test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Why not turn tactical and engineer captain powers into team abilties

24

Comments

  • maelwy5maelwy5 Member Posts: 593 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies . ~Bluegeek
    [ <<<--- @Maelwys --->>> ]
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    Yes, I got that. But that would mean to re-design each and every mission in a way that is not easy to come up with. Sounds difficult to do.

    No just change the rewards system to a flat reward with random elements of the drops. Most missions in STO already have a flat set-in-stone reward and therefore only the reward systems for social missions that currently pay rewards to the highest DPS total need be changed.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • admiraljt#1430 admiraljt Member Posts: 452 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    So what is your proposal? Just leave the Engineer and the Tact in their selfish roles and live with it?

    I don't get how playing the game the way it is built is selfish. Go fly an engineering cruiser in PVP and keep all the heals to yourself. See how far that gets you. You'll figure out pretty quick that with out some fire power escorting you, and someone with science abilities to create a bubble to operate in you won't win. You'll then learn the value of playing the support class. Your problem doesn't seem to be with the classes abilities but with the people that use them. To that I say find a better team.
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    So saying that everybody should get a share of a the Tac's damage bonuses is "demanding an I win button"? Wow. Tacs must be truly overpowered then, even more than I thought.

    I find it puzzling that whenever someone sais "people, the concept of a damage-dealing class is problematic", someone writes something like the above. Why? Unable to understand the point at hand?

    Make a point first, then we will attempt to understand. All you ahve said is that we are all wrong.

    We have given other fixes, you refuse to acknowledge them as such and stick to your fix as the only viable one even when I pointed out that it will not make the Engineer or Cruiser better at DPS and the Escort will still top the scoreboards and win those "best" drops you covet so so much.
    Nothing will change under you idea and the game will only become that more vanilla.

    It doesn't even breech the idea of what will you do when you have no Tacs on your team in a future missions to give your cruiser that needed punch? Cry that the Engineer needs access to the Tac captain powers to be fun?

    I'm now seeing why the Greek national economy is in the dumpster and it scares me as my country is not too far behind for the possibly the same reason.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    Yes, I got that. But that would mean to re-design each and every mission in a way that is not easy to come up with. Sounds difficult to do.
    No, it would not, and I explained why.


    This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies . ~Bluegeek
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    What about the emotional reward of blowing stuff up? Or do you disagree that it is even there?

    Thats up tp the user. Some do not enjoy violence but pratice it becuase its a tool like any other.
    I was talking about the Mission Completion rewards. Come on, keep up.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • maelwy5maelwy5 Member Posts: 593 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    Because we can somehow work around the errors in the design? Or why do you think that we don't?
    True, true, but you can hardly blame them, because the game's missions are built that way.

    Look at these sentences.

    You're presupposing that the current behaviour is somehow in error, and that the game would be better for this behaviour being altered.

    I (and many others here) disagree. There ARE things that need to be altered - Tactical buffs stacking with Science Abilities, for example. But the "trinity" of Support/CC/DD exists in STO, albeit in a very relaxed manner in which hybrids are useful and popular. This is not "wrong", it merely allows for vastly different playstyles.

    Some people enjoy playing a Healer. Think "White mage".
    Some people enjoy playing a Tank. Think "Paladin".
    Some people enjoy playing a Damage Dealer. Think "Black Mage" or "Dark Knight".
    Some people enjoy debuffing/buffing. Think "Red Mage"
    Some people enjoy commanding legions of pets. Think "Beastmaster/Summoner".

    All those playstyles are catered for in STO.

    The problem isn't in the class setup. The problem is that a team of 5 STO "Black Mages" are survivable enough to be able to solo 90% of the game faster than any other combination of classes. And that when they encounter the other 10%, those "Black Mages" still think they have the best possible combination for the task at hand and refuse to accept that a more balanced team setup would be more effective.


    Your initial post said, basically, that you wished to see captains have abilities to buff the entire team. And that they should give up the class-defining abilities that only effect themselves.

    (i) All the captain types already HAVE abilities that buff the entire team.

    (ii) Changing every ability from self-targetted to team-targetted would not alter the current state of the "classes" and would simply result in a more bland teamed gameplay experience. There would be no situational attack spikes or damage tanking. There would be very little build variance. Teams would be able to accomplish less than they can currently (for the simple reason that eliminating powerful situational buffs means that there are fewer ways for a tank to recover from losing 90% of their HP to a Heavy Torpedo Hit, or for a DD to spike-kill a severe threat), and standard gameplay would become even more monotonous than it already is.


    Let me state this more clearly:

    There are plenty of endgame situations where a mixture of Escorts, Science Vessels and Cruisers are BETTER than 5x Tac Escorts. Player skill and equipment being equal.

    Just because a Tactical Escort is all you might be used to, does NOT mean that those Tactical Escorts should be able to cross-buff their teammates the way that the other classes can (Extend Shields, Transfer Shield Strength, Hazard Emitters, Aux2SIF, SciTeam, Eng Team, etc. etc.) What you're asking for (more team buffs, less class-defining powers) would detract even further from the "class seperation" which is what makes the game varied and fun.

    One playstyle does not fit everyone.


    This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies . ~Bluegeek
    [ <<<--- @Maelwys --->>> ]
  • gingerf1shgingerf1sh Member Posts: 10 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    sophlogimo wrote:
    If it was just that, a regular sci vessel would do. You want to do damage that is at least close to that of a Tac, right? You want to blow stuff up. Have the satisfaction of defeating an opponent. And of course, with the right ship and build, that works.

    No, it's just that I like fast and maneuverable ships. Science ships can turn reasonably well but there's a huge difference between a Science ship liek the RSV or Nova at low engine power and an escort at higher power: 18-20 degrees/ second is nowhere near the turn rate of a Defiant R or MVAE with there mid 30s turn rates.
    Don't get me wrong, I'd love to use the RSV more because I just love the way it looks but the Defiant R fits my play style better.

    As for satisfaction, I get more satisfaction from being useful in a group, and a well piloted Science ship can be just that. problem is I like pugging and the average PuG sucks so hard that they never tale advantage of my openings so I just go DPS to do it myself. And I really like the playstyle of an Escort.
    sophlogimo wrote:
    But the point is: Everybody wants to be able to blow stuff up equally quickly. And everybody is right in wanting that. The idea that a "damage-dealing character class" should exist in such a selfish way is dissonant with that player desire. I propose a fix for that.

    Actually your 'fix' won't fix the biggest failing of those who are trying to DPS with an Eng/ Cruiser: they aren't playing to their class's strengths and giving them more damage at the expense of Tactical won't help them overcome the fact that they're not playing to their strengths. From the way that some of them struggle in even normal STFs I'd guess they haven't even managed to increase weapons power yet.
    I get that people want to play the damage dealer but fortunately Cryptic already gave everyone this option, it's called an Alt and anyone can have at least one. You can even buy token's to get more of them if you so desire, and you don't have to TRIBBLE those nasty Tac's over whilst doing it.
    ________________________
    He can't even shoot straight. - Joseph Stalin on his son's (failed) suicide attempt.
  • obertheromulanobertheromulan Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    What about the emotional reward of blowing stuff up? Or do you disagree that it is even there?

    What about one involving a swarm of enemies helplessly stuff inside a gravity well.
    That is if it were more effective in how the missions are designed.
    Instead of kill enemy, beam to planet, the objectives could me more class neutral.
    Reach the planet without being destroyed instead of kill all enemies for example.
    An Escort would destory the enemies by hit and run attacks, group by group, pretty much like right now.
    A Science ship would fire a gravity well into the group, and use a new version of Jam Sensors to limit their sensor range, giving them time to beam down.
    A cruiser could just plow their way through the enemy blockade.

    No I don't like your idea the way you posted it into your opening post.
    However I do agree that class powers, especially Engineering ones need to be less selfish.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Vornek@oberlerchner123 - Join Date: July 2008
  • ussultimatumussultimatum Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies . ~Bluegeek

    You have nearly unanimous opposition to your ideas in this thread alone.
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    Yep. We need a fix for that. I have proposed one. Propose another, if you don't like mine.

    The only thing I would propose is allow Engineers to use Miracle Workers on Self or Ally with no change to the heal numbers - it's fine where it is.

    sophlogimo wrote: »
    Second in selfishness, but certainly not "middle of the road".

    Nonsense.

    Tacs have 3 beneficial group powers out of 5 total captain powers.

    That's actually better than middle of the road in favor of being group friendly.

    Tac Fleet is a group wide damage improvement, and Tac Initiative benefits ships wtih less tac stations than Escorts have.


    Engineers are the most selfish role.

    The main issue with this is in PvP, where allowing them to heal others with their powers would allow them dominance over the heal role.

    In PvE a "selfish" powerset isn't a problem as long as it's used for team benefit.

    What that means is an Engineer with Threat Control absorbing damage is now providing a team benefit (damage soaking) through selfish use of their powers. (And is also playing "The Hero" role by the way, this is what Tanks in PvE usually enjoy about being Tanks - STO's game environment just doesn't support the abilities an Engineer has and has other fundamental systemwide issues that make healing & tanking superfluous - the issue is with the system and not captain abilities).

    That's most likely what Cryptic had in mind, and it's unlikely given their track record that they considered PvP roles at all.


    This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies . ~Bluegeek
  • bluegeekbluegeek Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    Off-topic...

    I'm noticing some violations of PWE Community Rules and Policies in this thread.

    Let's keep the conversation civil. There's no need for further hostility here.

    Please show some respect for other people's opinions, even if you don't agree with them.

    Stick with the facts -- Please don't speculate about other people's motivations.

    When referring to other forum users, please leave off any personal references to beliefs, feelings, behavior, intelligence, character, skills, etc.

    Any post that's been crafted to provoke an angry reaction is trolling and is subject to moderation, warnings, and infractions. PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO TROLL POSTS! Report them.

    Read the rules (see above)

    Thanks in advance for your cooperation!

    Live Long and Prosper,
    Bluegeek
    My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here
    Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
  • tudenomtudenom Member Posts: 75 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    What about the emotional reward of blowing stuff up? Or do you disagree that it is even there?

    I can see where you're coming from Sophlogimo and I think a lot of the problem comes from a combination of issues in this game:

    #1 This is a generic space combat MMO game half assedly masquerading as Star Trek. This causes all kinds of confusion with the player base, many of whom are hardcore Trekkers who know Trek better than the game developers and have certain expectations. The game should be based on the longship tradition, but it's not, bigger is not better in this game.

    #2 The game encourages single player skills and builds over team based skills and builds (PVP or pre made groups are the exceptions to this rule). You can't count on your team mates to play a role or be efficient in that role so you're forced to build a hybrid character that can survive on it's own without support. The ESTF's should not be easy enough for a 5 man hybrid team to beat, they should demand cruisers that tank/heal, science ships to CC/nerf, and escorts to lay down huge hit and run strikes, but they don't require that kind of teamwork.

    #3 The game developers created ship classes where one class is superior to all others in the hybrid role described in item #2. They declared certain ship classes as dps/tank/cc but split up the powers oddly between them so certain classes aren't particularly good at their role or they are too good at someone elses role:

    Why can't cruisers shield heal others? Why can't a defensive tank build do their job and grab aggro away from escorts?

    Why does a science vessel need an escort to destroy the small vessels they just snared and nerfed? Why are they the best shield healers in the game? Why can they tank just as well as Cruisers?

    Why are escorts so tough that they can just sit there like a turret and blast away at enemies?

    I think a lot of players want a cruiser to be tough and dish out good damage. They should be the anchor of a fleet and all the other ships should support the cruisers who spearhead an attack. But, in Cryptic's Star Trek Online it's the escorts who do that job. All the other ships support the escorts, and that's pretty sad for a Star Trek game.
  • bluegeekbluegeek Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    I think some of us are getting too hung up on the idea that the Engineering class is a "selfish" class or that cruisers and/or escorts are "selfish" ships. We're ascribing a moral character trait to morally neutral objects, so we're missing the mark. It's a useful analogy, but it breaks down.

    It is true that certain class powers do not directly benefit allies, and I think that Engineers in Cruisers do have a real problem in this regard. (My opinion) They're tanks that can't take aggro away from the damage-dealing escorts, and don't have enough abilities that directly heal, buff, or protect allies. (Again, my opinion) What they do have is effective, but ultimately they don't reduce the need for other ships to protect themselves with their own abilities. (Truth) I think this introduces a lot of imbalance and explains the number of hybrid ships Cryptic has released, which tend to blur the roles and make the imbalances more pronounced.

    I acknowledge that it is certainly possible to build a cruiser to be a strong damage dealer, but in my opinion it's not easy or intuitive to do with whatever BOFFs and equipment you happen to have on hand. I sure can't seem to do it right so far, not that I've been able to concentrate on it.

    On the other hand, in PvE at least, I can slap pretty much any reasonable build on a Tac/Escort and do well. PvP is a more specialized skillset that I don't possess, so I can't comment on that.

    One thing that might help (again, my opinion) is to give Cruisers good point-defense abilities that the other ships can't match. That way they can provide support for other ships within their point-defense range and boost their aggro when they're in the thick of things. Unfortunately, I don't really see support for that in canon.
    My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here
    Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    Why can't cruisers shield heal others?
    They can.
    Why can't a defensive tank build do their job and grab aggro away from escorts?
    Becuase Threat control is a weak agro skill compared to direct damage and needs to be fixed for PvE.
    Why does a science vessel need an escort to destroy the small vessels they just snared and nerfed?
    They are working as a team?
    Why are they the best shield healers in the game?
    They where given better shielding.
    Why can they tank just as well as Cruisers?
    They have the same option of powers. Tanking is not a vessel specific trait anymore since the playerbase has learned to cycle powers, stack resists and the like.
    Why are escorts so tough that they can just sit there like a turret and blast away at enemies?
    They learned how to cycle defensive powers like EPtS, AtB,TSS, HE, PH , etc for the heals and resists they offer. Why has the Cruiser not learned how to do this better since they have access to the highend defensive powers?
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • admiraljt#1430 admiraljt Member Posts: 452 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    bluegeek wrote: »
    I think some of us are getting too hung up on the idea that the Engineering class is a "selfish" class or that cruisers and/or escorts are "selfish" ships. We're ascribing a moral character trait to morally neutral objects, so we're missing the mark. It's a useful analogy, but it breaks down.

    It is true that certain class powers do not directly benefit allies, and I think that Engineers in Cruisers do have a real problem in this regard. (My opinion) They're tanks that can't take aggro away from the damage-dealing escorts, and don't have enough abilities that directly heal, buff, or protect allies. (Again, my opinion) What they do have is effective, but ultimately they don't reduce the need for other ships to protect themselves with their own abilities. (Truth) I think this introduces a lot of imbalance and explains the number of hybrid ships Cryptic has released, which tend to blur the roles and make the imbalances more pronounced.

    I acknowledge that it is certainly possible to build a cruiser to be a strong damage dealer, but in my opinion it's not easy or intuitive to do with whatever BOFFs and equipment you happen to have on hand. I sure can't seem to do it right so far, not that I've been able to concentrate on it.

    On the other hand, in PvE at least, I can slap pretty much any reasonable build on a Tac/Escort and do well. PvP is a more specialized skillset that I don't possess, so I can't comment on that.

    One thing that might help (again, my opinion) is to give Cruisers good point-defense abilities that the other ships can't match. That way they can provide support for other ships within their point-defense range and boost their aggro when they're in the thick of things. Unfortunately, I don't really see support for that in canon.

    I agree with these opinions
  • shadowwraith77shadowwraith77 Member Posts: 6,395 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    One of the biggest issues is they put no fear into escort captains taking on big cruisers or carriers other than a little less hull str and shield str, but a well built escort can match alot of larger ships hull and shield str and still deal out the woopass dmg on top.

    If an escort was to live up to it's name intended, it would aid larger vessels against smaller vessels while helping to weaken larger ones, but instead take out any vessel all on their own with no real need of assistance most of the time.

    In this mmo they make escorts out to be front man ships looking for prey, while the others are there to escort them.
    tumblr_nq9ec3BSAy1qj6sk2o2_500_zpspkqw0mmk.gif


    Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!

  • twg042370twg042370 Member Posts: 2,312 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    Now, what could one do? I have a proposal: Get rid of self-only-buffing powers as such. All captain powers (the class-specific ones, that is) should be scaled down in magnitude, but should affect the whole team at once.

    And for those of us who play solo? A middle finger?
    <3
  • sollvaxsollvax Member Posts: 4 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    Suggestion

    No reward for any ship that is destroyed in a mission

    AT ALL

    this would encourage survival
    Live long and Prosper
  • sollvaxsollvax Member Posts: 4 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    Yes it does

    it makes the Escort vulnerable so the Cruiser will heal and protect it
    it makes even the toughest ship need support

    I confess to being one of the Cruisers which very rarely dies
    simply because I am Armoured to the max most of the time and keep my ship intact where possible

    I will happily repair escorts IF they ask me too
    But They have to let me know they need repairs AND slow down so I can lock on
    (its very hard to repair something at full impulse for example)

    I however do not repair Tholian ships as "you can't get the parts"
    Live long and Prosper
  • gingerf1shgingerf1sh Member Posts: 10 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    Hm, or reduce the rewards based on the amount of times your ship exploded? Nice idea. But it rather does not encourage team play, does it?

    Of course it does. The Eng/ Cruiser that wants to be the hero but you want to give damage buffs to, he can heal like a beast and has powerful self only Captain abilities to free up his BOff abilities to be shared with his team mates.
    It's not the kind of team play you want but it's still team play and works quite well, usually.
    ________________________
    He can't even shoot straight. - Joseph Stalin on his son's (failed) suicide attempt.
  • sollvaxsollvax Member Posts: 4 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    And we don't need your damage Buff (my DPE is about the same as yours)
    Live long and Prosper
  • sollvaxsollvax Member Posts: 4 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    The Engineer has a duty to maintain and protect the weaker ship (the escort )
    its his function

    And as team success depends on ZERO casualties
    He will do his job
    Live long and Prosper
  • xantrisxantris Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    sophlogimo wrote: »

    Still won't solve the problem of the emotional satisfaction of a kill for non-tacs.

    Wut? You picked a defensive class... Pick a different class if that doesn't float your boat.
  • xantrisxantris Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    bluegeek wrote: »
    I think some of us are getting too hung up on the idea that the Engineering class is a "selfish" class or that cruisers and/or escorts are "selfish" ships. We're ascribing a moral character trait to morally neutral objects, so we're missing the mark. It's a useful analogy, but it breaks down.

    For me to get this far I'd have to recognize this thread as something other than a thinly veiled "nerf tac" thread.
  • sollvaxsollvax Member Posts: 4 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    Tacs are defensive

    they are the Redshirt
    the guy who is supposed to stand between the useful officers and the angry Alien monster with the big teeth
    Live long and Prosper
  • xantrisxantris Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    sollvax wrote: »
    Tacs are defensive

    they are the Redshirt
    the guy who is supposed to stand between the useful officers and the angry Alien monster with the big teeth

    Back in the 1960s. Then they became command officer colors. Keep up with the times gramps;)
  • gingerf1shgingerf1sh Member Posts: 10 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    Well, then the Tac has an incentive to beg for the engineer's support, but what is the engineer's support to give it, instead of just making sure that his own ship doesn't die at all?

    You keep mentioning Engineer as if it's analogous to the support class but in an Escort, especially if you focus on PvE (which you seem to be judging by a few comments in previous posts), an Engineer Escort can deal respectable damage all by itself and still have better survivability than a Science or Tactical character.
    If you actually mean ''What can the Cruiser contribute?' then the answer's pretty simple: Heals and resists but it seems that some don't want to do that either, despite being what the ship they use being particularly good at this.
    sophlogimo wrote:
    Still won't solve the problem of the emotional satisfaction of a kill for non-tacs

    Then roll a Tac alt, damage is what they do. If you get no satisfaction from supporting others then a support class is probably not the character class for you. Personally I love using my Science ship and knowing that kill was because of my debuffs, or that STF went so much smoother because of the CC I was using. But then, I enjoy playing the support classes as much as the damage dealing class.
    ________________________
    He can't even shoot straight. - Joseph Stalin on his son's (failed) suicide attempt.
  • xantrisxantris Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    No, I did not. I picked a class that was advertised as something else. Read that text at the character generation screen, and even if you read it as "defensive", you will see how one could read it as something else. (But ftr, I have toons of all classes on both factions. My tacs just bore me, as indicated above.)
    Has it changed recently? I don't have access to the game just this minute. According to youtube this is the description for engineers:

    "Survivability, support generators, and controlling the paths of enemy advance with fieldworks. The Engineering Officer can withstand the most damage by improving the performance of their own personal shields, while supporting his away team with power generators or by bottlenecking the enemy's advance with defensive minefields. The engineer's combat effectiveness is improved by modifications to their firearms or support fire from fabricated turrets and drones"


    I dunno, that sounds extremely defensive and support/tanky to me. I'm not really seeing where you can get confused there. The very first two words are "survivability & support." I think at some point people have to take a little personal responsibility for selecting their classes, and maybe doing a little prior research.

    My first character was an engineer back at launch, and I knew very full well that I was playing a tank/healer class. I didn't know much else, but I did know that.
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    xantris wrote: »
    Wut? You picked a defensive class... Pick a different class if that doesn't float your boat.

    He did. He used a Tactical captain in the Peg'Hu Veteran KDF ship (a ship with a Tactical Commander BOff since its a Destroyer) and found the Elite STFs too easy.

    Now he wants to nerf the tactical Class to make his Cruiser feel better and his Engineer choice look better in his own eyes rather than aproach the problem from the logical direction and remove the DPS based scoring system to replace it with a flat system for mission rewards where currently he feels the best gear goes to the highest damage dealer.

    Sophie was the subject of some small discussion last night in chat and how he, like others, are on this holy crusade to fix a problem with the Tactical class that does not exist rather than fix the rewards validation issue that does exist in STO.
    Frankly, we all agreed he is acting in a selfish manner asking for a Nerf to tactical or a direct buff the Cruisers and Engineers while completely overlooking the easier fix to an issue that doesn't exist within the tactical class.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    xantris wrote: »
    Has it changed recently? I don't have access to the game just this minute. According to youtube this is the description for engineers:

    "Survivability, support generators, and controlling the paths of enemy advance with fieldworks. The Engineering Officer can withstand the most damage by improving the performance of their own personal shields, while supporting his away team with power generators or by bottlenecking the enemy's advance with defensive minefields. The engineer's combat effectiveness is improved by modifications to their firearms or support fire from fabricated turrets and drones"


    I dunno, that sounds pretty defensive and support/tanky to me. I think at some point people have to take a little personal responsibility for selecting their classes, and maybe doing a little prior research.

    My first character was an engineer back at launch, and I knew very full well that I was playing a tank/healer class. I didn't know much else, but I did know that.

    Unfortunately Sophie reads it as thus;
    Combat damage, stealth tactics and squad tactics. The Tactical officer can deliver damage in the widest variety of methods, while supporting his away team by drawing off enemy threat or bolstering their combat effectiveness with tactics and squad commands.
    A Tactical officer's job is to keep the ship and crew safe from harm. A Tactical officer's skills are specialized for combat, both in space and on the ground. They get the job, whether using phasers, fists, or photon torpedoes, allowing Starfleet to explore and learn in safety.

    Tactical officers increase the damage done by a ship, providing the ability to fire salvos of torpedoes and overload energy weapons for a massive attack. On the ground Tactical officers make the most out of any weapon, and are able to mix it up in melee combat better than anyone.

    I mean that describes Geordi and his Engineer skills to a "T" doesn't it? AH, the memories of Geordi wading through combat at the helm of the Enterprise's fire controls. Blowing up foes with phaser fire and torpedoes, and using all manner of Combat tactics he learned at the Academy.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
This discussion has been closed.