Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 121
03-27-2012, 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeroniusRex
Just to address this: we'll have a build going to Tribble today with some updates to the loot containers. It may help this issue. (If not, please let me know. )
I think a comment on the much discussed change / nerf of the Flied Generator is more needed. I really do not see what you first break it by making it stackable and overpowered to than nerf it and make it pretty much useless for escorts. While stacking certain consoles is certainly a good thing, it is also good to have some consoles not stack as this adds to teh variaty of ship configurations and options players have.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 122
03-27-2012, 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husanak View Post
You do understand that there is no such thing as a shield resistance console right?
Quite aware, but you missed my point by responding to another one. I said "Effective", not actual. Think about that for a second.

Shield health reduced by roughly 10% with this console change (slightly up or down from this number depending on your ship type) - some have higher modifiers than others. This isn't a 50% nerf as was claimed in a made up number by another poster.

Assuming for a moment that your shields have been brought down (proc, beaten down, power drained, whatever). Your consoles for resists come in at that point. One system is not independent of another when talking about your survival rate.

Assuming best case scenario: 1.18 / 1.35 (ratio of final console to original console math) = 0.874074074 (or 87.407% effectiveness). This would put the best shield scenario at having been dropped 12.6%. Hardly 50% and hardly game breaking.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 123
03-27-2012, 01:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntKathy
Keep in mind this isn't constructive feedback. Everyone agrees to the ToS when they setup their account. As a major part of that ToS, it does say that things are subject to change without warning. Everyone agrees to this provision in order to setup the account and login.

So, let's move on to more constructive feedback. What about this particular change isn't working for you and why? (This is much more likely to get it changed.)
You know I don't feed trolls
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 124
03-27-2012, 01:14 PM
People run multiple classes of ships with the same toon.

Most people either don't put in the time or do not care to spend the time to understand every console. The developers seem to be adjusting the effects of consoles all the time anyway. It is even hard for experienced players to keep up.

Players understand shields are good, shields help every class of ship, average players will always try and boost their shields over testing some complicated resistance build.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 125
03-27-2012, 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by brainfacer View Post
This probably isn't going to be a popular opinion, but it really seems like the field gens should be even weaker. The weaker the shield % gain in them, the more competition they'll get from other consoles. Cruisers, for instance, should be having to choose between these and Emitter Array consoles. I don't imagine that's a hard choice right now, even at the 18%.
For any non-sci Ship, competition from what?

Nothing competes for those slots on non-sci ships except for Universal Consoles.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mellestad View Post
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..

As a non-sci ship you get the option to gimp yourself and not run as many of these as possible, or worse, fly a ship that won't let you stack as many of these as possible or you get the option to...?

Really what is this other option non-sci ships are going to run with? All Universal consoles?

This makes what you are saying WORSE, not better.

Worse because instead of paying a 1 slot tax on a must-have item, now you pay a tax on every Sci Console slot you have available. At the minimum, the tax is now 2 slots for previous effectiveness.


Quote:
Originally Posted by synkr0nized
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.
This is where it all started.

Instead of making varied and valuable Sci Consoles that might have some appeal to non-sci Ships - they 'stole' good consoles from Engineering. Leaving a lot of players scratching their heads.

Then the console got accidentally "fixed" and stacked instead of being unique, which was obviously an out of control OP problem at 35% x2-4. On top of it, it's now a Sci console, which means no competition for anything other than Universal consoles. End result is players slotting as many of these as they can.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Husanak View Post
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?)
It's really adding insult to injury.

First we're told it will be moved from Engineering to Sci.

Then we're told the slotted consoles will get grandfathered into Engineering.

Many people lose their Eng slotted consoles anyway, no comment from the devs because they either intended it that way, or it was a happy accident for them, or they simply don't care.

Now it's moved to Sci, broken, stacking madness.

And now nerfed to half, but capable of stacking to double what it originally was on a ship like the Odyssey.


What does the next spin on the roulette wheel hold in store for this console? Only time will tell.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 126
03-27-2012, 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by USS_Ultimatum
For any non-sci Ship, competition from what?

Nothing competes for those slots on non-sci ships except for Universal Consoles.
Indeed. On my science ship, my engineering slots are where I put universal consoles. On my engineering ship, my science slots are where I put universal consoles.

Getting at the rest of your post, maybe the most logical conclusion is that in addition to the skills revamp, the item budgets for consoles (of all types) should be revisited to determine if they're all where they should be. While this is likely to cause some friction with everyone learning the balanced configuration, it would be better for the long-term health of the game.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 127
03-27-2012, 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntKathy
Quite aware, but you missed my point by responding to another one. I said "Effective", not actual. Think about that for a second.
You don't play this game a lot do you?

The system is not really the issue here. The unit was +35%... it is now +15%. That is a 51% reduction in effect of the unit. What exactly is it that your arguing... that the removed +17% isn't that big a deal in the larger picture? This is a massive change for a game that has been balanced for the last year mainly around this units bonuses. Fantastic for you that you are part of the minority that choose too not run this unit. As I have stated I would prefer they just delete the unit from the game. People will be upset both ways... at least its remove will put the job of balancing shield numbers from ship too ship shield too shield back into cryptics hands. Really though your marginalization of this units effectiveness tells me all I need to know about your understanding of the games mechanics... I'll leave this one at that.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 128
03-27-2012, 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husanak View Post
You don't play this game do you?
[sarcasm] I play another game named Star Trek online with my other Vice Admirals, obviously [/sarcasm]

Quote:
Really though your marginalization of this units effectiveness tells me all I need to know about your understanding of the games mechanics... I'll leave this one at that.
Odd, none of the concrete math (or even theorycrafted) supports your conclusions (where you made up said number) about it being game breaking. The unit is nerfed, yes. Does it mean your ship is nerfed by an equal amount: no. You can argue math all you like. You can argue that you don't want to test it and provide feedback. Those are your options. But, that doesn't make you right - nor likely the feedback will be interpreted usefully.

Test it. Provide conclusions based on your experience. THAT, they can work with. Rants, they cannot.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 129
03-27-2012, 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntKathy
[sarcasm]
Odd, none of the concrete math (or even theorycrafted) supports your conclusions (where you made up said number) about it being game breaking.
What numbers did I make up

Old Value +35% (Not a +35 that is converted with a cryptic math formula... 35%)
New Value +18%

So if your shield was
10,000 with no unit
It was 13500 with the old one
it will be 11800 with new one

This isn't exactly made up math. My point is whats too test exactly ? That I can still play the game with a 17% reduction in shield cap... well ya we all can. That is not really the point... the point I think most people are upset with is the unit was always stated too be a unique one off per ship unit... and recently after being broken quite obviously by accident, Cryptic has seen fit to revisit the unit and have decided to half the numbers of existing units and allow them too stack. (cause in retrospec if was always intended to stack?) Test What?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 130
03-27-2012, 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntKathy
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.
This it not a black and white thing. I may lend you 100 bucks, and you may agree that if you don't pay me back in 2 days, I may cut your nose, for example. Or take your house. You not paying me does not make the fact i can cut your nose legal. Not really the same thing but you get my point. In fact, you pay for a ship in cstore that can accomplish certain things, only to find out few months later that it is useless or about to be useless. And this is not because technology advances (like a new computer or car) it is because Cryptic makes it that way, not only by releasing different better ships (this only does not make the old ship worse than it was), but nerfing the existing ones too (which in fact makes it same as taking your 6 months old computer to a shop to be fixed and they change your processor to a half fast one, so you must buy a new one no matter what).

I don't plan to get into a debate, because as you said we should stay on the constructive side and not start countering eachother, even if we see things a little different. So just don't think this is my goal with this post.

I would still appreciate your thoughts about the max shield cap of a mvam versus a bortasqu command (EDIT: or BOP vs a defiant). Just curious if it seems normal to you, that's all. Or in fact normal for anybody else. Just to be clear, I don't want to win an argument, just want to see how you, as an advocate (sort of anyways) of those changes would agree with this statement.
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 05:15 PM.