Troll post. Lock the thread. It is clearly just using forum space.
I find this is ridiculous. Just because you do not share my observation and conclusions you call this a troll thread. And if you really think this is a troll thread, why are you then writing in it instead of ignoring this topic. With that state of mind someone can call all threads troll threads.
@peterconnorfirst already said everything about it
right now (at this moment) sci/eng are on top doesnt mean that tacs are weaker.its just the actual situation in the record tables and why not let them there for a while
its in the nature of abilities a tac has that he will do more dmg than eng or sci. luckily the gap is lower than it was b4 but its stil there.
OP, great thread, thank you so much for it. All the hard work finally paid off, rofl. I'll have to tell Flocki immediately. Nerf Scis and Engs... yeah, sure.
> @rattler2 said: > This is Star Trek Online. Not Tactical Character Only Club Online. > > We've been through Escorts Online, then Romulans Online, then A2B Online...
> @totenmet said: > casualsto wrote: » > > Troll post. Lock the thread. It is clearly just using forum space. > > > > > I find this is ridiculous. Just because you do not share my observation and conclusions you call this a troll thread. And if you really think this is a troll thread, why are you then writing in it instead of ignoring this topic. With that state of mind someone can call all threads troll threads.
I agree with you Tactical, by logic, shouldn’t be weaker than Science or Engineering
Troll post. Lock the thread. It is clearly just using forum space.
I find this is ridiculous. Just because you do not share my observation and conclusions you call this a troll thread. And if you really think this is a troll thread, why are you then writing in it instead of ignoring this topic. With that state of mind someone can call all threads troll threads.
Its an obvious troll thread because your spouting total nonsense that is not backed up by the facts.
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid." - Q
Everything should be nerfed!
Weapon Energy usage should be tripled.
Weapon RoF should be 1/4 of what it is now.
Damage should be cut in half.
Crew should be brought back.
All consoles should be unique.
All doffs should be unique.
Borg Ships need adaptation.
After the rebalancing, during which TAC got nerved extremely, now SCI and ENG are over powered.
DPS record tables prove it.
I would expect things being balanced after the rebalancing but now that is clearly not the case anymore. If things would be balanced TAC, SCI and ENG would perform more or less the same. It cannot be that TACs now are the weakest of the three that is totaly wrong and unnatural.
OP you must be real new around here. STO started with a HUGE nerf to Science when it launched. So much so that lots of great SCI captains left this game a while back to never come back. Science used to rule at one time STO until it was imbalanced and ESCORTS online came about. Nerfing Tacts or other space is just the latest that happened around here but it is part of nerf everything. There is no need to pick losers or winners since all has been nerfed ayways.
No. STO is in no way P2Win. Pay to Have NOW yes. As everything in the C-Store can be ground out via Dilithium Exchange, even a F2P player like myself can work their way towards even the largest of bundles.
I should know. I'm the nut who ground out both the Delta and Temporal bundles.
Calling for nerfs to engineers and science people means you stay on the bridge and don't be calling down for warp speed, more power, or anything else anytime soon. Also your little trips to the pleasure planet will have to be cleared up off ship since the doctor isn't happy. Don't even look at your science officers, they aren't happy either.
As an ENG, I am still not doing a much DPS as I used to with the Embassy Plasma consoles. This notion of nerfing SCIs and--especially--ENGs is just ridiculous. OP, if you can't get the high DPS you want, maybe you should take a look at your build, skills, and traits as well as the ship you use. Obviously, there are other TACs hitting those high DPS numbers, so if you're not, there might be something you're not doing right. That being said, if you are pulling at least 30k DPS, you are do virtually the majority of content with out much difficulty.
Strathkin said it perfectly. The tacs on the table, on average, were more successful than any science or engineering builds, aside from extreme fringe cases.
I'd like to point out on my own that they are records. They keep track of the absolute highest anyone has ever gotten ever, regardless of any random external variables, which means that, on the off chance an engineer or science captain happened to get 100% crits for an entire game, it would still be counted.
This is why it's important to get a large sample size. The averages for the top scores on STO-league clearly show that tacticals are still miles ahead of everyone else.
And one more thing. I'd like to see these tables that OP is pointing to, because I haven't seen a single source aside from one that proves him wrong.
Obvious troll is obvious.
The DPS statistics say a lot but one thing they don't do is corroborate his claim.
Same counts for ground. E.g. ENG is much stronger then TAC. DPS stats prove that too.
If it would be realy balanced as was claimed with the last revamp that should not be.
What you're talking about? I don't care about any dps charts. Where is it measured? On NTTE where you don't move out of place? Who ought to be probably the biggest DPS when not an engineer. It is obvious, if you stood on the bridge, who will have more damage, a shooter with a rifle or a sapper with explosives?
Troll post. Lock the thread. It is clearly just using forum space.
I find this is ridiculous. Just because you do not share my observation and conclusions you call this a troll thread. And if you really think this is a troll thread, why are you then writing in it instead of ignoring this topic. With that state of mind someone can call all threads troll threads.
Its an obvious troll thread because your spouting total nonsense that is not backed up by the facts.
Facts? Did you check the DPS records, I mentioned. I guess not. So dont talk to me about facts untill you have done that.
After the rebalancing, during which TAC got nerved extremely, now SCI and ENG are over powered.
DPS record tables prove it.
I would expect things being balanced after the rebalancing but now that is clearly not the case anymore. If things would be balanced TAC, SCI and ENG would perform more or less the same. It cannot be that TACs now are the weakest of the three that is totaly wrong and unnatural.
The only thing that should be 'nerfed' is the ability of people like you to create forum threads.
Strathkin said it perfectly. The tacs on the table, on average, were more successful than any science or engineering builds, aside from extreme fringe cases.
I'd like to point out on my own that they are records. They keep track of the absolute highest anyone has ever gotten ever, regardless of any random external variables, which means that, on the off chance an engineer or science captain happened to get 100% crits for an entire game, it would still be counted.
This is why it's important to get a large sample size. The averages for the top scores on STO-league clearly show that tacticals are still miles ahead of everyone else.
And one more thing. I'd like to see these tables that OP is pointing to, because I haven't seen a single source aside from one that proves him wrong.
After the rebalancing, during which TAC got nerved extremely, now SCI and ENG are over powered.
DPS record tables prove it.
I would expect things being balanced after the rebalancing but now that is clearly not the case anymore. If things would be balanced TAC, SCI and ENG would perform more or less the same. It cannot be that TACs now are the weakest of the three that is totaly wrong and unnatural.
The only thing that should be 'nerfed' is the ability of people like you to create forum threads.
Well I could also have written TAC should be boosted but, then people would complain about power creep, hence I used the word nerf.
After the rebalancing, during which TAC got nerved extremely, now SCI and ENG are over powered.
DPS record tables prove it.
I would expect things being balanced after the rebalancing but now that is clearly not the case anymore. If things would be balanced TAC, SCI and ENG would perform more or less the same. It cannot be that TACs now are the weakest of the three that is totaly wrong and unnatural.
The only thing that should be 'nerfed' is the ability of people like you to create forum threads.
Well I could also have written TAC should be boosted but, then people would complain about power creep, hence I used the word nerf.
That would be a bit better perhaps but why not just ask how the records come to be?
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
After the rebalancing, during which TAC got nerved extremely, now SCI and ENG are over powered.
DPS record tables prove it.
I would expect things being balanced after the rebalancing but now that is clearly not the case anymore. If things would be balanced TAC, SCI and ENG would perform more or less the same. It cannot be that TACs now are the weakest of the three that is totaly wrong and unnatural.
OP you must be real new around here. STO started with a HUGE nerf to Science when it launched. So much so that lots of great SCI captains left this game a while back to never come back. Science used to rule at one time STO until it was imbalanced and ESCORTS online came about. Nerfing Tacts or other space is just the latest that happened around here but it is part of nerf everything. There is no need to pick losers or winners since all has been nerfed ayways.
True, but now TACS are nerved too, and below ENG and SCI. Which is unnatural. Why should TACS have the lowest damage output dps wise?
Like help we are at war, lets keep the TACs home and send in the SCI's or ENG's. Seems to me the roles are getting mixed up in this role playing game. Like I want to be the docter but I also want to do more damage then the military.
As others have pointed out looking at the absolute highest records any career can get is giving yourself a false picture. looking at stats @peterconnorfirst gave (which reminds me, you've only said "check the DPS records" without you know actually posting stats so support your claim), what TAC is good at is steady relible DPS, which makes sense lorewise, they don't have to be able to do the highest damage record but the most relible DPS.
You have to look at averages to get a better picture as to how things are since looking at records, you allow random things going just right to corrupt your findings.
Strathkin said it perfectly. The tacs on the table, on average, were more successful than any science or engineering builds, aside from extreme fringe cases.
I'd like to point out on my own that they are records. They keep track of the absolute highest anyone has ever gotten ever, regardless of any random external variables, which means that, on the off chance an engineer or science captain happened to get 100% crits for an entire game, it would still be counted.
This is why it's important to get a large sample size. The averages for the top scores on STO-league clearly show that tacticals are still miles ahead of everyone else.
And one more thing. I'd like to see these tables that OP is pointing to, because I haven't seen a single source aside from one that proves him wrong.
The average DPS of the TACs on the list is not the right measure. Maybe more TACs have done more runs. Maybe more TACs are better in min/maxing builds etc. In those cases average DPS of TACS will be higher. (And more TAC entries will be in the higher part of the list)
The list does show that SCI and ENG when proper min/maxed do more DPS then TACs. Their highscore is higher then the best TAC.
As others have pointed out looking at the absolute highest records any career can get is giving yourself a false picture. looking at stats @peterconnorfirst gave (which reminds me, you've only said "check the DPS records" without you know actually posting stats so support your claim), what TAC is good at is steady relible DPS, which makes sense lorewise, they don't have to be able to do the highest damage record but the most relible DPS.
You have to look at averages to get a better picture as to how things are since looking at records, you allow random things going just right to corrupt your findings.
You could also say on average more people know how to min/max TAC builds then ENG and SCI. Which makes sense because for long time more people in game are TAC. Cryptic publishes once in a while some statistics which have shown that. More good TAC builds are published on the internet for people to try out.
The higest DPS currently is done by SCI second is ENG end third comes TAC. The people in the top of the ranking know extremely well how to min/max builds. So we can 99,9% be assured that those builds ar the best min/maxed builds DPS wise.
Because TAC for years dominated DPS the knowledge on min/maxing those builds is best every thing has been tried, so the TAC 3rd on the list is currently the best TAC in game DPS wise. Even then, SCI and ENG builds are now higher on the DPS ranking. ( I am not even talking about the other things ENG and SCI were already better in before, then TAC builds, like being less fragile etc)
> @totenmet said: > disqord#9557 wrote: » > > Strathkin said it perfectly. The tacs on the table, on average, were more successful than any science or engineering builds, aside from extreme fringe cases. > > I'd like to point out on my own that they are records. They keep track of the absolute highest anyone has ever gotten ever, regardless of any random external variables, which means that, on the off chance an engineer or science captain happened to get 100% crits for an entire game, it would still be counted. > > This is why it's important to get a large sample size. The averages for the top scores on STO-league clearly show that tacticals are still miles ahead of everyone else. > > And one more thing. I'd like to see these tables that OP is pointing to, because I haven't seen a single source aside from one that proves him wrong. > > > > > The average DPS of the TACs on the list is not the right measure. Maybe more TACs have done more runs. Maybe more TACs are better in min/maxing builds etc. In those cases average DPS of TACS will be higher. (And more TAC entries will be in the higher part of the list) > > The list does show that SCI and ENG when proper min/maxed do more DPS then TACs. Their highscore is higher then the best TAC.
No. The difference of 2k is not a lot, and is more likely than not a simple deviation of RNG. 100% crit chance would effectively be a double of dps or greater. That's why averages and trials are important, so you don't end up with literally random results.
And again, you aren't checking the average top records. Just because one person happened to get lucky doesn't mean that it's suddenly overpowered.
"More runs" from tacticals would actually give a more accurate measure of their current strength in the game than just one single fringe case. It's kinda something you learn in primary school during the scientific method unit. Take the average and the science and engies are still sorely lacking in comparison.
Comments
I find this is ridiculous. Just because you do not share my observation and conclusions you call this a troll thread. And if you really think this is a troll thread, why are you then writing in it instead of ignoring this topic. With that state of mind someone can call all threads troll threads.
right now (at this moment) sci/eng are on top doesnt mean that tacs are weaker.its just the actual situation in the record tables and why not let them there for a while
its in the nature of abilities a tac has that he will do more dmg than eng or sci. luckily the gap is lower than it was b4 but its stil there.
ingame: @Felisean
STO-League.com | Weapon Damage Calculator | DPS Web Tools | STO-Center Forums
> This is Star Trek Online. Not Tactical Character Only Club Online.
>
> We've been through Escorts Online, then Romulans Online, then A2B Online...
It’s pay to win online
> casualsto wrote: »
>
> Troll post. Lock the thread. It is clearly just using forum space.
>
>
>
>
> I find this is ridiculous. Just because you do not share my observation and conclusions you call this a troll thread. And if you really think this is a troll thread, why are you then writing in it instead of ignoring this topic. With that state of mind someone can call all threads troll threads.
I agree with you Tactical, by logic, shouldn’t be weaker than Science or Engineering
Its an obvious troll thread because your spouting total nonsense that is not backed up by the facts.
Weapon Energy usage should be tripled.
Weapon RoF should be 1/4 of what it is now.
Damage should be cut in half.
Crew should be brought back.
All consoles should be unique.
All doffs should be unique.
Borg Ships need adaptation.
OP you must be real new around here. STO started with a HUGE nerf to Science when it launched. So much so that lots of great SCI captains left this game a while back to never come back. Science used to rule at one time STO until it was imbalanced and ESCORTS online came about. Nerfing Tacts or other space is just the latest that happened around here but it is part of nerf everything. There is no need to pick losers or winners since all has been nerfed ayways.
Some historical perspective:
https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline/#/discussion/956618/science-nerf
https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline/#/discussion/953034/science-nerfed
https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline/#/discussion/1041040/science-ship-nerf
https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline/#/discussion/948498/anyone-else-get-the-impression-cryptic-doesnt-like-science-officers-or-ships
https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline/#/discussion/1231000/session-13-makes-science-class-absolutly-unplayable
https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline/#/discussion/comment/12865184
No. STO is in no way P2Win. Pay to Have NOW yes. As everything in the C-Store can be ground out via Dilithium Exchange, even a F2P player like myself can work their way towards even the largest of bundles.
I should know. I'm the nut who ground out both the Delta and Temporal bundles.
I'd like to point out on my own that they are records. They keep track of the absolute highest anyone has ever gotten ever, regardless of any random external variables, which means that, on the off chance an engineer or science captain happened to get 100% crits for an entire game, it would still be counted.
This is why it's important to get a large sample size. The averages for the top scores on STO-league clearly show that tacticals are still miles ahead of everyone else.
And one more thing. I'd like to see these tables that OP is pointing to, because I haven't seen a single source aside from one that proves him wrong.
What you're talking about? I don't care about any dps charts. Where is it measured? On NTTE where you don't move out of place? Who ought to be probably the biggest DPS when not an engineer. It is obvious, if you stood on the bridge, who will have more damage, a shooter with a rifle or a sapper with explosives?
Facts? Did you check the DPS records, I mentioned. I guess not. So dont talk to me about facts untill you have done that.
The only thing that should be 'nerfed' is the ability of people like you to create forum threads.
Well the dps tables show that:
Well I could also have written TAC should be boosted but, then people would complain about power creep, hence I used the word nerf.
That would be a bit better perhaps but why not just ask how the records come to be?
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
True, but now TACS are nerved too, and below ENG and SCI. Which is unnatural. Why should TACS have the lowest damage output dps wise?
Like help we are at war, lets keep the TACs home and send in the SCI's or ENG's. Seems to me the roles are getting mixed up in this role playing game. Like I want to be the docter but I also want to do more damage then the military.
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
You have to look at averages to get a better picture as to how things are since looking at records, you allow random things going just right to corrupt your findings.
The average DPS of the TACs on the list is not the right measure. Maybe more TACs have done more runs. Maybe more TACs are better in min/maxing builds etc. In those cases average DPS of TACS will be higher. (And more TAC entries will be in the higher part of the list)
The list does show that SCI and ENG when proper min/maxed do more DPS then TACs. Their highscore is higher then the best TAC.
> Is it possible in Vanilla that post form certain users may not be visible to the OP?
Pretty certain.
Anyway, there's a reason why we call Sci and Eng records Paralympics.
STO-League.com | Weapon Damage Calculator | DPS Web Tools | STO-Center Forums
You could also say on average more people know how to min/max TAC builds then ENG and SCI. Which makes sense because for long time more people in game are TAC. Cryptic publishes once in a while some statistics which have shown that. More good TAC builds are published on the internet for people to try out.
The higest DPS currently is done by SCI second is ENG end third comes TAC. The people in the top of the ranking know extremely well how to min/max builds. So we can 99,9% be assured that those builds ar the best min/maxed builds DPS wise.
Because TAC for years dominated DPS the knowledge on min/maxing those builds is best every thing has been tried, so the TAC 3rd on the list is currently the best TAC in game DPS wise. Even then, SCI and ENG builds are now higher on the DPS ranking. ( I am not even talking about the other things ENG and SCI were already better in before, then TAC builds, like being less fragile etc)
> disqord#9557 wrote: »
>
> Strathkin said it perfectly. The tacs on the table, on average, were more successful than any science or engineering builds, aside from extreme fringe cases.
>
> I'd like to point out on my own that they are records. They keep track of the absolute highest anyone has ever gotten ever, regardless of any random external variables, which means that, on the off chance an engineer or science captain happened to get 100% crits for an entire game, it would still be counted.
>
> This is why it's important to get a large sample size. The averages for the top scores on STO-league clearly show that tacticals are still miles ahead of everyone else.
>
> And one more thing. I'd like to see these tables that OP is pointing to, because I haven't seen a single source aside from one that proves him wrong.
>
>
>
>
> The average DPS of the TACs on the list is not the right measure. Maybe more TACs have done more runs. Maybe more TACs are better in min/maxing builds etc. In those cases average DPS of TACS will be higher. (And more TAC entries will be in the higher part of the list)
>
> The list does show that SCI and ENG when proper min/maxed do more DPS then TACs. Their highscore is higher then the best TAC.
No. The difference of 2k is not a lot, and is more likely than not a simple deviation of RNG. 100% crit chance would effectively be a double of dps or greater. That's why averages and trials are important, so you don't end up with literally random results.
And again, you aren't checking the average top records. Just because one person happened to get lucky doesn't mean that it's suddenly overpowered.
"More runs" from tacticals would actually give a more accurate measure of their current strength in the game than just one single fringe case. It's kinda something you learn in primary school during the scientific method unit. Take the average and the science and engies are still sorely lacking in comparison.