Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 21
03-14-2012, 11:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by USSEnterpiseZ
Sci Team
Well, he was only talking about the buff removal, not the cooldown effect.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 22
03-14-2012, 11:24 AM
Its a skill that should never in the game in the first place. Amongst several others.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
03-14-2012, 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naevius
Well, he was only talking about the buff removal, not the cooldown effect.
His team mates must not heal him then
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 24
03-14-2012, 11:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idali
Its a skill that should never in the game in the first place. Amongst several others.
I, for one, am glad there is a disincentive against people casting every buff at once. If it only stripped x buffs, that'd actually encourage people to cast as many as they can.

Those poor, poor sci ships.

It's the possibility of holding back some buffs just in case, using them, and then getting wiped by a SECOND SNB that I think is unfair.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 25
03-14-2012, 11:44 AM
Changing SNB without drastically changing the balance between buffed and unbuffed ships is a really bad idea in my opinion.

Now you can certainly argue that buffs are way too important in STO, but the game is the way it is. The necessity to stack buffs has been an integral part of the game so far.

I think that changing SNB to only a partial buff strip without majorly changing the rest of the game would be a bad idea. And here is why:

1) It changes SNB from an ability that a skilled player can strategically use in the right moment to a lottery ability. Click SNB and hope that it strips the shield resists and not just the residual engineering team buff or high yield and FAW? Introducing more chance-dependence to the game is a bad idea in my opinion. The player with more skill should win, not the one with more luck.

2) Stripping all buffs is necessary. Have you ever SNBed someone while he was 29s into his EPtS cycle? He nearly immediately reapplies the second copy of EPtS and you haven't gained much. Let's take a look a the usual target in a match with cross-healing that gets SNBed for maximal effect: the player will probaly have EPtS, AtSIF, TT, 2xTSS, 2xHE and maybe some damage buffs running when he is under heavy fire. Stripping only some of these buffs will leave him with enough resists to survive easily. Even when such a target gets completely buff stripped, it's not necessarily the end. If the team is fast enough, they can usually apply a second set of buffs and thus make a second full buff strip (and maybe even a third one) necessary (and these additional strips will only be successful if the attacking team can keep the damage going for this additional time).

3) It would make having as many sci players on a team as possible even more important than now. If you can only strip some buffs, you need not only one or two SNBs, you'll need four or five. Reducing the strength of the individual ability could end up shifting the class balance even further towards sci-captain-dominated teams.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
03-14-2012, 11:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by USSEnterpiseZ
His team mates must not heal him then
Yes, they do, but then comes 2nd sub nuc.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 27
03-14-2012, 11:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mancom
Changing SNB without drastically changing the balance between buffed and unbuffed ships is a really bad idea in my opinion.

Now you can certainly argue that buffs are way too important in STO, but the game is the way it is. The necessity to stack buffs has been an integral part of the game so far.

I think that changing SNB to only a partial buff strip without majorly changing the rest of the game would be a bad idea. And here is why:

1) It changes SNB from an ability that a skilled player can strategically use in the right moment to a lottery ability. Click SNB and hope that it strips the shield resists and not just the residual engineering team buff or high yield and FAW? Introducing more chance-dependence to the game is a bad idea in my opinion. The player with more skill should win, not the one with more luck.

2) Stripping all buffs is necessary. Have you ever SNBed someone while he was 29s into his EPtS cycle? He nearly immediately reapplies the second copy of EPtS and you haven't gained much. Let's take a look a the usual target in a match with cross-healing that gets SNBed for maximal effect: the player will probbaly have EPtS, AtSIF, TT, 2xTSS, 2xHE and maybe some damage buffs running when he is under heavy fire. Stripping only some of these buffs will leave him with enough resists to survive easily. Even when such a target gets completely buff stripped, it's not necessarily the end. If the team is fast enough, they can usually apply a second set of buffs and thus make a second full buff strip (and maybe even a third one) necessary (and these additional strips will only be successful if the attacking team can keep the damage going for this additional time).
I agree, perhaps my solution was too simple, but I think a consensus is that it's imba...

On your second point, removing a few buffs would make having a 2nd or 3rd sub nuc on your team important, instead of overkill.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 28
03-14-2012, 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moogleexe
I, for one, am glad there is a disincentive against people casting every buff at once. If it only stripped x buffs, that'd actually encourage people to cast as many as they can.

Those poor, poor sci ships.

It's the possibility of holding back some buffs just in case, using them, and then getting wiped by a SECOND SNB that I think is unfair.
Perhaps a better solution is to give players an ability to provide a resistance against having a buff stripped.

I agree 1000% that buff removal abilities are awesome in PVP and add a ton of strategy to the game... but there's a fine line between legit and cheese. I think that sub nuc crosses that line into being far too Gouda.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 29
03-14-2012, 11:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zahalu
Yes, they do, but then comes 2nd sub nuc.
Maybe ask them to carry extends?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 30
03-14-2012, 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zahalu
On your second point, removing a few buffs would make having a 2nd or 3rd sub nuc on your team important, instead of overkill.
The usual setup for premade teams is probably 3 sci captains, 1 engineer, 1 tactical. More sci captains could be useful, but previous tournament rules usually required a team to have one captain of each class as to not completely sideline non-sci captains.

As I wrote in the 3rd paragraph (that I edited in when you were already typing your reply), all a reduction of SNB (without changing the entire game balance at the same time, which I see no reason for) would do is make more sci captains necessary. You'd start seeing more teams with 4+ sci captains. And that's not something I'd like to see.
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 02:05 AM.