Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > PvP Gameplay
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
In some previous discussions about Power Insulators and Shield Drains, it was noted that all shield draining abilities (including shield "damage" abilities) were lumped together in the same group of powers. All of which can should be resisted by Power Insulators.

I might be wrong, and you guys might be changing this to accomodate Power Insulators, but isn't the amount of damage done to shields, by CPB, modified by Particle Generators and not Flow Capacitors? I know this may seem nitpick-y, but I'm in the camp that believes that CPB does actual damage to shields rather than draining them. This opinion was formed simply because of the aforementioned link to Particle Generators. Shield power isn't being drained, the shields are being impacted and damaged by actual exotic-particle attacks. Isn't this the same as having Power Insulators resist the damage from PSW and GW?

Also, current shield resist abilities, like TSS, Extends and EPtS, do resist CPB (and Tac Beam). With passive resists added to active resists (that should be running as often as possible) this ability seems destined to join the HUGE lump of useless Sci abilities forming in the middle of the Pacific. As it stands, with recent nerfs/breaks/oversights, it takes at least 2 coordinated sci ships to make having them be beneficial to the team.

Are sci ships and their captains soon to be relegated to shield healing duties? Because that's the only thing we do that you haven't added a resist to... healing allies.

Of course, I might still be wrong...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
04-11-2012, 04:27 PM
if i recall correctly, bortacus said that direct shield damage, or drains as we call them, is its own damage type, separate from others that would be considered 'all energy'. insulates is supposed to be the armor against it, along with power level drains. normal shield resistance supposedly does not guard against it at all, guarding only against kinetic, proton, electric, and all energy. if i recall correctly.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
04-11-2012, 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
if i recall correctly, bortacus said that direct shield damage, or drains as we call them, is its own damage type, separate from others that would be considered 'all energy'. insulates is supposed to be the armor against it, along with power level drains. normal shield resistance supposedly does not guard against it at all, guarding only against kinetic, proton, electric, and all energy. if i recall correctly.
Except that I can see what happens when I hit the same ship with CPB when they are buffed vs when they are unbuffed. Further illustrating, in my mind, why CPB is not lumped in with other drain abilities. Maybe it is supposed to be, but it is not, and never was. In 2 years of playing as a Sci Captain I have gotten fairly good at knowing when using CPB will be devastating or when it will be utterly useless. Shield resists definitely work against CPB, and they worked against Tac Beam the last time I used it, too. That was before S5 though.

Edit: Now I see what you did there
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
04-11-2012, 04:47 PM
Quote:
Shield resists definitely work against CPB, and they worked against Tac Beam the last time I used it, too.
Shield resists do not affect CPB (on Holodeck), just tested this:

Test 1:
Intrepid
125 Aux
CPB III (According to tooltip will do 4508 shield damage)
Odyssey Sci Cruiser
80 Shield Power (Maco Mk 11)
65 Aux Power
No Buffs
12357 Shields before CPB III 7969 after CPB III (4388 shield damage)

Test 2:
Everything Same
(Shield power 102 because of EptS 2)
Buffs:
TSS 2: Reduces damage to Shields by 13%
EptS 2: Reduces damage to Shields by 24%
Reverse Shield Frequency 3: Reduce damage to Shields by 42%
12357 Shields before CPB III 7967 after CPB III (4388 shield damage)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
04-11-2012, 04:49 PM
The sad part is since the abilities would so bad, you don't really need to respec into it. For the few which will continue to use it all you need to do is swap in the PI consoles as needed. To a degree the same goes for the grav. Or only put in 3 points in each, then use 2x consoles/deflector as needed. Meanwhile someone could have 9 points in the skill, and a value well over 9 points (via consoles&deflector) to boost the skill and be useless regardless.

Also, as much as I don't like the phaser proc chaining/stacking I think I'll see more & more phasers after this, and not sure I won't switch to a regular use of phasers myself. Feds might see more Vent Theta to blind cruisers' cross heals. I may even break this out of the mothballs. In otherwords people who try not to use abusive items reguarly, may end up being forced to just to keep the matches under an hour.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
04-11-2012, 04:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmr1580 View Post
Except that I can see what happens when I hit the same ship with CPB when they are buffed vs when they are unbuffed. Further illustrating, in my mind, why CPB is not lumped in with other drain abilities. Maybe it is supposed to be, but it is not, and never was. In 2 years of playing as a Sci Captain I have gotten fairly good at knowing when using CPB will be devastating or when it will be utterly useless. Shield resists definitely work against CPB, and they worked against Tac Beam the last time I used it, too. That was before S5 though.

Edit: Now I see what you did there
i wasn't gonna claim that for sure, and was just repeating from memory i got very little sci experience, having never flown a sci ship at end game, i definitely trust someone who has seen consistent trends for the last 2 years. this is something bortacus should proboly double check.

might not be bad if there was resistance proof damage it will always deal, and then extra damage that can be resisted. currently it can be resisted about 75-90% from what the tribble tests show, making offense science non existent.

*edit
oh, well, umm i see. ya conventional resistance is a non factor
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
04-11-2012, 04:52 PM
That being said I'm very angry about the proposed changes to Power Insulators or even if they change it to Flow Capacitors sci resistance in general, what on earth are they thinking in making an entire class of ship irrelevant in PvP?

Also in high level premade PvP shield stripping is vital in getting kills (along with CPB), will there be any deaths now after this change? It will make the only viable option teams with 5 science characters none of which will be in Sci ships as SNB will have to replace CPB as a method of getting through shield resistance!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
04-11-2012, 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirourm
Shield resists do not affect CPB (on Holodeck), just tested this:

Test 1:
Intrepid
125 Aux
CPB III (According to tooltip will do 4508 shield damage)
Odyssey Sci Cruiser
80 Shield Power (Maco Mk 11)
65 Aux Power
No Buffs
12357 Shields before CPB III 7969 after CPB III (4388 shield damage)

Test 2:
Everything Same
(Shield power 102 because of EptS 2)
Buffs:
TSS 2: Reduces damage to Shields by 13%
EptS 2: Reduces damage to Shields by 24%
Reverse Shield Frequency 3: Reduce damage to Shields by 42%
12357 Shields before CPB III 7967 after CPB III (4388 shield damage)
That's why I said I might be wrong, I knew some of my info might be outdated and some things like that changed with S5. I haven't tested it, just notice things. It seems something causes it to be differently effective against the same player at 2 different times in the same match.

Regardless. My main point is that Flow Capacitors doesn't enter into the equation, and I don't believe that Power Insulators should work against 2 different sets of skills, ie: Flow Cap and Particle Generator. Either take Particle Generators out of the equation, and move it to Flow Cap or remove CPB from the skills Power Insulators resists.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
04-11-2012, 05:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirourm
That being said I'm very angry about the proposed changes to Power Insulators or even if they change it to Flow Capacitors sci resistance in general, what on earth are they thinking in making an entire class of ship irrelevant in PvP?

Also in high level premade PvP shield stripping is vital in getting kills (along with CPB), will there be any deaths now after this change? It will make the only viable option teams with 5 science characters none of which will be in Sci ships as SNB will have to replace CPB as a method of getting through shield resistance!
Maybe the question should be, "Can I haz passive resistances to Attack Patterns and Boarding Parties?"

That is not an unfair question, either.

There is not 1 single thing that a sci captain can do (other than heal and subnuke) that doesn't have a passive resist attached to it now.

Tractor Beam - Check
TBR - Check
GW - Check
PSW - Check
CPB - Check
VM - Check
TR - Check
BTS abilities - Check
SS - Check
SenScan - Check
ESyphon - Check
JS - Check

Oh wait, I forgot, MES, and yes, you can spec into detection same as cloak.

It is, in terms of nerf to effectiveness, the same as adding resists to CRF attacks, attack patterns, boarding parites and aceton field. Actually, a better example, or continued example, when comparing to engineers would be a passive skill that keeps the enemy from buffing their power levels.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
04-11-2012, 07:21 PM
I don't think its possible, but I'm not sure at this time, to have resists to everything a science ship/captain could possibly toss at you and still have a viable build. Just because its there in the tree doesn't promise that a Tactical build will be able to spend enough points in it to be meaningful. May be wrong, but that can be checked fairly easily. I say Tactical build just by way of example as it seems the least likely of the three classes to spend much in that area especially in the higher ranks.

There are passive abilities to offset Tactical Powers. They just aren't called resists. But they are there and they are significant. And if we can measure that they aren't significant then maybe they need some attention. But they are there and to say they aren't isn't correct.

Beyond skills that you can spend points on, any item that passively reduces damage directly impacts on tactical powers. This is normal and it is expected and it is also easily overlooked.

Certain Captain skills have as their only function being the reduction or healing of incoming damage. As that is the primary function of Tactical Captains, dealing damage, doesn't that seem a bit harsh on them? I understand that you were not including active abilities, and I only do so now as they are relevant if we wish to have some sense of how the classes interact.

Many of the active abilities that are used defensively by players counter two classes. Tactical, and something else. Any heal of course is a counter to Tactical's primary function. Any resist to damage, same thing. So HE gives resist and a heal. Check. It also will clear an Engineers Warp Plasma.
Polarize hull will give a resist. Check. It will also free you from a Science Tractor Beam. Aux to Structural gives a resist and a heal. Check. Transfer Shield Strength.....gives something! I'm sure you see where this is going.

If Science powers themselves are being made to be useless then that is a bad thing. Comparing it to Tactical doesn't seem to be very helpful to the cause though. In short it isn't a bad thing that there are resists or counters, passive or active, as it is clear that the other classes exist in that same world. It is bad if the counters are universal and they simply make the powers valueless.
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 11:55 PM.