Go Back   Star Trek Online > Test Servers > Tribble - General Discussion and Feedback
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,192
# 11
05-02-2013, 10:12 PM
You know, if all fleet level ships had at least one universal ensign so no ship is gimped by three same ensigns, the situation would be half bad. But since devs like Geko insist that iconic ships like Galaxy are "blessed" by three engineering ensigns, these ships are just simply doomed.

It's a simple tweak, that would work wonders until you add more bridge officer abilities in season 20 or so :p

Last edited by dalnar83; 05-02-2013 at 10:16 PM.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,070
# 12
05-02-2013, 10:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by borticuscryptic View Post
I don't wanna sound dismissive by saying this, but... well, I kinda have to, cuz this sort of change just really can't happen in STO. There's far-far-far too much data attached to every iteration of a Bridge Officer Ability, for us to simply push it to a different rank.

We investigated this during the Mine Revamp that went out a few months back, and it was determined to not be technically feasible. Not impossible, just ... well, it would require breaking and then re-building a few subsystems. Like how Boffs pick their random powers, for example.

That said, many of us agree with the assertion that there aren't enough low-rank ability options for Bridge Officers. Especially for Engineers and Tacticals, since so many of their abilities share category cooldowns. It's something we would like to address, but if it does happen, it won't be for some time yet.
The other side of the token is there are many powers if you look at all the players as a whole most of them are using a basic theme of tact team 1, hazard emitters, EPS's, rapid fires or scatters, faw's or target x(system), etc. Although if you look at the ones being used like tact team 1 you most likely never see the higher abilities like TT2 or TT3 ever being used.

Now skills like the ones in this thread like Dampeners those are a heavy usage for the heavy battle cruiser users for the most part or anti disabling setups to defend against those types of attacks. The breaking and rebuilding I don't see as productive but if modifying already existing powers that do not have a role in todays or near future STO gameplay should be used as the point of change IMO.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 987
# 13
05-02-2013, 10:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
since this ability has ranks 1 and 2 with no rank 3, couldn't an AtD get added to ens, and the AtD at LT and LTC be renamed to level 2 and 3? the ability would not need to be shifted then, just renamed, but not taken from somewhere else. might as well do the same for AtB too, its in the same boat, missing a version 3 completely.

tactical just needs CSV shifted down to ENS, then its fine. or remove the 75% built in resist to knetic damage built into every shield, so torps dont SUCK anymore.
This sounds good. Just buff Current Levels 1 and 2 to 2 and 3, and put in some more powers to Ens Engy; A much needed Buff and Utility increase to engy slots.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,598
# 14
05-02-2013, 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalnar83 View Post
You know, if all fleet level ships had at least one universal ensign so no ship is gimped by three same ensigns, the situation would be half bad. But since devs like Geko insist that iconic ships like Galaxy are "blessed" by three engineering ensigns, these ships are just simply doomed.

It's a simple tweak, that would work wonders until you add more bridge officer abilities in season 20 or so :p
Heh, I have to -without the radiation- agree with dalnar on this one. I think I've agreed with him on this point in several threads. It would make for a decent place to start with things in the interim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeuxidemus001 View Post
The other side of the token is there are many powers if you look at all the players as a whole most of them are using a basic theme of tact team 1, hazard emitters, EPS's, rapid fires or scatters, faw's or target x(system), etc. Although if you look at the ones being used like tact team 1 you most likely never see the higher abilities like TT2 or TT3 ever being used.

Now skills like the ones in this thread like Dampeners those are a heavy usage for the heavy battle cruiser users for the most part or anti disabling setups to defend against those types of attacks. The breaking and rebuilding I don't see as productive but if modifying already existing powers that do not have a role in todays or near future STO gameplay should be used as the point of change IMO.
It's one of those things, where even though part of the changes were reverted for the EPtX stuff - it was still acknowledged that certain of the abilities were less attractive than others. I tend to fly flaky builds, so I'll tend to use things other folks won't - and - it can be difficult to explain some of the thoughts behind those builds...but yeah, I'd say there are a few abilities out there (/cough) that need the same kind of look that was being given to the EPtX abilities...as far as trying to make them more attractive.
Captain
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,394
# 15
05-02-2013, 11:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by borticuscryptic View Post
I don't wanna sound dismissive by saying this, but... well, I kinda have to, cuz this sort of change just really can't happen in STO. There's far-far-far too much data attached to every iteration of a Bridge Officer Ability, for us to simply push it to a different rank.

We investigated this during the Mine Revamp that went out a few months back, and it was determined to not be technically feasible. Not impossible, just ... well, it would require breaking and then re-building a few subsystems. Like how Boffs pick their random powers, for example.

That said, many of us agree with the assertion that there aren't enough low-rank ability options for Bridge Officers. Especially for Engineers and Tacticals, since so many of their abilities share category cooldowns. It's something we would like to address, but if it does happen, it won't be for some time yet.
That just sounds like what DStahl used to say about how Change X couldn't happen because the team would have to go in and alter every individual map.

Sometimes you have to do that.

I'll give you an example. As a copy editor, I've edited books. With thousands of pages. And sure, Find and Replace is helpful. But sometimes you have to roll up your sleeves and find those changes yourself and make them. By going through every single page. Takes forever. But the finished product is what counts.
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,735
# 16
05-03-2013, 08:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by borticuscryptic View Post
I don't wanna sound dismissive by saying this, but... well, I kinda have to, cuz this sort of change just really can't happen in STO. There's far-far-far too much data attached to every iteration of a Bridge Officer Ability, for us to simply push it to a different rank.

We investigated this during the Mine Revamp that went out a few months back, and it was determined to not be technically feasible. Not impossible, just ... well, it would require breaking and then re-building a few subsystems. Like how Boffs pick their random powers, for example.

That said, many of us agree with the assertion that there aren't enough low-rank ability options for Bridge Officers. Especially for Engineers and Tacticals, since so many of their abilities share category cooldowns. It's something we would like to address, but if it does happen, it won't be for some time yet.
Good to know about changing exisiting Boff powers in general.

Also great to know that eng bo heavy ships will continue to suffer......or are WAD as Geko calls it.

WHo needs all three classes to be viable, or existing toons to be competitive, not like we have per character unlocks or c-store purchases made for those .....

by all means take you time

Joined 06.10
PvP 2010-2011
PvP 2012-2013
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 777
# 17
05-03-2013, 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
remove the 75% built in resist to knetic damage built into every shield, so torps dont SUCK anymore.
This. The ridiculous kinetic resist of shields is the reason no one uses torps in this game except the special plasma based ones because they sort of partially circumvent shields. The removal of this inherent resist would also make sense canon-wise. On the shows torpedoes were fired against shielded targets countless times with full effect.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 959
# 18
05-03-2013, 09:27 AM
With all the cloaks incoming, give Engineering Ensigns "Aux To Sensors"...
_________________________________________________
[Kluless][Kold][Steel Heels][Snagtooth]
[Louis Cipher][Outta Gum][Thysa Kymbo][Spanner][Frakk]
[D'Mented][D'Licious]
Joined October 2009. READ BEFORE POSTING
Commander
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 270
# 19
05-03-2013, 11:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by naevius View Post
With all the cloaks incoming, give Engineering Ensigns "Aux To Sensors"...
We already have that (kinda) ... it's called Emergency Power to Auxiliary ... which (will) boost(s) both Perception directly as an effect of the Skill, but also through higher Aux Power, which also increases Perception.

Problem (pre)solved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by borticuscryptic View Post
I don't wanna sound dismissive by saying this, but... well, I kinda have to, cuz this sort of change just really can't happen in STO. There's far-far-far too much data attached to every iteration of a Bridge Officer Ability, for us to simply push it to a different rank.

We investigated this during the Mine Revamp that went out a few months back, and it was determined to not be technically feasible. Not impossible, just ... well, it would require breaking and then re-building a few subsystems. Like how Boffs pick their random powers, for example.
Yet another example, among many, of something that is easy to conceptualize, simple to communicate and has the added benefit of "filling a hole" left by the original game design. Unfortunately, the STRUCTURE of what you (as Devs) have to work with in the codebase is "not friendly" to the sort of intellectual plug-n-play going on with CONCEPT of what needs to happen here.

Nice idea ... implementation would be more trouble than it's worth ... unfortunately.

That said, I very much appreciate such an incredibly fast response (30 minutes! ) to my modest little proposal ... not only because you gave a clear and fairly definitive answer, but also because it shows how clearly (and closely) you're paying attention to this forum and its community. Your answer also INFORMS us, outside the development team, of the sorts of obstacles, challenges and structural hurdles you have to face on a daily basis when either making things (or more importantly, *changing things*) in this game. That ... appreciation ... for the difficulties you face is not always in evidence on our side of the screen, so thank you for that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by borticuscryptic View Post
That said, many of us agree with the assertion that there aren't enough low-rank ability options for Bridge Officers. Especially for Engineers and Tacticals, since so many of their abilities share category cooldowns. It's something we would like to address, but if it does happen, it won't be for some time yet.
Having this sort of admission/announcement made "publicly" (even if it is only to the Tribble Forum within the confines of this thread) is, in and of itself, something of a "Victory" for everyone who posted so passionately on the EPtX changes of the April 10 Tribble release which will now be partially rolled back in response to the feedback received. It *demonstrates* once again that the Development Team at Cryptic *IS LISTENING* to what the community is saying, and are taking their cues for what issues ought and need to be addressed to overcome certain bottlenecks to diversified gameplay that the community has identified (in response to the EPtX situation).

So even though you're telling me (the OP) that "sorry, we can't do what you're asking" ... I very sincerely appreciate the fact that you both ARE telling me that, that you explain WHY you're telling me that, and also make clear that you AGREE with the reason why I made the request via a Proposal in the first place ... meaning that your perception of the issue/problem aligns with mine (and the broader community reading and posting here on Tribble Forums). This lends peace of mind and a sense of security in your design goals, rather than promoting fear and paranoia in the absence of information/communication to the contrary ... so again, thank you for that.

Thank you, Borticus.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,400
# 20
05-03-2013, 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoggymack22 View Post
That just sounds like what DStahl used to say about how Change X couldn't happen because the team would have to go in and alter every individual map.

Sometimes you have to do that.
I think Bort recognizes that.

I took his statement to mean that it's not something that can get done under their current schedule and workload.

It's probably both "expensive" in manpower with a low ROI.


The only gripe I have, and this is not completely under Bort's control anyway, is that the team recognizes this issue but we still get new ships with too many Tac or Eng Ens stations.

Reference: Kumari, a ship variant that is poorly designed with not just 3 Ens powers, but also 3 Tac LT powers to fill.

Reference: Pre-change D'Deridex, given one of the worst BOFF layouts in the game and suffered a heap of negative feedback as a result.


Quote:
Originally Posted by eisenw0lf View Post
This. The ridiculous kinetic resist of shields is the reason no one uses torps in this game except the special plasma based ones because they sort of partially circumvent shields. The removal of this inherent resist would also make sense canon-wise. On the shows torpedoes were fired against shielded targets countless times with full effect.
One idea I had, which may not even be feasible, would be a sliding scale where:

Current shield facing remaining (i.e. 80%, 50%, 10%, etc) would grant a higher bonus to shield penetration the lower the shield facing up to a specified amount per torpedo.

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 10:43 PM.