Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 131
03-27-2012, 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MightionNY View Post
I just logged into Tribble. My one and only field generator went from 35 percent to 18 percent. This cost my Tactical Odyssey running Aegis shields from 13,866 to 12,492. Which comes out to a loss of close to ten percent, for what it's worth.

:/
Quoting this from earlier in the thread. Depending on your skill point distribution, that seems about right. You would have lost 9.9091302% shield strength (12492/13866).
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 132
03-27-2012, 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by prom3theus View Post
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. 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.
I'm not an advocate of the nerf, nor am I a detractor of same. I am, however, advocating that we, as players, do something that Cryptic can work with: Constructive feedback. Test it in game and determine how much, how little, or even if this doesn't affect you. Then, post constructive comments towards change.

Regarding your ship, I cannot say with certainty what the final configuration changes would be. Though, the average range on the change on your shields (assuming, as you suggest, that you were using said console) should be in the range of about 10% (plus or minus depending on skills and other stats - so, 9-12.5%).
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 133
03-27-2012, 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dribyelruh View Post
Entitled much?
Not entitled at all. Why should problems some people have in a totally different playing scenario and rules structure affect gameplay in what I play? They are completely different scenarios.

The fact is that PvPers QQ louder than PvErs and in a more vitriolic way. So they get catered to. Meanwhile no MMO dev as of yet has developed a dual effects system, where PvP and PvE effects are mostly separate, making questions of balance about a trillion times easier.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 134
03-27-2012, 02:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demosthenes01101 View Post
The fact is that PvPers QQ louder than PvErs and in a more vitriolic way. So they get catered to. Meanwhile no MMO dev as of yet has developed a dual effects system, where PvP and PvE effects are mostly separate, making questions of balance about a trillion times easier.
Actually, Guild Wars (original) did this precisely. But, the large ones, to date, have not developed separate systems. (DC Universe Online has a somewhat separate system - and it will tell you which powers are different in PvE vs PvP)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 135
03-27-2012, 03:04 PM
"Increased cooldowns on some sector Duty Officer recruitment assignments."

Details please!

What Missions exactly are you talking about and how long exactly are the Cooldowns now?

I can't keep http://bit.ly/DOFFS and the DOffTrekker updated properly if you guys put generic lines like that in the Patchnotes... i need NUMBERS.

Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 136
03-27-2012, 03:09 PM
AFAICT, the only viable options are leave the field generator the same and make it unique again, or just remove it from the game entirely.

Making it non-unique just means you HAVE to fill all you science console slots with it. Nothing else even comes close to it in performance, and I see no reason that will change at half strength.

The problems with this are two-fold. (1) Other sci consoles may as well not exist. (I mean, we were almost there anyway, but with unique field generators at least we *had* to slot something in the other console slots). (2) Ships with more sci console slots are going to be strictly better than those with less. As if escorts weren't already kind of gimpy before.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 137
03-27-2012, 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntKathy
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.
Unfortunately massive threads went up when they originally decided to rip the Field Generator and I think Emitter Arrays out of Engineering to add value to Sci Console Space.

Devs = silent.

Then We were told the ones left in Engineering would be left grandfathered in, most people lost that and obviously more massive complaint threads.

Devs = silent.

Now we are 130+ posts on this issue, and while some people are just ranting there have been a lot of good suggestions.

Devs = silent.



It's really difficult to continue giving constructive feedback when you feel totally ignored, and when new patch notes go up with no mention of this issue.



Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntKathy
I'm not an advocate of the nerf, nor am I a detractor of same. I am, however, advocating that we, as players, do something that Cryptic can work with: Constructive feedback. Test it in game and determine how much, how little, or even if this doesn't affect you. Then, post constructive comments towards change.
What is there to understand and test?

You have either lost a big chunk to each shield facing (about 1k per facing for an escort for example), or you have lost available console slots to slot universals.

For PvP & Elite STFs, this means you lost a sizable chunk of survivability.

Less shield is less, less console slots are less. If you're playing PvP or doing Elite STFs you are going to feel this one way or another.



Here are the problems:


This nerf plays havoc with ship balance. Some ships can increase the benefit they have now able to slot 3 & 4 of these consoles but at the expense of places to slot universals (like my BoP, or an Oddy). Other ships get nerfed, Jem'Hadar bugship, the Bortas, etc. These ships simply lose a chunk of shielding no matter what.

Sci ships now have to make a choice between Sci effectiveness or high shields.


Here's fair. Remove the console from the entire game, level the playing field.

Then adjust shields or shield modifiers accordingly if shields are still not scaling at the endgame.

Have a trade in vendor for dilithium refund, or don't.


Marketing bonus: People now have more slots available to fit C-store consoles, potentially encouraging purchases.


Or, keep it at 35% and unique.



At least these solutions are fair to everyone, unlike the current change which is a haphazard nerf across the board.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 138
03-27-2012, 04:09 PM
I don't understand why so many people find sci consoles useless.

Flow caps significantly boosts 2 weapon type procs, omega's tet glider as well as drain sci abilities.

2x +28 consoles = 56 points freeing up valuable skill point investment which would otherwise have to be put into drain/movement debuff counters the latter being a significant investment. Granted this requires those abilities to be functional, but last I heard the movement resists did just that.

This means any player can boost offense and sub in as needed passive resists depending on what they're up against.

Tbo, I rarely ran w/the 35% console as it was, I'd rather have more applied dps (and when the time comes where the skill counters work as intended sub those in as needed).
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 139
03-27-2012, 04:54 PM
Field Generator Console mods can now be stacked.

* As such their effectiveness has been reduced.


thats ridiculous nobody will survive a coward BoP attack. Pfffffff Cryptic go home

1 Console +35% thats all we need!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 140
03-27-2012, 04:58 PM
Logic dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Many here are in agreement that the most logical thing would be to make the console 35%, and make it unique.

Few here have varying other opinions.

To be true to Star Trek, one must thus acknowledge that the needs of the many have clearly been voiced here, and outweigh the needs of the few.
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 05:58 PM.