Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 141
03-27-2012, 05:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntKathy
Actually, yes, it does. You agreed (as did everyone that can play the game and post here) in said terms of service that anything could change at any time without notice. It's not being a lawyer, it's reading a Terms of Service agreement and doing more than simply clicking OK. It is about knowing what will and won't be allowed (on both sides). This was an explicit and implicit term: They have full right to change anything they see fit.
In theory they can change anything at any time, but in practice any change that can be construed as misleading or deceiving customers (i.e knowingly leading customers to expect something different from what is delivered) constitutes a breach of contract.

Anyway, that said, something does need to be done about there now being an incentive to dispense with all other Science consoles in favor of multiple Field Generators. Perhaps it is not the Field Generators that are too strong, but the skill-buffing Science consoles that are now too weak to compete? The fact that many players were using Science console slots as "dump slots" for Universal consoles already speaks for many Science consoles being perceived as less useful.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 142
03-27-2012, 06:01 PM
The players have spoken, the majority hate the change to the shield console....

What we want isn't unreasonable, we're asking for you to revert the changes to the console.

We're asking Cryptic to change the console back to what it was %35 and a unique item.

How do you respond Cryptic?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 143
03-27-2012, 06:10 PM
Quote:
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).

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 144
03-27-2012, 06:21 PM
@AuntKathy

Actually IMO the Science ships are getting hurt the most with this change... Cruisers can still count on their hull to keep them alive...

Science ships count on their shields as their hull is paper thin. The console plus their innate shield bonus is what keeps them alive...

A 10% drop in shields affects this greatly against enemies like the Borg who can cut through shields.

A lot of long timer players can see the end result with just the numbers. We're just asking for them to revert the current changes, nothing drastic.....
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 145
03-27-2012, 06:22 PM
I really.... REALLy don't like stacking field generators... ..

keep them the way they are... I don't have the luxury of 10 science console slots

why do you guys have to mess with a good thing... because you don't want to properly fix the torp consoles?

is this like the decloak bug when any interaction that you deem necessary should decloak a player? Remember that you made that statement because you didn't want to fix the decloak bug for every map.. you took the easy way out.

Please don't change the console!

P.S. do you think I need to be decloaked from an interactive message in an STF letting me know what I am supposed to do after the 100's of runs you have put me through? This is as absurd as a nerfed field generator console that is now stackable.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 146
03-27-2012, 06:36 PM
heres how you handle this cryptic, without the PR nightmare and improve the game at the same time.

step 1 give every single shield a capacity boost of 35%.

step 2 turn the field generator into a shield armor console that buffs resistance, and give it the same diminishing return hull armor consoles have

the result is you haven't taken anything away from the player, thus avoided rage, and gave them something new at the same time, thus creating anti rage lol. wile also eliminating the problems you had with the console

a. not stacking like every other console

b. being too strong when stacking of it was enabled to achieve uniformity

c. thus 'forcing' you to nerf it, and now everyone hates you, again
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 147
03-27-2012, 07:56 PM
Not every ship will benefit, if you read the other previous posts...Ships with 1 & 2 Sci-console(s) will be at a loss.
And oh yes, it can give more options, if you have Sci-slots of 3 or more. But again not every ship has that luxury.

And for others, they may have equipped something else that helps to keep the ship functional for a while longer. This change is forcing the breaking of the builds that many have streneously tested over time. And sometime to get the better rewards most play on Elite mode, may it be PvE or STF. Every extra additional means a high chance of surviving the battle outright.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mellestad View Post
I guess I'm in the minority, I think this is good. The 35% console was something everyone ran with, and that's lame and boring. Now you get more options...if you really want to be tanky, you can, but you sacrifice some stuff. If you don't want to be tanky, you don't sacrifice some stuff.

I thought a 35% buff console was just nuts. If we can live with stackable armor and tac consoles that don't buff to 35% why is the shield thing any different? Seems like now the shield consoles are in line with everything else, which is good.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 148
03-27-2012, 08:09 PM
@AuntKathy: you are absolutely right in regards to feedback based on each ones test on tribble. This is how we should base every feedback. Seriously, that was a good point! But, what bothers me is not only the shield loss and imballance this adds, most annoying is that if you want shield, you need to stack, thus occupying other precious console space. And that's valid for every ship. Maybe the best benefits pvp wise is on the bop-s. they have the lowest shields anyways and this is maybe a good reason to dump the cap console for good. You can cloak every 20 secs as long as you have a hold counter handy to avoid surprises. I usually fly a bop but still, I do not agree with the change because of the reasons mentioned above.

@lamid: in other post I made a statement saying the sci consoles are almost useless. I was wrong, there are few very good ones, depending on your spec. Flow capacitors is one of them. Considering this change, I may decide to equip 3 of them and just dump the shield cap one. Also the one that boosts cpb (forgot the name) is decent. But the fact sci consoles are useful is an argument to consider dumping the whole shield cap console, or, lower it 10%, or just leave as it was even if only because everybody got used/comfortable to it. I really think other things should have priority Over this shield cap console.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 149
03-27-2012, 08:12 PM
Leave the dang +35% shield consoles ALONE! and remove the stacking ability!! Why must you do this when the majority doesn't want it? This is so messed up...

Always have to wreck a good thing...



I love tanking in my escort. Like someone said, they are nerfing builds that many have put time and long testing hours to build, myself included. Whether it be for PvE or PvP, isn't that what its about, putting time and effort into the game to be the best you can be in whatever you choose to do? Find what works the best and go with it. I guess this is just their way of saying, Hey, you mastered it, passed it on to others, now its a game changer and it has to be nerfed...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 150
03-27-2012, 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TF-Omega View Post
I really.... REALLy don't like stacking field generators... ..

keep them the way they are... I don't have the luxury of 10 science console slots

why do you guys have to mess with a good thing... because you don't want to properly fix the torp consoles?

is this like the decloak bug when any interaction that you deem necessary should decloak a player? Remember that you made that statement because you didn't want to fix the decloak bug for every map.. you took the easy way out.

Please don't change the console!

P.S. do you think I need to be decloaked from an interactive message in an STF letting me know what I am supposed to do after the 100's of runs you have put me through? This is as absurd as a nerfed field generator console that is now stackable.
After they fix every single tooltip in the game(and yes, that's sarcasm cryptic :p), maybe they will see if they have time to address cloaking issues, most annoying being faw targeting cloaked ships, which I doubt is part of the faw fix on tribble. Id like to test that though before I make any assumptions, but haven't seen this in any release notes.
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 02:04 PM.