Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 111
03-27-2012, 12:48 PM
I guess I'm in the minority, I think this is good. The 35% console was something everyone ran with, and that's lame and boring. Now you get more options...if you really want to be tanky, you can, but you sacrifice some stuff. If you don't want to be tanky, you don't sacrifice some stuff.

I thought a 35% buff console was just nuts. If we can live with stackable armor and tac consoles that don't buff to 35% why is the shield thing any different? Seems like now the shield consoles are in line with everything else, which is good.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 112
03-27-2012, 01:01 PM
I thought moving field generators and the regen console from eng to sci[Feb 2nd update] was to give sci more useful consoles. And it certainly helped make for stronger ships, as captains did not have to choose between an armor/alloy and shields. Now it looks like something broke to make the generators stackable so the solution is... to not fix that but nerf them to encourage ignoring all of the other sci consoles?

I remain curious how this will turn out, but it certainly appears to be an unfortunate change.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 113
03-27-2012, 01:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by prom3theus View Post
I understand your point, but man, you sound like a lawyer, lol. Their terms have nothing to do with having a fair, common sense relation with the people that pay and play a game.
Actually, yes, it does. You agreed (as did everyone that can play the game and post here) in said terms of service that anything could change at any time without notice. It's not being a lawyer, it's reading a Terms of Service agreement and doing more than simply clicking OK. It is about knowing what will and won't be allowed (on both sides). This was an explicit and implicit term: They have full right to change anything they see fit.

Am I saying I agree with the change? No. I'm not disagreeing with it either. What I am, however, saying is that you don't attribute to malice any change made. I guarantee that malicious changes will never make it into the game - only players are inferring a motive that doesn't exist.

The best way to make this change known as a bad one is not to engage in hyperbole, rants, or threats (not saying you specifically did any of them), but instead to post constructively. Point out, after testing said changes, how it impacts your game play (for better or worse). Also offer suggestions once you've tested it. These things all weigh in. Whereas casting aspersions about their motives will not.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 114
03-27-2012, 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Covenanter
Need to buff the accuracy on Faw a bit ,

1. It isn't effective enough against borg torps (PvE crowd won't like this)
2. It isn't effective enough against pets and fast moving ships (PvP Crowd won't like this)
2... PvP crowd likes this just fine... FAW deserves no extra ACC... for what. If defense is working too well after the change look at that. Artificial ACC for a Skill... come on if Faw is allowed a ACC bonus I want one on Cannon Rapid fire.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 115
03-27-2012, 01:22 PM
Well, even if FAW got a bit over-nerfed at least it will counter the OP flagships a bit.

But hell, it's FAW. If history has taught us anything, it's that FAW always finds a way to become broken and OP :p
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 116
03-27-2012, 01:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by takingbackbob View Post
is there a fix for the ready room door on the odyssey bridge in the works?
Here! Here!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 117
03-27-2012, 01:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntKathy
The best way to make this change known as a bad one is not to engage in hyperbole, rants, or threats (not saying you specifically did any of them), but instead to post constructively. Point out, after testing said changes, how it impacts your game play (for better or worse). Also offer suggestions once you've tested it. These things all weigh in. Whereas casting aspersions about their motives will not.
You don't need to test something too tell you that 50% is 50% less of 100%.

This is a bad change for PvE and PvP if you don't understand that well... 50% is 50% less of 100%.

Yes we can talk about this one on paper with out testing it because the math is pretty straight forward. A unit 95% of people use end game has been reduced by 51%... however you are now allowed to stack 2. So using 2 slots for the same effect. This is a nerf of exactly one science slot for anyone running one now if they wish to retain there current numbers..... So as too possible motives.... sure people are going to assume one of the following....

1) fixing stacking was too hard so this is the easier fix
2) the Devs feel shields numbers are off so they are realigning the unti. (of course adjusting mod numbers would be more effective and easier)
3) They are really concerned new players are dropping big game resources on second units not understanding they didn't stack. (again could be corrected by making unit unique there for not allowing the slotting of 2 which would not create a bound unit)
4) They are devaluing Ship slots on purpose too add value too future Cstore ships with additional consul slots.

Now you can argue that people should not thing evil things like option 4 all you want... however considering the change and the recent history of the unit and lack of communication. (If it was intended to stack it should have been expressed "Patch notes"... if that was the case it should have been reduced in effect then right?)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 118
03-27-2012, 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husanak View Post
You don't need to test something too tell you that 50% is 50% less of 100%.
These changes aren't happening in a vacuum. By that I mean that it isn't a massive nerf in terms of game mechanics. Assuming, for the moment, we buy your argument of (made up number of people) the use of at least one console, hard math is pointing to the effect that isn't a 50% nerf to your shields. At best, 10% actual and 25% effective.

What people often forget is that resistance consoles, coupled with shield consoles, not only turn your actual shield strength up, but your effective shield strength up. THAT would be a more compelling argument, but also one that can swing both ways (for and against the person who hates the shield console nerf).

Let's say for a moment (I'll use my Eng VA as an example) that you have both types of consoles (I have the shield console in my bag and not equipped - but let's say I have it equipped for the moment). My ship, after skills, devices, consoles, and equipment has roughly a 42% resist to all (slightly more or less depending on accolades). And a 35% increase to shields from the original shield console.

That means that I have effectively 91.7% more shield health than I do without resists or shield strength increases. 35% actual and effective of 91.7%. Following so far? (1.42 * 1.35 = 1.917)

By nerfing the console, they're not dropping your effectiveness 50% - not even effective shield strength. (1.42 * 1.18 = 1.6756). The effective is 67.56% increase vs none. (A 50% nerf to effectiveness would have actually been 1.4585 {or 45.85%} - or a console that only improved my shields by 2.71%!). Roughly, this nerf effects (at least on my cruiser) a 25% reduction in effective shield strength.

This is the top end of the (console capable) range. Those with fewer resists will see less of a delta (sci/tac vessels). Mind you, this is before set bonuses and defensive powers. In the end, however, the value is not nearly as high or significant as people are complaining and saying it to be.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 119 Illogical Change
03-27-2012, 01:50 PM
The Field generator change is illogical.

Having them stackable ruins the protection balance between the ship classes.

Making it stackable, even with a nerf, will exaggerate its importance because survivabilty is king and very few things in the game have a greater effect on that than shield cap. If you run more than one type of ship, it makes sense to get your Cap number as high as possible because it is a skill that is not dependent on Boffs(even though it will vary by ship). A high shield cap is useful on any type of ship and for any style of play.

This change will drive up the market for field generators to stupid levels. Players understand the relationship between shields and survival. Unless I am slotted into a specific role within a team for either PvP or PvE, my job is to destroy an objective with damage. The longer I stay alive, the more damage I can do. If others are doing the damage for me, then I can slot healing or science abilities to keep them alive or sap the enemies effectiveness. For the player not on a pre-made team, personal survival trumps healing and sapping.

This change will lead to a build bottle neck. When you can only slot one field generator, you are encouraged to slot other consoles to boost other science abilities leading to diversified builds and enhanced unique gameplay. However, the logical player will still stack an even a modest increase in shield cap that applies at all times instead of boosting a science ability that can be buffed and has a cooldown.

The change of the current field generator usage system is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Please let it stay as is.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 120
03-27-2012, 02:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntKathy
What people often forget is that resistance consoles, coupled with shield consoles, not only turn your actual shield strength up, but your effective shield strength up. THAT would be a more compelling argument, but also one that can swing both ways (for and against the person who hates the shield console nerf).
You do understand that there is no such thing as a shield resistance console right?

Also to be clear I believe the unit should be deleted outright.... the unit is poor game design. period. last I checked most MMOs don't have trinkets that boost your armour numbers by 35% cause it would be a nightmare too try and balance... just saying. Really too put this bad design unit in perspective... I would love too see a Hull plating Unit... not armour no a unit that boosts my ships hull by 35%... or perhaps 18%.

Cap and Resistance are not the same things... there is NO shield resist units in game... the only way to gain shield resistance is with Shield power and Boff and Captain skills that add +resistance. Well and shield natural resist which in most cases is vs one dmg type.
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 06:54 AM.