Captain
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,616
# 21
03-21-2013, 05:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ussultimatum View Post
I'm sorry but I think you have clearly missed the design intent apparent in Cruisers and Sci ships.

They are very much designed with role intents.
intent and delivery are very different things.
and just because any system was designed in any given way doesnt mean its not pointless.
this is why you cant use established systems to rationally legitimise themselves.
trying to is a form of circular argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redz4tw View Post
can you say attack pattern angry forumers 3?
Lieutenant
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 47
# 22
03-21-2013, 06:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by skollulfr View Post
intent and delivery are very different things.
and just because any system was designed in any given way doesnt mean its not pointless.
this is why you cant use established systems to rationally legitimise themselves.
trying to is a form of circular argument.
are you saying the ships as they are delivered to as at this very current moment are not designed for specific roles ?
Captain
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,616
# 23
03-21-2013, 06:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by burningstar View Post
are you saying the ships as they are delivered to as at this very current moment are not designed for specific roles ?
no, i am saying
that even
if they are
designed
with the intent
of having different roles

it in no way
supports the viability
of the system they are in

which should be pretty obvious that it isnt working, let alone as intended. otherwise this conversation would have a clear workable model/theory to be taken away & acted on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redz4tw View Post
can you say attack pattern angry forumers 3?
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,400
# 24
03-21-2013, 06:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bareel View Post
This weekend I'll tank the STFs in a group with you if you really want to see it. And it is not that I am highly skilled (I'm a baddie skill wise) it is that I know how this game and it's mechanics work, that is all it takes.
Honestly, knowledge of game mechanics already puts you in a pretty high zone outside of the realm of the average player.

And if you remember, my question was if you thought the average player could do it.

In an escort.

With beams.

With BFAW.

With Threat Control.

Not die repeatedly (I forgive the occasional, and practically inevitable one-shots most tanks eventually face).




Quote:
Originally Posted by bareel View Post
And that is the thing about trinity, there is no such thing as soft trinity it doesn't work.
Again, says you.

City of Heroes never specifically needed a tank, it never specifically needed a damage dealer, it never specifically needed a debuffer/buffer or controller, healer or anything in-between (and there were a lot of in-betweens)


Many classes had at least some method of defending themself, whether it be through pure mitigation, or enough offense to kill, or debuffs, buffs, controls, etc.

And yet, even with all of that, there was such a thing as synergistic pairings.

You didn't need an aggro holder, but missions went much smoother with one.

You didn't need a hard controller, but missions went much smoother with one.

You didn't need a buffer/debuffer, but the more you had the more you ran into massive force multiplication and could literally vaporize or ignore some of the hardest content.

No one was forced to be, or do anything. The game functioned, it functioned well and was fun and fast - it was a casual game for casual gamers that also managed to have some good challenging encounters.


STO? You need DPS that doesn't die 50x. Easy to do.

No other team comp is better, this is a poor environment and does not accommodate standard Sci Ships and Cruisers.


So you keep saying it can't be done, and I've seen it already be done.


To repeat, I'm not asking for a trinity. I'm asking for content that allows all roles to shine.

There is a very distinct difference, and I've yet to see you accept the line that exists between those two parts of the MMO spectrum.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bareel View Post
Oh and EHP is Effective Hit Points. It means total health when you factor in all the built in avoidance and mitigation a character/ship has. And yes, all 3 have the same within a single % from stock.
Good luck factoring all of the variables that higher tier BOFF slots provide.

Thinking that a base number such as a 42k Hull (final number) escort, with even 50% resistance to all, has the same mitigation as a 55k Hull (final number) with 50% resistance to all Cruiser without taking into consideration the shield mod, or boff slots, or the fact that the Escorts greatest mitigation (speed defense) is all but ignored in PvE is just incorrect.


If you want to say you can have too much mitigation, outside of one shots, then yes I agree. That's the exact point I've been trying to make.


There is no PvE content that stresses, without one-shotting, Cruiser mitigation capabilities.


Last edited by ussultimatum; 03-21-2013 at 06:42 AM.
Captain
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,676
# 25
03-21-2013, 06:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by burningstar View Post
if you say trinity dont exest in sto, lats have a look:
We dont have trinity we have an incomplete rock-paper-scissors model. All of the captain types and ship types are able to do damage and heal themselves, but not to the same extent. That is good basis for an RPS model, but what's missing are the tac>sci>eng>tac (or whatever) and ship-type roundabouts, instead we have Tac-Escort > ALL.

Ships should get a blind balance by size/mass/volume (differences in boff stations and consoles can stay), and RPS should be based on the captain traits only. A captain should be able to move between ships as appropriate to the scenario at hand--my Tac captain may need to fly a Defiant for a capture-the-flag type mission then switch to a carrier for a fleet-battle mission. Ideally the captain types would have nearly equal survivability with just 5-10% chance over the other class, close enough so that skill could make up the difference. Then you get anybody can fly the Defiant or the Carrier, the difference is just the captain abilities and player skill.

We are *very* close to this now, but the ship types have been incorporated into the RPS model (large escorts with faster turn rate than small cruisers), and that is where things get confuzzled. A flat balance of the ships would probably correct most of the problem
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,076
# 26
03-21-2013, 07:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ussultimatum View Post

And yet, even with all of that, there was such a thing as synergistic pairings.
Tank > DPS > Healer is not synergistic. It is efficient. There is a huge difference. I have already created a new thread about how they could address the current issues without resorting to trinity.

And CoH was not trinity based. I think we are arguing over semantics now though as you seem to relate trinity with roles not with the tank/healer/dps. Roles are good, synergy is good, trinity and required roles are bad.

As for the average player? Not at all. The average player falls into one of two categories right now sadly.

1) Uses rainbow weapons and has terribad build
OR
2) Doesn't understand rainbow weapons have very little to do with a terribad build
STO's F2P is basically an inferior experience for the masses at no cost being subsidized by a handful of whales seeking whatever it is that motivates them to spend hundreds if not thousands on a game.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,400
# 27
03-21-2013, 09:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bareel View Post
And CoH was not trinity based. I think we are arguing over semantics now though as you seem to relate trinity with roles not with the tank/healer/dps. Roles are good, synergy is good, trinity and required roles are bad.

I've never asked for the Trinity, I've consistently in this and in the other thread asked for a better environment for the currently designed roles to function.

As opposed to, what seems like 90% of players (exaggerating) simply wanting standard type Cruisers and Sci ships to just do more damage.

The only thing I've stated with regards to the Trinity is how the ship classes were effectively influenced by their design.

The Primary Role of Cruisers is Tanking, Healing.

The Primary Role of Sci Ships is Control, Debuffs, Healing.

The Primary Role of Escorts is DPS, Spike and potentially debuffing.


Unfortunately that's very close to the trinity, there are some in-betweens but not nearly enough in-betweens as CoH had.

What's more, only one of those roles is ever needed in PvE and adding the other roles doesn't actually add anything (again, unlike in CoH).

Lieutenant
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 47
# 28
03-21-2013, 10:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by skollulfr View Post
no, i am saying
that even
if they are
designed
with the intent
of having different roles

it in no way
supports the viability
of the system they are in

which should be pretty obvious that it isnt working, let alone as intended. otherwise this conversation would have a clear workable model/theory to be taken away & acted on.
they have different roles, even if you want you cant use for oposite role with not even near same efficiency.
as if there is or there is not content to support those roles is another matter.
Lieutenant
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 47
# 29
03-21-2013, 10:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ussultimatum View Post
To repeat, I'm not asking for a trinity. I'm asking for content that allows all roles to shine.
not realy need content to change, it should be enough to redo ships a bit so they be valuable in current content too, not just escorts as it is now.

for example .. return preview power to sci ships, just put a penalty against players so dont broke pvp balance. add some eng consoles that are cruser only that can boost power/weapon dmg.

and think we should be fine.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,400
# 30
03-21-2013, 10:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by burningstar View Post
not realy need content to change, it should be enough to redo ships a bit so they be valuable in current content too, not just escorts as it is now.
I think the problem is actually in the content design, the ships themselves are mostly designed well.

The problem is that Cruisers and Sci ships were built to do things that are almost never required in PvE.

That's a system wide problem with PvE.

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 05:07 AM.