Career Officer
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 915
# 11
03-20-2013, 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hereticknight085 View Post
After all, Mr Rivera made it very clear the game is fine as is.
It's been my experience as a long time MMO player and surveyor of forums that devs often say those things when:

A: they don't want to admit to he public that they messed up and will then be required to fix the game

B: they don't want to spend the resources on making balance work properly because they are already using personnel on other projects that will most likely bring in new revenue.
I would like for the devs to open a poll/feedback thread on what exactly the players would like to see in the near future for the game.
Ensign
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 14
# 12
03-20-2013, 08:27 PM
From the point of view of diversity, I think the most interesting PvE encounter in the game is the Starbase Blockade. As long as you're competent at what you do, almost any approach works for protecting freighters: you can kill the pursuers, you can cc them, you can heal / buff the freighter. Killing the pursuers is not even the most efficient way to accomplish the goal (cc is probably the most effective, because if you do it well, you can fire and forget it and head off to protect a second freighter; fighting them locks you into combat, which takes longer to complete). Still, it shows that encounters can be designed in such a way that damage is not the only solution.

I agree entirely that supporting diversity (in everything -- powers, builds, classes, ships) is highly desirable for the long term health of the game. If one thing is clearly "the best", people will gravitate toward it, and game play becomes much less involving as a result. But that topic is worthy of its own essay.

I think there has always been a thread about (Federation) cruisers not doing enough damage, and another thread about tacs doing far more damage than everybody else in space, but the recent outcries about beam arrays being too weak, about tacs being the only useful character class in space for PvE, and about escorts being strictly better than cruisers are all new themes. Very little has changed in s7 with regard to beam arrays in PvE, and very little has changed about the PvE enemies they are being shot at -- almost all the recent changes can only have increased the damage of beam arrays in PvE, in fact. I suspect these are largely spillover from PvP perceptions, as the value of beam arrays has definitely changed in PvP.

I can think of several factors that might have changed these overall perceptions and possibly the reality of the situation, but I find it difficult to put my finger on any single cause. Possibilities that come to mind include:

- a general increase in durability of all ships from gear and reputation passives in s7, giving escorts "enough tank" to increase their on target time instead of needing to maintain high speed and defense for survivability. The effect on PvP seems even more significant, but I'm trying to focus primarily on changes in PvE

- the slight nerf in Fire at Will damage, combined with the removal of 100% accuracy for Fire at Will (compounded further by the recent discovery that weapon qualities are not applied for Fire at Will, but this has a much greater effect in PvP than PvE)... this was a long time before s7, but it may have contributed to FaW not being used by many up to date cruiser builds

- the increase in doffs that reduce power cooldowns of all sorts, increasing tac power up times. Although there are now many hybrid ships with Lt Cmdr tac stations, escorts of course have the greatest access to tac stations, which are the only ones which provide powers giving direct increases to damage. Perhaps escorts benefit the most from the use of CD decreasing doffs.

- large boosts to crit rates, from boffs, consoles, and reputation passives. These provide a multiplicative boost to damage overall.

That's quite a few changes, but I wonder if I'm missing something. What else could have affected the value of beam arrays, cruisers, and the effectiveness of tac officers since s7?
Ensign
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 21
# 13
03-21-2013, 03:02 PM
Totally agree with your point that Starbase 24 is an example of how good things CAN be. All three strategies CAN work. Unfortunately pure DPS still finishes in half the time and therefore nets you more rewards.

Also having bosses immune to your level 3 science ability is just stupid. Want to know why people abandon science? Because you invest in abilities and items to boost those abilities, and then are confronted with a situation where they are 100% useless. Imagine if they made an enemy 100% immune to energy damage, there'd be a bloody riot!
Lieutenant
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 72
# 14
03-21-2013, 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyranger1414 View Post
I think you're wanting the wrong things..
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you are just plain wrong. The current problem is the over reliance on DPS in order to be successful. If you buff everyone's DPS, you may as well remove classes and ships types all together. (As a good sci-captain I resent this - I don't want to just carry a big gun).

The Vesta is an example of the problem in game design. I love mine, but I also hate it because there is no reason to fly any other science vessels. The Vesta can do nearly anything the other ships can do AT LEAST equally well, if not better. Variety and specialization is what keeps people having fun and keeps them playing between content additions.

To be extra blunt... Most of your reasons NOT to take the advice in the OP are symptoms of the problem.

Design content that is achievable by all play styles (solo) or requires the inclusion of multiple roles (multiplayer).
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,691
# 15
03-21-2013, 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by molaigh View Post
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you are just plain wrong.
*shrugs* Different opinions I guess . But just keep in mind that over specialized roles that aren't damage focused tend to be incredibly unpopular in games. Cryptic should know that making sci and cruisers overly necessary would only cause resentment since people are used to and prefer the non trinity present in STO. Worse yet, if they choose to make cruisers and sci vessels overly specialized instead of tanking and doing space magic as an addition to their DPS they run the risk of making them unprofitable which as we know, is the kiss of death of developemnt.

People keep asking for cruisers and sci vessels to be "more relevant" and what they mean is "necessary". As in forcing groups to need them. This is looking for a problem to justify a solution they like. Not everyone asking for Cruiser and Sci vessel buffs is doing this of course, but some clearly are.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 990
# 16
03-21-2013, 05:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyranger1414 View Post
I think you're wanting the wrong things. Instead ask for sci vessels and cruisers to be more in line with the current metagame. I would almost bet that every sci and cruiser ship released in the future will follow the recent trend of the Vesta, Ambassador, and the Chel Breen ship. From now they will have a better overall boff and console layout so that they have superior DPS abilities, occupy a clear niche (such as the ambassador is a better sci cruiser than a starcruiser), or are effectively hybrids.

This won't really help players who currently own the older ships but will likely make thigns better overall going forward. Of the recent sci vessels and cruisers hardly anyone complaints, its mostly the older designs.

Edit: It would be wise to consider what a rework of the ship system will mean to STO's finances. Even mighty Blizz prefers to leave in imbalances and not make things work more smoothly because they KNOW what wide ranging changes will really do to their bottom line. This is why you see Cryptic realease ships more suited to the way the game is now, but again... fans of the older ships are mostly SOL.
I suspect sky might have a point here; all the same, I like the ideas presented in the OP.

For what little it is worth, I add my recommendation that Cryptic at least consider a feasibility study of such a move. Never know, it could be worth trying.
Exploration suggestions thread - give it a read

BTW, you'd pronounce it 'Cap'n Manks'

I protest the removal of exploration clusters
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,898
# 17
03-21-2013, 05:33 PM
Would it really be soo bad to bring the other ships a little more in line with the current metagame if they aren't willing to adjust the metagame to suit the ships?
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 990
# 18
03-21-2013, 05:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamkafei View Post
Would it really be soo bad to bring the other ships a little more in line with the current metagame if they aren't willing to adjust the metagame to suit the ships?
How? By giving them all cannons and/or combat pets? That is what we got with the Vesta after all.

We've already got the fleet retrofits for most things. What more could really be done for the old ships via any regular means? That wouldn't mean adjusting the metagame I mean.
Exploration suggestions thread - give it a read

BTW, you'd pronounce it 'Cap'n Manks'

I protest the removal of exploration clusters
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,898
# 19
03-21-2013, 06:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by capnmanx View Post
How? By giving them all cannons and/or combat pets?
By adjusting their primary weapons such that they are more viable for endgame use?
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,938
# 20
03-21-2013, 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyranger1414 View Post
People keep asking for cruisers and sci vessels to be "more relevant" and what they mean is "necessary". As in forcing groups to need them. This is looking for a problem to justify a solution they like. Not everyone asking for Cruiser and Sci vessel buffs is doing this of course, but some clearly are.
Did you even read my original post? At no point did I suggest anything that would make any ship *necessary*. Useful to a team from Force Multiplier/synergistic capabilities yes but not in any way necessary.

Please I beg you which part of the suggestions I proposed in the OP would make any of the ships required?
Get yer Fleet Gear here!
Military 5 / Engineering 4 / Science 4
Starbase 5 / Embassy 3 / Mine 3 / Spire 3
Diplomacy 3 / Recruit 3 / Trade 3 / Development 3 / Research 3 / Operations 3
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh...1#post16435781
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 12:27 PM.