You do understand that there is no such thing as a shield resistance console right?
Quite aware, but you missed my point by responding to another one. I said "Effective", not actual. Think about that for a second.
Shield health reduced by roughly 10% with this console change (slightly up or down from this number depending on your ship type) - some have higher modifiers than others. This isn't a 50% nerf as was claimed in a made up number by another poster.
Assuming for a moment that your shields have been brought down (proc, beaten down, power drained, whatever). Your consoles for resists come in at that point. One system is not independent of another when talking about your survival rate.
Assuming best case scenario: 1.18 / 1.35 (ratio of final console to original console math) = 0.874074074 (or 87.407% effectiveness). This would put the best shield scenario at having been dropped 12.6%. Hardly 50% and hardly game breaking.
Keep in mind this isn't constructive feedback. Everyone agrees to the ToS when they setup their account. As a major part of that ToS, it does say that things are subject to change without warning. Everyone agrees to this provision in order to setup the account and login.
So, let's move on to more constructive feedback. What about this particular change isn't working for you and why? (This is much more likely to get it changed.)
People run multiple classes of ships with the same toon.
Most people either don't put in the time or do not care to spend the time to understand every console. The developers seem to be adjusting the effects of consoles all the time anyway. It is even hard for experienced players to keep up.
Players understand shields are good, shields help every class of ship, average players will always try and boost their shields over testing some complicated resistance build.
This probably isn't going to be a popular opinion, but it really seems like the field gens should be even weaker. The weaker the shield % gain in them, the more competition they'll get from other consoles. Cruisers, for instance, should be having to choose between these and Emitter Array consoles. I don't imagine that's a hard choice right now, even at the 18%.
For any non-sci Ship, competition from what?
Nothing competes for those slots on non-sci ships except for Universal Consoles.
I guess I'm in the minority, I think this is good. The 35% console was something everyone ran with, and that's lame and boring. Now you get more options..
As a non-sci ship you get the option to gimp yourself and not run as many of these as possible, or worse, fly a ship that won't let you stack as many of these as possible or you get the option to...?
Really what is this other option non-sci ships are going to run with? All Universal consoles?
This makes what you are saying WORSE, not better.
Worse because instead of paying a 1 slot tax on a must-have item, now you pay a tax on every Sci Console slot you have available. At the minimum, the tax is now 2 slots for previous effectiveness.
I thought moving field generators and the regen console from eng to sci[Feb 2nd update] was to give sci more useful consoles. And it certainly helped make for stronger ships, as captains did not have to choose between an armor/alloy and shields. Now it looks like something broke to make the generators stackable so the solution is... to not fix that but nerf them to encourage ignoring all of the other sci consoles?
I remain curious how this will turn out, but it certainly appears to be an unfortunate change.
This is where it all started.
Instead of making varied and valuable Sci Consoles that might have some appeal to non-sci Ships - they 'stole' good consoles from Engineering. Leaving a lot of players scratching their heads.
Then the console got accidentally "fixed" and stacked instead of being unique, which was obviously an out of control OP problem at 35% x2-4. On top of it, it's now a Sci console, which means no competition for anything other than Universal consoles. End result is players slotting as many of these as they can.
1) fixing stacking was too hard so this is the easier fix
2) the Devs feel shields numbers are off so they are realigning the unti. (of course adjusting mod numbers would be more effective and easier)
3) They are really concerned new players are dropping big game resources on second units not understanding they didn't stack. (again could be corrected by making unit unique there for not allowing the slotting of 2 which would not create a bound unit)
4) They are devaluing Ship slots on purpose too add value too future Cstore ships with additional consul slots.
Now you can argue that people should not thing evil things like option 4 all you want... however considering the change and the recent history of the unit and lack of communication. (If it was intended to stack it should have been expressed "Patch notes"... if that was the case it should have been reduced in effect then right?)
It's really adding insult to injury.
First we're told it will be moved from Engineering to Sci.
Then we're told the slotted consoles will get grandfathered into Engineering.
Many people lose their Eng slotted consoles anyway, no comment from the devs because they either intended it that way, or it was a happy accident for them, or they simply don't care.
Now it's moved to Sci, broken, stacking madness.
And now nerfed to half, but capable of stacking to double what it originally was on a ship like the Odyssey.
What does the next spin on the roulette wheel hold in store for this console? Only time will tell. :rolleyes:
Nothing competes for those slots on non-sci ships except for Universal Consoles.
Indeed. On my science ship, my engineering slots are where I put universal consoles. On my engineering ship, my science slots are where I put universal consoles.
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.
Quite aware, but you missed my point by responding to another one. I said "Effective", not actual. Think about that for a second.
You don't play this game a lot do you?
The system is not really the issue here. The unit was +35%... it is now +15%. That is a 51% reduction in effect of the unit. What exactly is it that your arguing... that the removed +17% isn't that big a deal in the larger picture? This is a massive change for a game that has been balanced for the last year mainly around this units bonuses. Fantastic for you that you are part of the minority that choose too not run this unit. As I have stated I would prefer they just delete the unit from the game. People will be upset both ways... at least its remove will put the job of balancing shield numbers from ship too ship shield too shield back into cryptics hands. Really though your marginalization of this units effectiveness tells me all I need to know about your understanding of the games mechanics... I'll leave this one at that.
[sarcasm] I play another game named Star Trek online with my other Vice Admirals, obviously [/sarcasm]
Really though your marginalization of this units effectiveness tells me all I need to know about your understanding of the games mechanics... I'll leave this one at that.
Odd, none of the concrete math (or even theorycrafted) supports your conclusions (where you made up said number) about it being game breaking. The unit is nerfed, yes. Does it mean your ship is nerfed by an equal amount: no. You can argue math all you like. You can argue that you don't want to test it and provide feedback. Those are your options. But, that doesn't make you right - nor likely the feedback will be interpreted usefully.
Test it. Provide conclusions based on your experience. THAT, they can work with. Rants, they cannot.
[sarcasm]
Odd, none of the concrete math (or even theorycrafted) supports your conclusions (where you made up said number) about it being game breaking.
What numbers did I make up
Old Value +35% (Not a +35 that is converted with a cryptic math formula... 35%)
New Value +18%
So if your shield was
10,000 with no unit
It was 13500 with the old one
it will be 11800 with new one
This isn't exactly made up math. My point is whats too test exactly ? That I can still play the game with a 17% reduction in shield cap... well ya we all can. That is not really the point... the point I think most people are upset with is the unit was always stated too be a unique one off per ship unit... and recently after being broken quite obviously by accident, Cryptic has seen fit to revisit the unit and have decided to half the numbers of existing units and allow them too stack. (cause in retrospec if was always intended to stack?) Test What?
Actually, yes, it does. You agreed (as did everyone that can play the game and post here) in said terms of service that anything could change at any time without notice. It's not being a lawyer, it's reading a Terms of Service agreement and doing more than simply clicking OK. It is about knowing what will and won't be allowed (on both sides). This was an explicit and implicit term: They have full right to change anything they see fit.
Am I saying I agree with the change? No. I'm not disagreeing with it either. What I am, however, saying is that you don't attribute to malice any change made. I guarantee that malicious changes will never make it into the game - only players are inferring a motive that doesn't exist.
The best way to make this change known as a bad one is not to engage in hyperbole, rants, or threats (not saying you specifically did any of them), but instead to post constructively. Point out, after testing said changes, how it impacts your game play (for better or worse). Also offer suggestions once you've tested it. These things all weigh in. Whereas casting aspersions about their motives will not.
This it not a black and white thing. I may lend you 100 bucks, and you may agree that if you don't pay me back in 2 days, I may cut your nose, for example. Or take your house. You not paying me does not make the fact i can cut your nose legal. Not really the same thing but you get my point. In fact, you pay for a ship in cstore that can accomplish certain things, only to find out few months later that it is useless or about to be useless. And this is not because technology advances (like a new computer or car) it is because Cryptic makes it that way, not only by releasing different better ships (this only does not make the old ship worse than it was), but nerfing the existing ones too (which in fact makes it same as taking your 6 months old computer to a shop to be fixed and they change your processor to a half fast one, so you must buy a new one no matter what).
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 (EDIT: or BOP vs a defiant). 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 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).
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%).
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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).
Actually, yes, it does. You agreed (as did everyone that can play the game and post here) in said terms of service that anything could change at any time without notice. It's not being a lawyer, it's reading a Terms of Service agreement and doing more than simply clicking OK. It is about knowing what will and won't be allowed (on both sides). This was an explicit and implicit term: They have full right to change anything they see fit.
In theory they can change anything at any time, but in practice any change that can be construed as misleading or deceiving customers (i.e knowingly leading customers to expect something different from what is delivered) constitutes a breach of contract.
Anyway, that said, something does need to be done about there now being an incentive to dispense with all other Science consoles in favor of multiple Field Generators. Perhaps it is not the Field Generators that are too strong, but the skill-buffing Science consoles that are now too weak to compete? The fact that many players were using Science console slots as "dump slots" for Universal consoles already speaks for many Science consoles being perceived as less useful.
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.
So far, with few exceptions, this thread doesn't much qualify. MightionNY posted his actual in-game numbers. This isn't a massive nerf in terms of the game. (Indeed, less than 10% of shield effective strength loss.)
Yes, the console nerf is pretty big. But, it isn't the only factor. A 50% (or 49 point something nerf) on a console does not translate to a 50% survival nerf. Indeed, the highest numbers (avoiding power usage) still come out as no more than 25% in the far edge case scenario (with a 10-13% range for most other folks).
As far as I can tell, the biggest hit by this isn't the tac/sci ships that people feared - it's the cruisers (but the delta here is only 1-3%, not a huge number).
What is there to understand and test?
See MightionNY's post in this thread (I also quoted it on page 14 of this thread for a reminder). Do the same in game. It isn't as big as people are making it out to be.
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.
Ultimately, this still translates to mostly a universal drop for anyone using any number of these consoles. Isn't it the point to be required to make a trade-off? If there's no benefit or loss to doing something, there's little point in engaging in it (or against it). So far, this won't be a compelling argument for them to make a change.
What would be a compelling argument then? Play it on Tribble and say, "Hey, my survivability is drastically lower than it was pre-nerf" and provide a reproducible set of things for them to test and confirm (to verify that either new bugs haven't been introduced and/or that the changes made are causing unforeseen problems).
Tribble is what developers and QA would call UAT. UAT means "User Acceptance Testing" or "beta" for the layman. This is a destructible environment for them to make changes and test them. Indeed, it allows you as a user to do that. So far, only a couple of people have actually tested it and everyone else is launching into theoretical arguments about how bad it is. Only one set of data can Cryptic work with (those who actually tested it and can provide feedback).
Providing solutions to the nerf is fine, provided testing is done to confirm/deny conclusions related to said hypotheses. I'm actually trying to give everyone the best shot at getting what they want and the feedback routed to the people who can affect said changes. Yet, oddly, this is getting more resistance, not less. Would it have been better to simply say, "Yeah, me too", "Not me", or instead said, "Here's the format that makes the most sense to the ones who can make the changes and puts it in a context they can work with"? I'll choose the latter every time. (And it has indeed gotten results with Borticus and Heretic this week even.)
Actually IMO the Science ships are getting hurt the most with this change... Cruisers can still count on their hull to keep them alive...
Science ships count on their shields as their hull is paper thin. The console plus their innate shield bonus is what keeps them alive...
A 10% drop in shields affects this greatly against enemies like the Borg who can cut through shields.
A lot of long timer players can see the end result with just the numbers. We're just asking for them to revert the current changes, nothing drastic.....
I really.... REALLy don't like stacking field generators... ..
keep them the way they are... I don't have the luxury of 10 science console slots
why do you guys have to mess with a good thing... because you don't want to properly fix the torp consoles?
is this like the decloak bug when any interaction that you deem necessary should decloak a player? Remember that you made that statement because you didn't want to fix the decloak bug for every map.. you took the easy way out.
Please don't change the console!
P.S. do you think I need to be decloaked from an interactive message in an STF letting me know what I am supposed to do after the 100's of runs you have put me through? This is as absurd as a nerfed field generator console that is now stackable.
heres how you handle this cryptic, without the PR nightmare and improve the game at the same time.
step 1 give every single shield a capacity boost of 35%.
step 2 turn the field generator into a shield armor console that buffs resistance, and give it the same diminishing return hull armor consoles have
the result is you haven't taken anything away from the player, thus avoided rage, and gave them something new at the same time, thus creating anti rage lol. wile also eliminating the problems you had with the console
a. not stacking like every other console
b. being too strong when stacking of it was enabled to achieve uniformity
c. thus 'forcing' you to nerf it, and now everyone hates you, again
Not every ship will benefit, if you read the other previous posts...Ships with 1 & 2 Sci-console(s) will be at a loss.
And oh yes, it can give more options, if you have Sci-slots of 3 or more. But again not every ship has that luxury.
And for others, they may have equipped something else that helps to keep the ship functional for a while longer. This change is forcing the breaking of the builds that many have streneously tested over time. And sometime to get the better rewards most play on Elite mode, may it be PvE or STF. Every extra additional means a high chance of surviving the battle outright.
I guess I'm in the minority, I think this is good. The 35% console was something everyone ran with, and that's lame and boring. Now you get more options...if you really want to be tanky, you can, but you sacrifice some stuff. If you don't want to be tanky, you don't sacrifice some stuff.
I thought a 35% buff console was just nuts. If we can live with stackable armor and tac consoles that don't buff to 35% why is the shield thing any different? Seems like now the shield consoles are in line with everything else, which is good.
@AuntKathy: you are absolutely right in regards to feedback based on each ones test on tribble. This is how we should base every feedback. Seriously, that was a good point! But, what bothers me is not only the shield loss and imballance this adds, most annoying is that if you want shield, you need to stack, thus occupying other precious console space. And that's valid for every ship. Maybe the best benefits pvp wise is on the bop-s. they have the lowest shields anyways and this is maybe a good reason to dump the cap console for good. You can cloak every 20 secs as long as you have a hold counter handy to avoid surprises. I usually fly a bop but still, I do not agree with the change because of the reasons mentioned above.
@lamid: in other post I made a statement saying the sci consoles are almost useless. I was wrong, there are few very good ones, depending on your spec. Flow capacitors is one of them. Considering this change, I may decide to equip 3 of them and just dump the shield cap one. Also the one that boosts cpb (forgot the name) is decent. But the fact sci consoles are useful is an argument to consider dumping the whole shield cap console, or, lower it 10%, or just leave as it was even if only because everybody got used/comfortable to it. I really think other things should have priority Over this shield cap console.
Leave the dang +35% shield consoles ALONE! and remove the stacking ability!! Why must you do this when the majority doesn't want it? This is so messed up...
Always have to wreck a good thing...
:mad::mad::mad::mad:
I love tanking in my escort. Like someone said, they are nerfing builds that many have put time and long testing hours to build, myself included. Whether it be for PvE or PvP, isn't that what its about, putting time and effort into the game to be the best you can be in whatever you choose to do? Find what works the best and go with it. I guess this is just their way of saying, Hey, you mastered it, passed it on to others, now its a game changer and it has to be nerfed...
I really.... REALLy don't like stacking field generators... ..
keep them the way they are... I don't have the luxury of 10 science console slots
why do you guys have to mess with a good thing... because you don't want to properly fix the torp consoles?
is this like the decloak bug when any interaction that you deem necessary should decloak a player? Remember that you made that statement because you didn't want to fix the decloak bug for every map.. you took the easy way out.
Please don't change the console!
P.S. do you think I need to be decloaked from an interactive message in an STF letting me know what I am supposed to do after the 100's of runs you have put me through? This is as absurd as a nerfed field generator console that is now stackable.
After they fix every single tooltip in the game(and yes, that's sarcasm cryptic ), maybe they will see if they have time to address cloaking issues, most annoying being faw targeting cloaked ships, which I doubt is part of the faw fix on tribble. Id like to test that though before I make any assumptions, but haven't seen this in any release notes.
@AuntKathy out of curiosity are you always so methodical? Every post from you is bullet proof logical. After looking at the numbers it the change doesn't really worry me too much.
However I am actually surprised that people would prefer to have one unique must have +35% generator versus just constructively advocating that the Developers rework shield scaling with a "fix it" script. Surely with all the good joy of object oriented programming and inheritance the formulas for the shields are simply an inherited class... Only the set items and one off items (Reman, Pantrinic etc) would need some special care.
If the all shield capacity increased by 35% (or other cryptic devised number) the entire player base would benefit by having another console slot.
My desire to have the generator removed from the game is solely based on the fact it provides a massive bonus with no downside. Regeration consoles don't give nearly the same level of increase to regen. The borg assimilated console is in the same group IMHO. No one console should be a "must have" for nearly all the player base.
I'm glad it was nerfed personally but it seems like a messy compromise to an already messy situation.
Comments
Quite aware, but you missed my point by responding to another one. I said "Effective", not actual. Think about that for a second.
Shield health reduced by roughly 10% with this console change (slightly up or down from this number depending on your ship type) - some have higher modifiers than others. This isn't a 50% nerf as was claimed in a made up number by another poster.
Assuming for a moment that your shields have been brought down (proc, beaten down, power drained, whatever). Your consoles for resists come in at that point. One system is not independent of another when talking about your survival rate.
Assuming best case scenario: 1.18 / 1.35 (ratio of final console to original console math) = 0.874074074 (or 87.407% effectiveness). This would put the best shield scenario at having been dropped 12.6%. Hardly 50% and hardly game breaking.
You know I don't feed trolls
Most people either don't put in the time or do not care to spend the time to understand every console. The developers seem to be adjusting the effects of consoles all the time anyway. It is even hard for experienced players to keep up.
Players understand shields are good, shields help every class of ship, average players will always try and boost their shields over testing some complicated resistance build.
For any non-sci Ship, competition from what?
Nothing competes for those slots on non-sci ships except for Universal Consoles.
As a non-sci ship you get the option to gimp yourself and not run as many of these as possible, or worse, fly a ship that won't let you stack as many of these as possible or you get the option to...?
Really what is this other option non-sci ships are going to run with? All Universal consoles?
This makes what you are saying WORSE, not better.
Worse because instead of paying a 1 slot tax on a must-have item, now you pay a tax on every Sci Console slot you have available. At the minimum, the tax is now 2 slots for previous effectiveness.
This is where it all started.
Instead of making varied and valuable Sci Consoles that might have some appeal to non-sci Ships - they 'stole' good consoles from Engineering. Leaving a lot of players scratching their heads.
Then the console got accidentally "fixed" and stacked instead of being unique, which was obviously an out of control OP problem at 35% x2-4. On top of it, it's now a Sci console, which means no competition for anything other than Universal consoles. End result is players slotting as many of these as they can.
It's really adding insult to injury.
First we're told it will be moved from Engineering to Sci.
Then we're told the slotted consoles will get grandfathered into Engineering.
Many people lose their Eng slotted consoles anyway, no comment from the devs because they either intended it that way, or it was a happy accident for them, or they simply don't care.
Now it's moved to Sci, broken, stacking madness.
And now nerfed to half, but capable of stacking to double what it originally was on a ship like the Odyssey.
What does the next spin on the roulette wheel hold in store for this console? Only time will tell. :rolleyes:
Indeed. On my science ship, my engineering slots are where I put universal consoles. On my engineering ship, my science slots are where I put universal consoles.
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.
You don't play this game a lot do you?
The system is not really the issue here. The unit was +35%... it is now +15%. That is a 51% reduction in effect of the unit. What exactly is it that your arguing... that the removed +17% isn't that big a deal in the larger picture? This is a massive change for a game that has been balanced for the last year mainly around this units bonuses. Fantastic for you that you are part of the minority that choose too not run this unit. As I have stated I would prefer they just delete the unit from the game. People will be upset both ways... at least its remove will put the job of balancing shield numbers from ship too ship shield too shield back into cryptics hands. Really though your marginalization of this units effectiveness tells me all I need to know about your understanding of the games mechanics... I'll leave this one at that.
[sarcasm] I play another game named Star Trek online with my other Vice Admirals, obviously [/sarcasm]
Odd, none of the concrete math (or even theorycrafted) supports your conclusions (where you made up said number) about it being game breaking. The unit is nerfed, yes. Does it mean your ship is nerfed by an equal amount: no. You can argue math all you like. You can argue that you don't want to test it and provide feedback. Those are your options. But, that doesn't make you right - nor likely the feedback will be interpreted usefully.
Test it. Provide conclusions based on your experience. THAT, they can work with. Rants, they cannot.
What numbers did I make up
Old Value +35% (Not a +35 that is converted with a cryptic math formula... 35%)
New Value +18%
So if your shield was
10,000 with no unit
It was 13500 with the old one
it will be 11800 with new one
This isn't exactly made up math. My point is whats too test exactly ? That I can still play the game with a 17% reduction in shield cap... well ya we all can. That is not really the point... the point I think most people are upset with is the unit was always stated too be a unique one off per ship unit... and recently after being broken quite obviously by accident, Cryptic has seen fit to revisit the unit and have decided to half the numbers of existing units and allow them too stack. (cause in retrospec if was always intended to stack?) Test What?
This it not a black and white thing. I may lend you 100 bucks, and you may agree that if you don't pay me back in 2 days, I may cut your nose, for example. Or take your house. You not paying me does not make the fact i can cut your nose legal. Not really the same thing but you get my point. In fact, you pay for a ship in cstore that can accomplish certain things, only to find out few months later that it is useless or about to be useless. And this is not because technology advances (like a new computer or car) it is because Cryptic makes it that way, not only by releasing different better ships (this only does not make the old ship worse than it was), but nerfing the existing ones too (which in fact makes it same as taking your 6 months old computer to a shop to be fixed and they change your processor to a half fast one, so you must buy a new one no matter what).
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 (EDIT: or BOP vs a defiant). 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.
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).
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%).
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
* 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!
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.
In theory they can change anything at any time, but in practice any change that can be construed as misleading or deceiving customers (i.e knowingly leading customers to expect something different from what is delivered) constitutes a breach of contract.
Anyway, that said, something does need to be done about there now being an incentive to dispense with all other Science consoles in favor of multiple Field Generators. Perhaps it is not the Field Generators that are too strong, but the skill-buffing Science consoles that are now too weak to compete? The fact that many players were using Science console slots as "dump slots" for Universal consoles already speaks for many Science consoles being perceived as less useful.
What we want isn't unreasonable, we're asking for you to revert the changes to the console.
We're asking Cryptic to change the console back to what it was %35 and a unique item.
How do you respond Cryptic?
So far, with few exceptions, this thread doesn't much qualify. MightionNY posted his actual in-game numbers. This isn't a massive nerf in terms of the game. (Indeed, less than 10% of shield effective strength loss.)
Yes, the console nerf is pretty big. But, it isn't the only factor. A 50% (or 49 point something nerf) on a console does not translate to a 50% survival nerf. Indeed, the highest numbers (avoiding power usage) still come out as no more than 25% in the far edge case scenario (with a 10-13% range for most other folks).
As far as I can tell, the biggest hit by this isn't the tac/sci ships that people feared - it's the cruisers (but the delta here is only 1-3%, not a huge number).
See MightionNY's post in this thread (I also quoted it on page 14 of this thread for a reminder). Do the same in game. It isn't as big as people are making it out to be.
Ultimately, this still translates to mostly a universal drop for anyone using any number of these consoles. Isn't it the point to be required to make a trade-off? If there's no benefit or loss to doing something, there's little point in engaging in it (or against it). So far, this won't be a compelling argument for them to make a change.
What would be a compelling argument then? Play it on Tribble and say, "Hey, my survivability is drastically lower than it was pre-nerf" and provide a reproducible set of things for them to test and confirm (to verify that either new bugs haven't been introduced and/or that the changes made are causing unforeseen problems).
Tribble is what developers and QA would call UAT. UAT means "User Acceptance Testing" or "beta" for the layman. This is a destructible environment for them to make changes and test them. Indeed, it allows you as a user to do that. So far, only a couple of people have actually tested it and everyone else is launching into theoretical arguments about how bad it is. Only one set of data can Cryptic work with (those who actually tested it and can provide feedback).
Providing solutions to the nerf is fine, provided testing is done to confirm/deny conclusions related to said hypotheses. I'm actually trying to give everyone the best shot at getting what they want and the feedback routed to the people who can affect said changes. Yet, oddly, this is getting more resistance, not less. Would it have been better to simply say, "Yeah, me too", "Not me", or instead said, "Here's the format that makes the most sense to the ones who can make the changes and puts it in a context they can work with"? I'll choose the latter every time. (And it has indeed gotten results with Borticus and Heretic this week even.)
Actually IMO the Science ships are getting hurt the most with this change... Cruisers can still count on their hull to keep them alive...
Science ships count on their shields as their hull is paper thin. The console plus their innate shield bonus is what keeps them alive...
A 10% drop in shields affects this greatly against enemies like the Borg who can cut through shields.
A lot of long timer players can see the end result with just the numbers. We're just asking for them to revert the current changes, nothing drastic.....
keep them the way they are... I don't have the luxury of 10 science console slots
why do you guys have to mess with a good thing... because you don't want to properly fix the torp consoles?
is this like the decloak bug when any interaction that you deem necessary should decloak a player? Remember that you made that statement because you didn't want to fix the decloak bug for every map.. you took the easy way out.
Please don't change the console!
P.S. do you think I need to be decloaked from an interactive message in an STF letting me know what I am supposed to do after the 100's of runs you have put me through? This is as absurd as a nerfed field generator console that is now stackable.
step 1 give every single shield a capacity boost of 35%.
step 2 turn the field generator into a shield armor console that buffs resistance, and give it the same diminishing return hull armor consoles have
the result is you haven't taken anything away from the player, thus avoided rage, and gave them something new at the same time, thus creating anti rage lol. wile also eliminating the problems you had with the console
a. not stacking like every other console
b. being too strong when stacking of it was enabled to achieve uniformity
c. thus 'forcing' you to nerf it, and now everyone hates you, again
And oh yes, it can give more options, if you have Sci-slots of 3 or more. But again not every ship has that luxury.
And for others, they may have equipped something else that helps to keep the ship functional for a while longer. This change is forcing the breaking of the builds that many have streneously tested over time. And sometime to get the better rewards most play on Elite mode, may it be PvE or STF. Every extra additional means a high chance of surviving the battle outright.
@lamid: in other post I made a statement saying the sci consoles are almost useless. I was wrong, there are few very good ones, depending on your spec. Flow capacitors is one of them. Considering this change, I may decide to equip 3 of them and just dump the shield cap one. Also the one that boosts cpb (forgot the name) is decent. But the fact sci consoles are useful is an argument to consider dumping the whole shield cap console, or, lower it 10%, or just leave as it was even if only because everybody got used/comfortable to it. I really think other things should have priority Over this shield cap console.
Always have to wreck a good thing...
:mad::mad::mad::mad:
I love tanking in my escort. Like someone said, they are nerfing builds that many have put time and long testing hours to build, myself included. Whether it be for PvE or PvP, isn't that what its about, putting time and effort into the game to be the best you can be in whatever you choose to do? Find what works the best and go with it. I guess this is just their way of saying, Hey, you mastered it, passed it on to others, now its a game changer and it has to be nerfed...
After they fix every single tooltip in the game(and yes, that's sarcasm cryptic
However I am actually surprised that people would prefer to have one unique must have +35% generator versus just constructively advocating that the Developers rework shield scaling with a "fix it" script. Surely with all the good joy of object oriented programming and inheritance the formulas for the shields are simply an inherited class... Only the set items and one off items (Reman, Pantrinic etc) would need some special care.
If the all shield capacity increased by 35% (or other cryptic devised number) the entire player base would benefit by having another console slot.
My desire to have the generator removed from the game is solely based on the fact it provides a massive bonus with no downside. Regeration consoles don't give nearly the same level of increase to regen. The borg assimilated console is in the same group IMHO. No one console should be a "must have" for nearly all the player base.
I'm glad it was nerfed personally but it seems like a messy compromise to an already messy situation.