the way some abilities (which are available to all classes) interact when there are multiple copies stacking.
Everyone already has access to other profession abilities via bridge officers. However, sci-captains clearly stand out in PVP due to monopolizing the only available skill removal ability. Once again, I am NOT asking for everyone to have access to SNB as if it were a bridge-officer ability. I am asking that other classes be given the ability to mitigate high buff stacks so that SNB is not the only possible in-game solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveHale View Post
And again, just because it's been tried doesn't mean that it's right or that we can't try again. The problem is very clearly the buff stacking so why not fix the problem of buff stacking rather than making all of the captain types carbon copies of one another? We clearly agree on the basic issue that buffs are too powerful but I'm finding it hard to believe we'll come to an agreement on how to deal with it.

You want to treat the symptom and I won't to treat the disease.
Trial and error only may be fine for you, but I can only play STO for so many years before moving onto something else.

The problem has already been identified as high-buff-stacking leading a large disparity between buffed vs. unbuffed ships. Given that the later is the "disease," how is giving every player a cure treating only the symptoms?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 138
08-15-2011, 04:28 PM
Obviously everything needs to be tested but if the past is any indication it won't be perfect which means that a bit of trial and error will be unavoidable. Any possible solution is going to involve some trial and error. I'd prefer perfection from the start but let's be realistic here.

I don't really care for the insinuation you are making but you can draw whatever conclusions you want:p. Don't take it personally, I just don't like your proposed solution. I prefer some variety and realize that balance doesn't have to be about everyone having the same things. Giving everyone SNB (or something akin to SNB) is a lazy solution to the underlying problem that is out of control buff stacking (and the gap between buffed and unbuffed ships). There is nothing wrong with having gaps in a build. Every class brings their own thing and I'm ok with having to rely on someone else to help me out.

I don't need to be a one man army in an MMO. If I wanted to play with myself I wouldn't be doing it here.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 139
08-15-2011, 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveHale View Post
Obviously everything needs to be tested but if the past is any indication it won't be perfect which means that a bit of trial and error will be unavoidable. Any possible solution is going to involve some trial and error. I'd prefer perfection from the start but let's be realistic here.
We both agree that testing of any new feature is required, but constant fine-tuning will only go a certain distance before innovation becomes a necessity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveHale View Post
I don't really care for the insinuation you are making but you can draw whatever conclusions you want:p. Don't take it personally, I just don't like your proposed solution. I prefer some variety and realize that balance doesn't have to be about everyone having the same things. Giving everyone SNB (or something akin to SNB) is a lazy solution to the underlying problem that is out of control buff stacking (and the gap between buffed and unbuffed ships). There is nothing wrong with having gaps in a build. Every class brings their own thing and I'm ok with having to rely on someone else to help me out.

I don't need to be a one man army in an MMO. If I wanted to play with myself I wouldn't be doing it here.
We both agree that buff stacks are out of control. I propose that additional skills be added to the game to manage buff stacks so that they can be controlled, yet this is met with an unwavering resistance without any logical explanation. " I just don't like your proposed solution" doesn't offer anything other than personal preference... no facts, no observations, no counter-proposals, no results.

Insinuation or not, we have both made our positions very clear. I favor breaking the stack-buff problem by letting everyone knock them down. Without an untouchable buff-stack, all buff-monstrosities quickly collapse, even those that have not yet been created -- this is why SNB is a necessity in the current environment. However, I am not proposing a short-term fix -- on the contrary, distributed buff-removal sounds like a good long term solution, but as with all new ideas, it will require testing on Tribble.

I do thank you for keeping this topic alive. My secondary goal is to get the Dev's attention with this thread. Even disagreement, you are supporting my cause
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 140
08-15-2011, 05:32 PM
If a single power becomes so over powered that it's a necessity then something is wrong. You can give everyone that power or you can deal with the issue causing such a dependence upon that power.

I've offered plenty of suggestions for addressing these problems. Someone else around is always suggesting that you can fix what is broken by piling more stuff on top of it. I'd rather have a strong foundation before I start adding. Fix what's broken rather than trying to cover it up. That sort of thing only snow balls. You can't get much more logical than that.

If buff stacking is the problem then address buff stacking. Giving everyone buff removal abilities also doesn't address the gap between a buffed and unbuffed target, nor does it sound particularly interesting in terms of game play variety. It's certainly one possible way to go but it doesn't sound like the solution to me.

But uh... here.
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 01:47 PM.