Could see them adding or revamping how the engineer and science career abilities function abit. Like making it that while using eps power transfer it gives you a boost based on your highest power level, or a set of buffs based on what your sub-system power levels are for those. There is also the idea of creating more career specific abilities, and then giving us the ability to choose which three of say nine that our career has access to we want to slot an use.
Nerfing Tacs will not make Science or Engineering more fun to play. Unless you are some miserable person who gets their kicks from seeing something taken from someone else.
STO is about murdering everything. Tacs will just be less efficient at the one thing they are supposed to do. Science and Engineering will still suck at it.
The reality is, Science and Engineering need to be better at murdering stuff. They are not going to re-write the entire game to change this paradigm. They MONETIZE this concept. This is reality as it is NOW.
The most cynical event is that they will nerf Tacs, then sell that power right back in a lockbox, right next to identical powers for Engineering and Science. The end goal is homogenization and monetization alongside more pew-pew.
What they really should do is turn tac/eng/sci into specializations, so everyone can stop whining about it.
....and which one would get picked more often? 3 guesses, and the first 2 don't count. What's generally regarded as one of the best specialization combos for damage now? Temporal/Strategist. The best skill tree distribution for damage at the high end? Sci or Tac ultimate, depending on your build and career. If they made the careers specializations, Temporal/Strategist would either change to Tac/Strat or stay the same if Tac was judged to not offer enough benefit.
tl:dr It'd be like making all kit modules universal, people would just end up gravitating toward the 'best' configuration, with some deriding others for not adopting it
People always gravitate toward the best configuration. Preventing them from choosing it only produces jealous complaining.
honestly, the game is too much focused towards dealing dmg...that makes the class that is specifically designed to do that better than the other classes. The classes are still basically the same as they were when the game came out, where the idea was the "holy rpg trinity"...now that idea does not, and has never worked in STO.
Additionally, tanking or healing is kind of unnecessary or happens almost automatically with the right set of abilities, traits, doffs, ...
additionally, there are a few abilities that engi and sci captains have that have no or only limited usefulness in PVE. Nadion inversion for the engi is basically useless...this ability definately needs a buff, preferably a more direct dmg buff like maybe rate of fire increase, armor pen, no energy consumption or set max weapon power to 175.
As others have said, the engi class offers nothing really that other classes can't also get via traits, doffs, etc...
Sub nucleonic beam for the sci captain is similar, though it has a useful purpose, but its cooldown makes it rather useless in PVE.
So I'd say that adjusting the core abilities of the classes to bring them to the same level in terms of dmg potential is not a bad idea, but that would include buffs and nerfs to the classes.
Nerfing a class slows down the game. Ask Marvel 2016 (or whatever they call themselves now) how that works out.
Tac's should do more damage, and I don't care if it's by a wide margin, IF the other classes have something defining in their game play.
Make Sci Captains that use Sensor analysis on something super-improve exotic damage on that target, if not a large area around the target. Maybe have it improve all Sci skills.
When Engi Captains use command abilities, make those abilities are increased for all Engi Captains, or Engi Captains can activate two commands at the same time. Or make Engi skills for Engi Captains be all AOE and devastating. Make Static warp shell a HUGE AOE for Engi Captains, and make it strip shields in a big way, something like that.
Make it so when Class Captains match their ship class (Sci for Sci, Cruiser for Engi, Escort for Tac) they get definitive bonuses, and make Class-Related Boff powers better for those classes.
Maybe directed energy modulation for an engineer becomes a toggle, as feedback pulse does for a Sci Captain. Make "Team powers" a toggle for their class (Tac Team is a toggle for Tac Captains, Sci Team a toggle for Sci Captains, etc.)
Don't just nerf the popular class, be creative in buffing the other classes, and the game will benefit, and will require less balancing in the future.
What they really should do is turn tac/eng/sci into specializations, so everyone can stop whining about it.
....and which one would get picked more often? 3 guesses, and the first 2 don't count. What's generally regarded as one of the best specialization combos for damage now? Temporal/Strategist. The best skill tree distribution for damage at the high end? Sci or Tac ultimate, depending on your build and career. If they made the careers specializations, Temporal/Strategist would either change to Tac/Strat or stay the same if Tac was judged to not offer enough benefit.
tl:dr It'd be like making all kit modules universal, people would just end up gravitating toward the 'best' configuration, with some deriding others for not adopting it
People always gravitate toward the best configuration. Preventing them from choosing it only produces jealous complaining.
I'm not suggesting preventing anyone from picking a particular combination...implying that is reading more into my previous statement than is there.
A possible basis for class distinction would be something like an expanded version of the current coalition tactics traits:
If Engineers are, theoretically, the tank class, give them +armor and +threat for each tac and +control for each sci.
If Scientists are the healers and space magic, give them +exotic and +drain for each engineer and +healing for each tac.
If Tacs are damage, give them +speed and +defense for each engineer and +inertia and +turn for each sci.
This way, the direct boosts to damage (+exotic, +drain) and indirect (+threat, +control) are given to classes other than the one that already excels at damage, while tacs still get buffs that help them do their job. No enforced trinity, just some incentives.
Fundamentally, make each class more distinct, with a useful level of benefit that each will always provide to a team, making each class the definitive best at a given role. Granted, as long as pve is mainly about dps, tacs will still be chosen more often, but non tacs on a heavily tac team would have a place.
What they really should do is turn tac/eng/sci into specializations, so everyone can stop whining about it.
....and which one would get picked more often? 3 guesses, and the first 2 don't count. What's generally regarded as one of the best specialization combos for damage now? Temporal/Strategist. The best skill tree distribution for damage at the high end? Sci or Tac ultimate, depending on your build and career. If they made the careers specializations, Temporal/Strategist would either change to Tac/Strat or stay the same if Tac was judged to not offer enough benefit.
tl:dr It'd be like making all kit modules universal, people would just end up gravitating toward the 'best' configuration, with some deriding others for not adopting it
People always gravitate toward the best configuration. Preventing them from choosing it only produces jealous complaining.
I'm not suggesting preventing anyone from picking a particular combination...implying that is reading more into my previous statement than is there.
A possible basis for class distinction would be something like an expanded version of the current coalition tactics traits:
If Engineers are, theoretically, the tank class, give them +armor and +threat for each tac and +control for each sci.
If Scientists are the healers and space magic, give them +exotic for each engineer and +healing for each tac.
If Tacs are damage, give them +speed for each engineer and +inertia and +turn for each sci.
This way, the direct boosts to damage (+exotic) and indirect (+threat, +control) are given to classes other than the one that already excels at damage, while tacs still get buffs that help them do their job. No enforced trinity, just some incentives.
Fundamentally, make each class more distinct, with a useful level of benefit that each will always provide to a team, making each class the definitive best at a given role. Granted, as long as pve is mainly about dps, tacs will still be chosen more often, but non tacs on a heavily tac team would have a place.
Delicious.
"I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am."
Could see them adding or revamping how the engineer and science career abilities function abit. Like making it that while using eps power transfer it gives you a boost based on your highest power level, or a set of buffs based on what your sub-system power levels are for those. There is also the idea of creating more career specific abilities, and then giving us the ability to choose which three of say nine that our career has access to we want to slot an use.
Boosts based on power level at time of activation already exists as a genetic resequencer. The greater number of career-specific perks sounds like the re-work of the personal trait system when we got stuff like photonic capacitor/grace under fire/etc. Those traits added some nice benefits and one or more have become essentially standard for each career, but if they added more things like these it would almost have to be split off into a seperate category as you suggest.
It's all still wishful thinking as long as the devs are rebalancing existing abilities rather than adding new mechanics, but it's nice to dream.
The classes are still basically the same as they were when the game came out, where the idea was the "holy rpg trinity"...now that idea does not, and has never worked in STO.
Want to point out that trinity you speak of was never in the game at launch. Threat for tanking was added at a much later date as requested by players.
Baudl wrote: The classes are still basically the same as they were when the game came out, where the idea was the "holy rpg trinity"...now that idea does not, and has never worked in STO.
You wrote: Want to point out that trinity you speak of was never in the game at launch. Threat for tanking was added at a much later date as requested by players.
what is similar about these 2 chunks of words in bold and italic?
What they really should do is turn tac/eng/sci into specializations, so everyone can stop whining about it.
....and which one would get picked more often? 3 guesses, and the first 2 don't count. What's generally regarded as one of the best specialization combos for damage now? Temporal/Strategist. The best skill tree distribution for damage at the high end? Sci or Tac ultimate, depending on your build and career. If they made the careers specializations, Temporal/Strategist would either change to Tac/Strat or stay the same if Tac was judged to not offer enough benefit.
tl:dr It'd be like making all kit modules universal, people would just end up gravitating toward the 'best' configuration, with some deriding others for not adopting it
People always gravitate toward the best configuration. Preventing them from choosing it only produces jealous complaining.
I'm not suggesting preventing anyone from picking a particular combination...implying that is reading more into my previous statement than is there.
You objected to allowing players to change class based on the assumption that tac would be chosen more often. In other words, you're against letting people pick tac more.
A possible basis for class distinction would be something like an expanded version of the current coalition tactics traits:
If Engineers are, theoretically, the tank class, give them +armor and +threat for each tac and +control for each sci.
If Scientists are the healers and space magic, give them +exotic and +drain for each engineer and +healing for each tac.
If Tacs are damage, give them +speed and +defense for each engineer and +inertia and +turn for each sci.
Except...this game is nowhere near hard enough to actually require a tank class or a healer class. Any class can be built to survive, heal itself and do enough damage to win anything, all at the same time.
That's where some people have a problem with eng/sci, because excess offense is useful in speeding up the popular content but excess defense or healing is just wasted. The last thing they need is even more excess defense/healing.
Nerfing a class slows down the game. Ask Marvel 2016 (or whatever they call themselves now) how that works out.
Tac's should do more damage, and I don't care if it's by a wide margin, IF the other classes have something defining in their game play.
.
Except they don't...they haven't since people complained long long early into the game and got them nerfed to hell while Tac just kept getting better and better.
Science used to be effective...till people complained...Engineering used to be able to tank much more efficiently...till people complained...Tac used to be a glass cannon...till people complained.
Now all we have is Science that can do *okay* with niche builds...no need for Engineers at all to be honest...and a Tac that just does everything right yet they nerf everything else.
IMHO Engineers should be all about hull and shield penetration on offense. Contrary to popular belief not all engineers build sh**. In the the very real military world combat engineers breach obstacles, create obstacles, create survivability positions, handle demolitions, analyze terrain to develop engagement area or kill zones as well as general engineering.
So, anything they would know where to attack something at its weak point and thus rely on penetration rather than crit chance and severity.
Nerfing Tacs will not make Science or Engineering more fun to play. Unless you are some miserable person who gets their kicks from seeing something taken from someone else.
[...]
IMHO Engineers should be all about hull and shield penetration on offense. Contrary to popular belief not all engineers build sh**. In the the very real military world combat engineers breach obstacles, create obstacles, create survivability positions, handle demolitions, analyze terrain to develop engagement area or kill zones as well as general engineering.
So, anything they would know where to attack something at its weak point and thus rely on penetration rather than crit chance and severity.
you're contradicting yourself. indeed, engineers build all those nifty things, but who mans the sandbag bunker? who mans the .50 cal? who sticks his head out from a cover position?
imho, the engineers on STO, do very much the real stuff... they build obstacles (cover shield, mine barriers), they do demo (all types of bombs), they construct support structures (turrets, generators). so no, your point, i think, is void
I've allready said it somewhere else a few times. It's about how well you control your toon. Each class has its advantages, and some are more advantaged on specific planets then others. For example, no matter how good a tac you are, still no match for an engineer on defera. Other maps favor sci's. no problem with that. adapt. overcome.
tactical officers SHOULD be stronger than eng or sci...cause well...TACTICAL. you know, warfare, combat, damage...tactics. they'e focused on fighting, not fixing stuff, not studying yet more stuff...just fighting. they are all entirely different fields of study. why should there be equality when they are clearly different with different focus on different disciplines.
and tacs, you know, dedicated to killing stuffs...not the other 2.
What they really should do is turn tac/eng/sci into specializations, so everyone can stop whining about it.
....and which one would get picked more often? 3 guesses, and the first 2 don't count. What's generally regarded as one of the best specialization combos for damage now? Temporal/Strategist. The best skill tree distribution for damage at the high end? Sci or Tac ultimate, depending on your build and career. If they made the careers specializations, Temporal/Strategist would either change to Tac/Strat or stay the same if Tac was judged to not offer enough benefit.
tl:dr It'd be like making all kit modules universal, people would just end up gravitating toward the 'best' configuration, with some deriding others for not adopting it
People always gravitate toward the best configuration. Preventing them from choosing it only produces jealous complaining.
I'm not suggesting preventing anyone from picking a particular combination...implying that is reading more into my previous statement than is there.
You objected to allowing players to change class based on the assumption that tac would be chosen more often. In other words, you're against letting people pick tac more.
A possible basis for class distinction would be something like an expanded version of the current coalition tactics traits:
If Engineers are, theoretically, the tank class, give them +armor and +threat for each tac and +control for each sci.
If Scientists are the healers and space magic, give them +exotic and +drain for each engineer and +healing for each tac.
If Tacs are damage, give them +speed and +defense for each engineer and +inertia and +turn for each sci.
Except...this game is nowhere near hard enough to actually require a tank class or a healer class. Any class can be built to survive, heal itself and do enough damage to win anything, all at the same time.
That's where some people have a problem with eng/sci, because excess offense is useful in speeding up the popular content but excess defense or healing is just wasted. The last thing they need is even more excess defense/healing.
No, I didn't object to letting them pick tac more, I pointed out that it would be picked more if what are now distinct careers were reduced to a specialization option. Realizing that picking this new 'specialization' would become the one true way is completely seperate from saying whether or not it should exist. Personally, as you may be able to guess, I'd prefer that such an option not be the way things are done, but if it were implemented, then so be it.
tl:dr I wasn't saying people shouldn't be able to pick a given option, I was pointing out how things would go if careers = specializations.
As for the second point, those were merely suggestions about what things to buff/add for varying team compositions, they were by no means the final idea. What would you add instead, more damage? Elite content and pugs not paying attention are certainly examples currently of a situation in which more threat or control would be well served. People who queue up alts that, maybe, aren't geared well enough to solo some enemy squad and who die several times, yet berate people for leaving them to die need a good source of threat to step in to allow them to live and contribute their damage. I'd rather have all five people on my team working toward the objectives, even if the damage contributions are not equal, than have them spend half the time in respawn being a bummer with the complaints.
And, to the point of the game not needing more healing or defense, why not just make those criteria something that merits a reward? Most damage dealt, most healed, and most tanked would award an additional piece of, say, blue or better gear at the end of a run. If one person got 2 or all 3 of those categories, still give them only one item and move on down to the second-highest in the category. Give people multiple ways to specialize and contribute.
This threads gotten off track from my intent. It's turned into the same thing as others just yada yada tac is oped sci and eng is weak. What I was hoping that thier would be some ideas posted that would give alternitives to nerfing a class. I was hoping some new ideas on Sci and Eng abilites would come forth instead of the same comments that offered no new ideas. Small wonder the devs don't listen to anyone but those screaming bloody murder NERF NERF. When no new ideas are put forth they assume that those crying Nerf are right. That nobody objects to the nerf by putting new ideas out there that would fix things without a nerf hammer being used.
Absolutely everyone in STO is "dedicated to killing stuffs."
This pretty much sums of the crux of the issue in this game. That being said, the Tzenkethi PvEs are not completely pew pew fest friendly. Frankly using TBR or sneaky kamikaze tactics works way better than just pressing the spacebar like a maniac. I laugh when I pug and I see people being completely useless in TFA because or their need to blow up stuff instead of sticking to objectives the smart way.
To the OP, keep up the hope. I'm keeping an eye out when they decide to make space "more fun". Subnuc beam is completely pointless in PvE and crappy in PvP thanks to a lot of auto debuff clearing junk, so let's hope they make it fun again. There are a lot of other pointless space abilities, so who knows, maybe they'll be fun again.
Again, people need to understand that there is no trinity in this game anymore and going back to it would be too costly at this point. Even SWTOR has gone away from it. While it would be nice because good healers and tanks can pretty much do what they want because of demand. No one wants to play them because it can be hard and tedious.
you're contradicting yourself. indeed, engineers build all those nifty things, but who mans the sandbag bunker? who mans the .50 cal? who sticks his head out from a cover position?
imho, the engineers on STO, do very much the real stuff... they build obstacles (cover shield, mine barriers), they do demo (all types of bombs), they construct support structures (turrets, generators). so no, your point, i think, is void[/quote]
On ground yes but that is not applied to space, which I should have clarified.
You want to know who mans .50s and Bunkers? Everyone LOL, Support units have more heavy machine guns and Mk 19s than Infantry units LOL. Hell, a Light Combat Engineer Platoon has just as much firepower as a light infantry platoon (More if you count the amount of demolitions they are carrying).
What they really should do is turn tac/eng/sci into specializations, so everyone can stop whining about it.
....and which one would get picked more often? 3 guesses, and the first 2 don't count. What's generally regarded as one of the best specialization combos for damage now? Temporal/Strategist. The best skill tree distribution for damage at the high end? Sci or Tac ultimate, depending on your build and career. If they made the careers specializations, Temporal/Strategist would either change to Tac/Strat or stay the same if Tac was judged to not offer enough benefit.
tl:dr It'd be like making all kit modules universal, people would just end up gravitating toward the 'best' configuration, with some deriding others for not adopting it
People always gravitate toward the best configuration. Preventing them from choosing it only produces jealous complaining.
I'm not suggesting preventing anyone from picking a particular combination...implying that is reading more into my previous statement than is there.
A possible basis for class distinction would be something like an expanded version of the current coalition tactics traits:
If Engineers are, theoretically, the tank class, give them +armor and +threat for each tac and +control for each sci.
If Scientists are the healers and space magic, give them +exotic and +drain for each engineer and +healing for each tac.
If Tacs are damage, give them +speed and +defense for each engineer and +inertia and +turn for each sci.
This way, the direct boosts to damage (+exotic, +drain) and indirect (+threat, +control) are given to classes other than the one that already excels at damage, while tacs still get buffs that help them do their job. No enforced trinity, just some incentives.
Fundamentally, make each class more distinct, with a useful level of benefit that each will always provide to a team, making each class the definitive best at a given role. Granted, as long as pve is mainly about dps, tacs will still be chosen more often, but non tacs on a heavily tac team would have a place.
I didnt create an engineer for the purpose of tanking in 2010. Cryptic would need to provide class respecs.
1. Abolish TAC, ENG, SCI captain.
2. Establish 1 type, "Starship Captain"
3. Implement a system like current Starship Skills or Specialization Trees with a finite amount of points, restrictions for players to choose from. The selections possible are the current Captain Skills, probably a few new ones for more choices. The main point is the captain cannot have everything but is free to build within the confines of the max, fixed total of points to expend.
4. Done.
You would be free to build into a super-specialist or "jack of all trades" kind of captain. With a skill system like the current Starship Skills, you would be able to respec i.e. "I've got this survival oriented captain, but I want to try an all-out attack style now."
Comments
STO is about murdering everything. Tacs will just be less efficient at the one thing they are supposed to do. Science and Engineering will still suck at it.
The reality is, Science and Engineering need to be better at murdering stuff. They are not going to re-write the entire game to change this paradigm. They MONETIZE this concept. This is reality as it is NOW.
The most cynical event is that they will nerf Tacs, then sell that power right back in a lockbox, right next to identical powers for Engineering and Science. The end goal is homogenization and monetization alongside more pew-pew.
Additionally, tanking or healing is kind of unnecessary or happens almost automatically with the right set of abilities, traits, doffs, ...
additionally, there are a few abilities that engi and sci captains have that have no or only limited usefulness in PVE. Nadion inversion for the engi is basically useless...this ability definately needs a buff, preferably a more direct dmg buff like maybe rate of fire increase, armor pen, no energy consumption or set max weapon power to 175.
As others have said, the engi class offers nothing really that other classes can't also get via traits, doffs, etc...
Sub nucleonic beam for the sci captain is similar, though it has a useful purpose, but its cooldown makes it rather useless in PVE.
So I'd say that adjusting the core abilities of the classes to bring them to the same level in terms of dmg potential is not a bad idea, but that would include buffs and nerfs to the classes.
Tac's should do more damage, and I don't care if it's by a wide margin, IF the other classes have something defining in their game play.
Make Sci Captains that use Sensor analysis on something super-improve exotic damage on that target, if not a large area around the target. Maybe have it improve all Sci skills.
When Engi Captains use command abilities, make those abilities are increased for all Engi Captains, or Engi Captains can activate two commands at the same time. Or make Engi skills for Engi Captains be all AOE and devastating. Make Static warp shell a HUGE AOE for Engi Captains, and make it strip shields in a big way, something like that.
Make it so when Class Captains match their ship class (Sci for Sci, Cruiser for Engi, Escort for Tac) they get definitive bonuses, and make Class-Related Boff powers better for those classes.
Maybe directed energy modulation for an engineer becomes a toggle, as feedback pulse does for a Sci Captain. Make "Team powers" a toggle for their class (Tac Team is a toggle for Tac Captains, Sci Team a toggle for Sci Captains, etc.)
Don't just nerf the popular class, be creative in buffing the other classes, and the game will benefit, and will require less balancing in the future.
I'm not suggesting preventing anyone from picking a particular combination...implying that is reading more into my previous statement than is there.
A possible basis for class distinction would be something like an expanded version of the current coalition tactics traits:
If Engineers are, theoretically, the tank class, give them +armor and +threat for each tac and +control for each sci.
If Scientists are the healers and space magic, give them +exotic and +drain for each engineer and +healing for each tac.
If Tacs are damage, give them +speed and +defense for each engineer and +inertia and +turn for each sci.
This way, the direct boosts to damage (+exotic, +drain) and indirect (+threat, +control) are given to classes other than the one that already excels at damage, while tacs still get buffs that help them do their job. No enforced trinity, just some incentives.
Fundamentally, make each class more distinct, with a useful level of benefit that each will always provide to a team, making each class the definitive best at a given role. Granted, as long as pve is mainly about dps, tacs will still be chosen more often, but non tacs on a heavily tac team would have a place.
Delicious.
Boosts based on power level at time of activation already exists as a genetic resequencer. The greater number of career-specific perks sounds like the re-work of the personal trait system when we got stuff like photonic capacitor/grace under fire/etc. Those traits added some nice benefits and one or more have become essentially standard for each career, but if they added more things like these it would almost have to be split off into a seperate category as you suggest.
It's all still wishful thinking as long as the devs are rebalancing existing abilities rather than adding new mechanics, but it's nice to dream.
Want to point out that trinity you speak of was never in the game at launch. Threat for tanking was added at a much later date as requested by players.
what is similar about these 2 chunks of words in bold and italic?
Except...this game is nowhere near hard enough to actually require a tank class or a healer class. Any class can be built to survive, heal itself and do enough damage to win anything, all at the same time.
That's where some people have a problem with eng/sci, because excess offense is useful in speeding up the popular content but excess defense or healing is just wasted. The last thing they need is even more excess defense/healing.
Except they don't...they haven't since people complained long long early into the game and got them nerfed to hell while Tac just kept getting better and better.
Science used to be effective...till people complained...Engineering used to be able to tank much more efficiently...till people complained...Tac used to be a glass cannon...till people complained.
Now all we have is Science that can do *okay* with niche builds...no need for Engineers at all to be honest...and a Tac that just does everything right yet they nerf everything else.
So, anything they would know where to attack something at its weak point and thus rely on penetration rather than crit chance and severity.
No he doesn't
you're contradicting yourself. indeed, engineers build all those nifty things, but who mans the sandbag bunker? who mans the .50 cal? who sticks his head out from a cover position?
imho, the engineers on STO, do very much the real stuff... they build obstacles (cover shield, mine barriers), they do demo (all types of bombs), they construct support structures (turrets, generators). so no, your point, i think, is void
Exactly!
No, I didn't object to letting them pick tac more, I pointed out that it would be picked more if what are now distinct careers were reduced to a specialization option. Realizing that picking this new 'specialization' would become the one true way is completely seperate from saying whether or not it should exist. Personally, as you may be able to guess, I'd prefer that such an option not be the way things are done, but if it were implemented, then so be it.
tl:dr I wasn't saying people shouldn't be able to pick a given option, I was pointing out how things would go if careers = specializations.
As for the second point, those were merely suggestions about what things to buff/add for varying team compositions, they were by no means the final idea. What would you add instead, more damage? Elite content and pugs not paying attention are certainly examples currently of a situation in which more threat or control would be well served. People who queue up alts that, maybe, aren't geared well enough to solo some enemy squad and who die several times, yet berate people for leaving them to die need a good source of threat to step in to allow them to live and contribute their damage. I'd rather have all five people on my team working toward the objectives, even if the damage contributions are not equal, than have them spend half the time in respawn being a bummer with the complaints.
And, to the point of the game not needing more healing or defense, why not just make those criteria something that merits a reward? Most damage dealt, most healed, and most tanked would award an additional piece of, say, blue or better gear at the end of a run. If one person got 2 or all 3 of those categories, still give them only one item and move on down to the second-highest in the category. Give people multiple ways to specialize and contribute.
This pretty much sums of the crux of the issue in this game. That being said, the Tzenkethi PvEs are not completely pew pew fest friendly. Frankly using TBR or sneaky kamikaze tactics works way better than just pressing the spacebar like a maniac. I laugh when I pug and I see people being completely useless in TFA because or their need to blow up stuff instead of sticking to objectives the smart way.
To the OP, keep up the hope. I'm keeping an eye out when they decide to make space "more fun". Subnuc beam is completely pointless in PvE and crappy in PvP thanks to a lot of auto debuff clearing junk, so let's hope they make it fun again. There are a lot of other pointless space abilities, so who knows, maybe they'll be fun again.
imho, the engineers on STO, do very much the real stuff... they build obstacles (cover shield, mine barriers), they do demo (all types of bombs), they construct support structures (turrets, generators). so no, your point, i think, is void[/quote]
On ground yes but that is not applied to space, which I should have clarified.
You want to know who mans .50s and Bunkers? Everyone LOL, Support units have more heavy machine guns and Mk 19s than Infantry units LOL. Hell, a Light Combat Engineer Platoon has just as much firepower as a light infantry platoon (More if you count the amount of demolitions they are carrying).
I didnt create an engineer for the purpose of tanking in 2010. Cryptic would need to provide class respecs.
1. Abolish TAC, ENG, SCI captain.
2. Establish 1 type, "Starship Captain"
3. Implement a system like current Starship Skills or Specialization Trees with a finite amount of points, restrictions for players to choose from. The selections possible are the current Captain Skills, probably a few new ones for more choices. The main point is the captain cannot have everything but is free to build within the confines of the max, fixed total of points to expend.
4. Done.
You would be free to build into a super-specialist or "jack of all trades" kind of captain. With a skill system like the current Starship Skills, you would be able to respec i.e. "I've got this survival oriented captain, but I want to try an all-out attack style now."