Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > PvP Gameplay
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 31
04-24-2011, 01:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jheinig View Post
Yes, we will work on the elements of FAW, but the skill actually involves a lot of digging into the system and there are many ways to accidentally break it. CapnGeko is aware that there are problems but his time is currently booked up with making sure that the new ground combat system is totally solid for season 4. We haven't forgotten about the issue, but it's one that is not as simple as just changing one number in one data element -- updating FAW would actually involve changes to . . . as a quick estimate . . . a little over 4000 data structures. This unfortunately means we also can't rely on just implementing a quick fix with a more detailed tweak later; any adjustments would have to be rather involved. It will get done, it's just not something that can be done overnight!
I have no idea why cryptic still uses its own engine. Personally I've rage quit this game at least 4 times because of the horrable condition of the game, and the fact that the progress on making it work is so slow. End game has recieved almost no new content in a very long time, the only thing we ever got was the level cap raised to VA/LG, a few new one shot missions, a couple of VA abilites, and some borg/ageis gear with a set bonus that makes most other gear unatractive to use, some new craftable items(and a few other little things). And no, the weekly missions dont actually count as endgame content. And now we know why the progress is so slow, Cryptic just had to use their own terrable engine for this game. instead of licensing; say, the source engine, something that could have made the coding of the abilites, creation of maps, and many other things alot faster and easier. Along with myself and alot of other pvpers, this is the last time for me, I've gona off to another game, because of the fact that as someone else in this thread has already said, my patients has run out. You guys just keep on fixing that over powered mark iv stuff, and creating uniforms to sell on the c-store. No one cares about new ships, new pvp content, or new special task force missions.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 32
04-24-2011, 02:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurian View Post
4000 Data Structures? Well that is quite a large amount of work.

No offense, but I find it ironic that the Dev Team is quick to nerf Efficient Impulse Engines in citing them to be Overpowered, and yet Beam Fire at Will is unquestionably Overpowered in both PvP and PvE, and it's on a lower priority than that and Season 4.

This news along with the lastest Ask Cryptic, really does not send a positive message to the PvP community. Many of the best PvPers have left and few remain. At this rate you might as well close up PvP its going to be ignored.
By comparison, changing EiE was about 3 data elements. (Plus a few more to fix an error in the expression for efficiency skills that was discovered in the process.)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 33
04-24-2011, 02:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jheinig View Post
By comparison, changing EiE was about 3 data elements. (Plus a few more to fix an error in the expression for efficiency skills that was discovered in the process.)
Just to take a stab at clarifying the differences:

For the EiE, the elements that need to change:
  • Bonus Power to Weapons... Changed to Bonus to Weapon Efficiency Skill
  • Bonus Power to Shields... Changed to Bonus to Shield Efficiency Skill
  • Bonus Power to Aux... Changed to Bonus to Aux Efficiency Skill

Nothing further, as far as impact on other game elements, is needed... This item can only be acquired from ONE mission/replay for each side... This item is only used by Players... This item only affects Player skills... This item has a set value for all of its intrinsic elements...

Compare and contrast that with BFAW:
  • Targeting Mechanics for Players' Ships (Range, Arc of Fire, Rate of Fire, Target Priority, etc... Each of those constitutes a separate data element.)
  • Targeting Mechanics for NPC Ships (See above...)
  • Damage Modifier for Players' Ships (For each tier of the power, calculating based on DPS of Players' weapons, their skills, consoles, etc)
  • Damage Output for NPC Ships (How many different types of NPC will use the skill? Off the top of my head, most of the Cardassian ships in-game use it, Borg Cubes/Tac Cubes use it, and I am certain there are others... That is a separate data element to tweak AND test, for each NPC-type, since each, individual NPC-type has its own, inherent statistics that are modified by the power.)
  • And on, and on, and on, etc.

Is a change desperately needed? Yes...

Is a change as simple as rolling it back to Old FAW? Not hardly (as there are no 'reset/rollback' buttons for architecture that is this complex, the process would involve moving 'forward', and would require all of the testing and tweaking that would accompany a 'rollback', thus, I would much prefer that a progressive step be taken, rather than a regressive one.

-Big Red


P.S. It's nice to see you in this wretched hive of scum and villainy, JHeinig, even though changes are taking longer than any of us might like, it is good to see that we are not forgotten.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 34
04-24-2011, 05:14 AM
Agreed. It's nice to see continued responses even when the reception isn't as warm. We all know how much easier it would have been to ignore us again and appreciate that you aren't.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 35 Hindsight
04-24-2011, 05:41 AM
One thing that I really hope is that Cryptic pays a little more attention to the feedback from the tribble sever. When the new FAW was released on tribble many people reported that it was broken, yet it went live anyways thus the state of things now. I understand that it takes alot of work to fix the problem but the fact is that the problem with FAW was noted long before we reached a point of no return and it was implemented to the Holodeck.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 36
04-24-2011, 05:54 AM
Hmm. I agree that better listening to Tribble feedback would be good, but it might be we already have the explanation why this happens - If the change of BFAW is as complex as it is and can't be easily taken back or changed, but a Tribble build contains more than the BFAW change, then this could simply not be possible, unless they were willing to drop the entire build and new features or bugfixes.

Not an optimal solution at all, clearly. And they certainly can't afford to make "mini-releases" that just introduce one change to Tribble. There wouldn't be enough feedback in time, or stuff would release too slowly.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 37
04-24-2011, 06:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jheinig View Post
By comparison, changing EiE was about 3 data elements. (Plus a few more to fix an error in the expression for efficiency skills that was discovered in the process.)
Isnt it possibly to simply change the damage bonus, Id guess that would be tied to the skill itself, and not to each and every possible object the skill could hit. The way the skill work now is fine, if it did say 33% of the damage of a regular beam attack.

Alternatively, how about simply disabling the skill until its fixed?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 38
04-24-2011, 06:35 AM
Quote:
Isnt it possibly to simply change the damage bonus, Id guess that would be tied to the skill itself, and not to each and every possible object the skill could hit. The way the skill work now is fine, if it did say 33% of the damage of a regular beam attack.

Alternatively, how about simply disabling the skill until its fixed?
It could be that the data structures jhenig mentions could include all the different weapons that can benefit from the power, e.g. a representation of every weapon in the BFAW firing mode.

Disabling it... Would suck, I suppose. not for PvP, perhaps, but for every pvE and PVP player that suddenly has a dead BO power. You just get a different set of complains, the problem is still there.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 39
04-24-2011, 06:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurian View Post
4000 Data Structures? Well that is quite a large amount of work.

No offense, but I find it ironic that the Dev Team is quick to nerf Efficient Impulse Engines in citing them to be Overpowered, and yet Beam Fire at Will is unquestionably Overpowered in both PvP and PvE, and it's on a lower priority than that and Season 4.

This news along with the lastest Ask Cryptic, really does not send a positive message to the PvP community. Many of the best PvPers have left and few remain. At this rate you might as well close up PvP its going to be ignored.

Ironicly the EiE has been like it is today since launch for fed and later for Klingons. So say they where quick to nerf is not even remotely true. Unless you consider 14 months quick. In which case. It has not nearly been that look with BFAW.

They said they going to fix. This take time. After all they said the Klingons would be change to also have pve content and 14 month later this is still not case. So why is BFAW should be that much more important?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 40
04-24-2011, 08:47 AM
git? cvs? Or is the engine so rigid / un-flexible? Which would indicate that it was a bad decision to start with it at the first place? It would further more, indicate that planning STO on this engine, was not done for a long run, due to overhead of man hours to fix one SINGLE skill, cause it does not make sense.
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 04:18 PM.