| Search | Today's Post |
Archived Post's Avatar
Archived Post
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 148
# 521
02-01-2012, 03:29 PM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvs5191 View Post
I don't think this was his call and most certainly isn't his fault.

He (and the Dev team) were obviously looking at our feedback; they buffed the turn rate and responded to comments regarding a 3-3-3 console set up.

I think what happened was that someone higher up said that these ships had to be toned down (since they're free and everyone and their mother will have one) in order to make the C-Store version all the more desirable.
This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies. ~Alecto
Archived Post's Avatar
Archived Post
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 148
# 522
02-01-2012, 03:51 PM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt_Luke
This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies. ~Alecto
They are looking at the feedback, hence the original turn rate buff and 3/3/3 console idea. They may be under a blackout regarding orders that come from PW. There was a noticed lack of Dev communication during the Atari/PW transition which was likely ordered.

All of the customer feedback in the world doesn't matter if an order comes down From Above.
Archived Post's Avatar
Archived Post
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 148
# 523
02-01-2012, 03:59 PM
Reply With Quote
It's also entirely, and likely, that he doesn't have anything "good" to say. At least nothing the majority of people here would want to hear. So if you've got nothing good to say....
Archived Post's Avatar
Archived Post
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 148
# 524
02-01-2012, 04:03 PM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvs5191 View Post
I don't think this was his call and most certainly isn't his fault.

He (and the Dev team) were obviously looking at our feedback; they buffed the turn rate and responded to comments regarding a 3-3-3 console set up.

I think what happened was that someone higher up said that these ships had to be toned down (since they're free and everyone and their mother will have one) in order to make the C-Store version all the more desirable.
It didnt need to be toned down to get a plus 1 of the ship bought. Toss in a console to use or allow the G-R console to saucer separate and use of the shuttle craft and plenty would be bought just for those two features. No reason to take away the uni-ens at all. Put that back in on both the flagships and add something else like above for the plus 1's. Its not really a gift for the whole community if you nerf to the point of be less effective then the current ships. Its a Va ranked ship so it should have advantages over all Ra ships whether its free from a mission, bought from a vender or a c-store purchase. Its like giving away a Remote controlled car for free to someone then saying if you want the actually remote controller you gotta pay for it, but hey you got the car for free. Not a gift at all just a waste of space.

Truely disappointed that they would look at the feedback then nerf the universal slots on these ships. They took the best selling points away from these ships that made them versatile and appealing to alot of players. The Lt com universal is a great thing but without the ens universal its nowhere near as versatile for some of us and that is the main thing for me. The whole gotta nerf for the plus 1 version is BS plain and simple.
Archived Post's Avatar
Archived Post
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 148
# 525
02-01-2012, 04:45 PM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
of the customer feedback in the world doesn't matter if an order comes down From Above.
this, very much this (and seriously thinking that many are ignoring this crucial info )

they listened to us (why else did they buff the ships before? hmm?), but now, they're going back down because they have no other choice

Geko probably didn't have a choice (may explain the lack of explaining why they were changed again). we may not like it, but what else can we do? saying they don't listen when they clearly do does NOT help.
Archived Post's Avatar
Archived Post
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 148
# 526
02-01-2012, 05:10 PM
Reply With Quote
I've read every post over the past few hours. I considered that today must be April 1st. Nope. February 1st.

It was never stated that this testing wouldn't be applied to a +1 C-Store offering. Most of us around the forum knew one was coming. I'm also disappointed about the conservative changes to the free version. I guess that I'm just not as shocked by it. I appreciate the Admiralty's time to help test and appreciate your frustration.

That said I don't think the free Odyssey is useless to all STO player's. Just not as useful as we had hoped at the outset. As there is really ever only one Flagship of the Fleet, I'm confident ours was never intended to perform as nicely. I speculate that the Enterprise-F hero ship will likely express superior performance over that of the free Odyssey as well as a C-Store Odyssey. It only means that player's themselves shouldn't waste the name, Enterprise, on their own Odyssey.
Archived Post's Avatar
Archived Post
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 148
# 527
02-01-2012, 05:16 PM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psi'a Meese
I've read every post over the past few hours. I considered that today must be April 1st. Nope. February 1st.

It was never stated that this testing wouldn't be applied to a +1 C-Store offering. Most of us around the forum knew one was coming. I'm also disappointed about the conservative changes to the free version. I guess that I'm just not as shocked by it. I appreciate the Admiralty's time to help test and appreciate your frustration.

That said I don't think the free Odyssey is useless to all STO player's. Just not as useful as we had hoped at the outset. As there is really ever only one Flagship of the Fleet, I'm confident ours was never intended to perform as nicely. I speculate that the Enterprise-F hero ship will likely express superior performance over that of the free Odyssey as well as a C-Store Odyssey. It only means that player's themselves shouldn't waste the name, Enterprise, on their own Odyssey.
The thing is, players generally don't like it when NPC's are better than them, since most players feel that they're the star of their own show, so to speak. And the devs have generally supported that idea. Still I guess the Federation flagship isn't all that important anymore, after all it was missing during all of the key battles against the Dominion during DS9.
Archived Post's Avatar
Archived Post
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 148
# 528
02-01-2012, 05:19 PM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathan99
I just crunched the numbers.

My MVAM Prometheus in its beta command mode hits 59.2 turnrate with 2 RCS consoles. That's the most extreme example of turnrate I know that's achievable without a bug ship and I think higher than what the bugship can hit due to the MVAM +15 bonus. Its new cap would be 47.36 turnrate. Of course, that is affected by the presence of just two engineering consoles.

Let me do napkin math on the Jem'Hadar ship. Base turnrate 20. With skills, I'm estimating 26. With 4 RCS Consoles, I'm estimating it would get 63.44 turnrate. Now, with my proposed revisions... 49.58 turnrate.

Peregrine Fighter. Current, fully skilled and RCSed: 60.06. Post changes: 49.84.

B'Rel Retrofit. Current, fulled skilled and RCSed: 61.30, Post changes: 47.78.

And, for fun, an Intrepid as a benchmark. Current, fully skilled and RCSed: 31.98. Post changes: 28.73.

So if the RCS Accelerators changed from +35% each to +2, +11%, it would retain the fast turning ships as the fastest with some very subtle hiccups based on number of consoles, effectively cap turnrate as we know it to around 50 degrees per second (but, seriously, how many people besides me go that overboard with turnrate in an escort?) while making it a potentially worthwhile console for cruisers, actually worth trading defensive consoles for depending on build.
This, actually, makes a lot of sense to me. You may want to see if attention can be drawn to it outside of this thread; I think that leaving it in here risks the idea being buried beneath the reaction posts to the Odyssey changes.
Archived Post's Avatar
Archived Post
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 148
# 529
02-01-2012, 06:05 PM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suricata View Post
...
I'm aware some people are unhappy with the changes to the ship, but lets remember that this is the Tribble test server ....!
Correct me if im wrong but doesn't this ship go to holodeck tomorrow for the anniversary? If so then these changes matter right now.
Archived Post's Avatar
Archived Post
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 148
# 530
02-01-2012, 06:22 PM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revan67
Correct me if im wrong but doesn't this ship go to holodeck tomorrow for the anniversary? If so then these changes matter right now.
I doubt it matters as they are not gonna make any changes the night before they put the patch in containing the ships. But hey atleast we tried.
Reply
Page 53 of 61 « First < 343505152 53 545556 > Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

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 -8. The time now is 12:47 PM.