I'd have thought it was incredibly obvious it was an exploit but then again when something's going for you, you'd like it to stay that way
And I could say how when something is going against you, you'd like to change it. The fact is that there was no CLEAR evidence to support such a claim. Now, there is.
And if you actually read some other posts of mine, particularly the more recent ones, you'd realize that I also believed that it was too powerful. Arguing that something isn't an exploit isn't the same thing as arguing that it's OP or not. A change was needed, but that alone doesn't make something an exploit. SNB needs to change. That doesn't mean it's an exploit.
outside of the ad-hominem crap, this sentence is salvagable. and factual. the rest of the post was garbage though.
Without some actual numbers, it's not something that you could say for certain. I've seen a lot more science officers on the fed side than the klingon side, so my experience tells me the opposite of what yours does. Neither of us really knows for sure, though.
Originally Posted by faithborn
its a quantity, not quality, issue. Most carriers adopted an "I'll tank while the fighters do the DPS" mentality. Once you cripple their offence (spawns) and kept them in combat so they couldn't spam too much they became almost as worthless as those cruiser jockeys that bring 4-5 copies of RSP to the battlefield.
Actually, all of the carriers that I've played with go for damage, and often do really well at it. If you set yourself up right you can do significant damage, even if you only use your fighters. There's really no point in purely tanking, with anything, because the enemy will just switch targets and grind someone else into dust instead.
Really, any ship that sets themselves up for tanking only, unless built for a group specifically, is likely to damage the team's ability to win.
I think perhaps the problem here is that we've been overestimating the Cryptic QA department's abilities. many of us figured that even 5 minutes of testing would have uncovered this as a problem, because you don't have to do anything complicated to make it happen. imagine the test scenario:
Cryptic Tester: "okay, today I have to test the carrier pods, make sure they're working."
"step 1, equip fighter pods and use them. fighters launch. check."
"step 2, equip siphon pods and use them. siphons launch, check."
"step 3, equip shield pods and use them. drones launch, check."
"step 4, equip bop pods and use them. bops launch, check."
having done this, how could you not notice 24 ships flying around you? clearly if this very minimal amount of testing showed this behavior, and Cryptic QA passed it, then it must not have been a problem.
the fact that Cryptic has declared this an exploit is a very troubling indicator of the level of testing we can expect from Cryptic QA. it calls into question *every* obvious behavior. maybe it's an unintended exploit that I can equip more hypos *during combat* if I run out. maybe it's an unintended exploit that I can use a hypo and a medic kit heal on myself *both at the same time*. maybe it's an unintended exploit that I can use RSP1 while RSP2 is still on cooldown *on the same BO*.
It's worse than that... not only did the QA fail to notice it but it's been a huge issue on the forums. It if was uncannily difficult for QA to not notice, it has to have been impossible for the forum admins not to notice and pass it on.
Then again, maybe they knew all along and just refused to confirm it. Either way it doesn't put Cryptic in very good light.
We shouldn't have to BEG for answers as to what are bugs.