test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

A new division of work in space combat

2456

Comments

  • stirling191stirling191 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    Obviously the devs build dps-oriented content. I don't see how they could do anything else. Hence my proposal to you to make a mission that shows what you have in mind. Hell, you could just make a thread about such a mission idea of yours.

    Let's use an already existing example: Cutting the Cord (Romulan FE arc) allows each different branch a different opportunity to bypass a given objective. Scis get to hack the gateway, Engis get to tear that stupid Scorpion fighter out of the sky and Tacs get to turn torpedo and defense platforms against the enemy.

    The precedent already exists. Cryptic is just too lazy to actually run with it inmost cases.

    Just because someone doesn't do something doesn't mean they're incapable of doing it.
  • lordagamemnonb5lordagamemnonb5 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    Well, in my experience, the vast majority of players do PUGs. Shouldn't the game be made so that it fits the vast majority of players?

    We'll need to see some hard data on what the "vast majority" of players do before anyone will support such a massive reworking of game mechanics.
    How the Devs see Star Trek, apparently:
    Star Trek: The Original Grind
    Star Trek: The Next Grind
    Star Trek: Deep Space Grind
    Star Trek: Voyage to the Grind
  • edited January 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • edited January 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • edited January 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • neoakiraiineoakiraii Member Posts: 7,468 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    I agree. But I am sure that if my perception is supported by hard facts, the devs will already be aware of that.

    Not that I realistically expect them to jump up and down and implement a random forum post idea, regardless of the work required. But the exchange of ideas will certainly be interesting to read for someone, possibly even some devs.

    Pretty sure the dev's already have in mind what they are going to do with the game, that does not involve a overhaul, and pretty much take ideas that are in the scope of the current game mechanics.
    GwaoHAD.png
  • edited January 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • azntrigboiazntrigboi Member Posts: 139 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    The only real problem I see with this system is that it decreases any form of teamwork. Now, I know most of you are like "It's PUGs. WHAT teamwork?" However, the fact of the matter is that the way things are now, teamwork will only enhance your capabilities. Whether you do so or not is another story.

    With the system the OP proposes, you have at most 3 separate engagements of different ship classes. In fact in the example you gave where everyone tries to help out the science ship, you state that it's already suboptimal. Therefore, doing your own thing is what brings things to an optimum, not working together. At that point, why even have team matches? Plus, when you're doing story missions and the like, you'll most likely be facing multiple ship classes in which case 2 out of 3 times you'll be taking way too long to kill something.

    I understand your goal was for everyone to be the Hero, but that's what happens when you have 5 heroes on one team. They don't have any tendency to work together. They'll go off doing their own thing. When you have 2 "heroes" and 3 "supports", you are capable of actually working as a team.

    Hell, even 5 escorts shooting the same target can be considered a form of coordination. And guess what? It's more efficient.
  • skyranger1414skyranger1414 Member Posts: 1,785 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    And punishing that desire is an error. People play this game to be The Hero. So let them be The Hero! Everybody!

    My Tacscort is the hero, it does a ton of damage.

    My engi cruiser is the hero, it tanks anything and everything while still out-dpsing your average non tanky cruisers and failscorts. It even has limited debuff abilities!

    My Sci cap in a Sci Vessel is more of a supervillain, what with toying with the fundamental laws of the universe to suit her fancy and then shoving torps and mines down the NPC's throats.

    If someone isn't making their ships the HERO that is their own choice in building poorly. I have to say this thread has no purpose other than try to alleviate people's need to learn the current system to make their ship's as good and heroic as they can be.
    eisenw0lf wrote: »
    *sigh*

    Well, what to expect of a player who puts a tac captain in a atrox and even kept this build despite having the entire PvP community telling him this is a bad idea.

    I actually think this is one of the current system's greatest strengths. You don't HAVE to use any specific ship/class combination to be both successful and an important contributing member of any group content. You DO need to know how to use the basics and build around what you're trying to do though. Of course, an escort specced tac can still be fun and effective in a large sci vessel/carrier, it just requires the player to alter their game play a little.
  • stirling191stirling191 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    So what you have in mind is that in endgame content, I get to click a button that is only available to me because I have a given career or ship class? And apart from that, you'll be fine with the (again) dps race that is that mission (apart from those button-pressings), which of course will be best for the tac?

    You asked for an example of variant objectives in content based on abilities or branch specification, and you got it. Just because it's not a brilliant use of the concept doesn't change the fact that it's an example of exactly what you were asking for.

    Would I want something considerably more advanced in a new STF? Yes.
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    Forgive me, I'll always prefer what I see with my own eyes over some dude's forum posts.

    But let's not derail this thread, but return to the idea that each ship class could be a damage dealer for their own class of targets. I get it that you would not like it. Why not?

    Because one of the greatest strengths in STOs space combat is the versatility of each ship chassis. The ability for creative people to come up with novel and effective (though perhaps not cookie cutter simple and stupid) setups to overcome the various challenges posed by existing content.

    Most of which would be completely screwed over by a hard-counter rock-paper-scissor trinity that you're proposing. Add to that the fact that I simply don't trust Cryptic to do an overhaul that large and not completely TRIBBLE up.
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    If you understand it that way, then I have made my point not clear enough. Let me give you an example:

    Why not use the exact definition you gave? Its Crystal clear.
    Engineering offers (self-)heals and raw-damage-increasing powers.

    You will have pretty low defense, and be hit often, but you could take it, dish out big damage numbers, and your defenses and healing numbers could only be broken by another ship which brings similarly big guns. Those big beams wouldn't be terribly accurate, though. So those big damage numbers would only happen vs. another cruiser, because, well, you just wouldn't hit a Defiant very often.

    Thats a description of a tactical class in any game.

    While this;
    Tactical offers higher Accuracy and Defense.

    Weapon damage will not be high, and shields will not be strong... but you'll be damn hard to hit and have a very high chance to hit any other target.
    is just a Nuetered form of the tactical class with no purpose other than to be a fast moving, hard to hit, poor damage dealing but easily dispatched joke.
    But the tac captain in the Tac ship won't be the only one needed (or even wanted) any more to perform best.
    And this last statement by you merely shows all your true purpose in wanting these changes.

    You wish the Engineer to be the tactical class and the tactical class to be worthless (if even wanted).

    Give an seriuos attempt to help make the game better and you will get seriuos consideration of your ideas, but as long as your ideas are merely vieled attempts to change the game to make your favorite class the only hero of STO, I can not consider them anything but fan driven drivel.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    sophlogimo wrote: »

    I have never seen this happening even when equipping fighters with a 75% bonus accuracy in intercept mode while they attacked stationary targets. It may be an urban legend... but even then, seriously, such adjustments are easy to make.

    LOOK sto WIKI

    and here;
    Starship Targeting Systems
    Commander (Tier 3)

    This skill improves your Starship's Accuracy value. The higher your Accuracy, the more often you will hit a target. The target's Defense value can counter Accuracy. If your Accuracy exceeds a target's Defense, you cannot miss with an attack on that target. Furthermore, the amount by which your accuracy value exceeds the target's defense rating, is converted into additional Critical Hit chance and Critical Hit Severity ensuring that no points in this skill can be 'wasted' by exceeding the percieved 'hit cap'.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • edited January 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • edited January 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    The guys who never hit anything are the tacticals?
    Engineering offers (self-)heals and raw-damage-increasing powers.

    You will have pretty low defense, and be hit often, but you could take it, dish out big damage numbers, and your defenses and healing numbers could only be broken by another ship which brings similarly big guns. Those big beams wouldn't be terribly accurate, though. So those big damage numbers would only happen vs. another cruiser, because, well, you just wouldn't hit a Defiant very often.
    Silly me. I was confused by your use of these phrases to describe the Engineer class as you wish to see it...
    Tactical offers higher Accuracy and Defense.

    Weapon damage will not be high, and shields will not be strong... but you'll be damn hard to hit and have a very high chance to hit any other target.
    ...versus these you used to describe how you wish to see tacticals ingame.

    Here I was thinking you just wanted to be the damage dealing Engineer who can also tank damage and heal. Silly me.:rolleyes:
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • edited January 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • stirling191stirling191 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies . ~BranFlakes
  • lordagamemnonb5lordagamemnonb5 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    The question is: Do people want to type of teamwork that space combat currently supports, that is, one type of people gets to blow up stuff, the others just support him?

    Your system wouldn't be any different. You would have the Engineers/Cruisers doing all the damage, with the TAC/Escorts being relegated to nothing more than cannon foder; a ship/class that will serve no purpose but to be a minor annoyance until another ship (probably a cruiser with 8 weapons slots full of ACCx3 weaponry) destroyes it.
    How the Devs see Star Trek, apparently:
    Star Trek: The Original Grind
    Star Trek: The Next Grind
    Star Trek: Deep Space Grind
    Star Trek: Voyage to the Grind
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies . ~BranFlakes
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • edited January 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    Your idea changes nothing but the names of the classes and retains the same issues that you wished to overcome.
    One class will do the damage and heal itself very well, One class is the CC/Debuffers with healing, and the Escorts become the ineffective class that you think Engineers and Cruiser are currently.

    Its why I keep debunking your ideas and will do so until you give something that is not serving to Engineers or Cruisers based off your definition of what they should be in STO.

    Here is some examples of non-self-serving ideas to Help Cruisers and Engineers from other threads;

    1) A turn rate and Inertia buff for Cruisers
    2) Heavy Beam Arrays
    3) Beam Version of CRF

    All good ideas from other players that would help elevate the Players gaming experience without rewriting the whole game to do so and without fan driven perceptions of how "things" should be instead.

    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
  • lordagamemnonb5lordagamemnonb5 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    I have to agree with bitemepwe (althoug I wouldn't have been as adversarial :D ).

    IMHO, the OP has a bit of tunnel vision; dead set on his idea that he isn't seeing some of the issues or retooling needed to een make it 1/10th effective.

    sophlogimo wrote: »
    • Engineering offers (self-)heals and raw-damage-increasing powers.

      You will have pretty low defense, and be hit often, but you could take it, dish out big damage numbers, and your defenses and healing numbers could only be broken by another ship which brings similarly big guns. Those big beams wouldn't be terribly accurate, though. So those big damage numbers would only happen vs. another cruiser, because, well, you just wouldn't hit a Defiant very often.

    We have that already, it's called the TAC/Escort class/ship. They can dish it but they can't take it.


    The OP needs to answer a few question to himself (don't need to post if you don't want to, just think about at least):

    Why do we need to retool the game to make the Engineers fullfil this role?

    What useful purpose could it have other than to satisfy a need to play Captain Kirk and take on the entire enemy armada?

    Why do we need to relagate the Escorts to the cannon fodder role?

    Who will fufil the tanking role?

    What will happen in an STF when you have a high number of tacs, say 3 tacs, 1 eng, and one sci? Before that, the 1 eng could do decent damage and still tank, with the tacs doing the lions share, but with your system you would have 3 useless ships (especially on Elite with the rampant Borg one shot invisble uber torpedoes).


    Ultimately, OP is trying to create the solution and then find a problem for it to solve. Everyone by now should know what they are getting into when they chose a ship/class.

    Any NBA fans should be aware of the hack-a-Howard strategy. It was reported the the comissioner didn't like it. Doc Rivers' response, "Learn to hit a free throw."

    It boils down to education and learning to play. You don't retool the game mechanics because a few cruiser captains want to lone wolf it.
    How the Devs see Star Trek, apparently:
    Star Trek: The Original Grind
    Star Trek: The Next Grind
    Star Trek: Deep Space Grind
    Star Trek: Voyage to the Grind
  • azntrigboiazntrigboi Member Posts: 139 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    The question is: Do people want to type of teamwork that space combat currently supports, that is, one type of people gets to blow up stuff, the others just support him?

    Do they? If so, why do we have all those "cruisers are underpowered" threads? Why do so incredibly many people switch over to escorts after some time, unless they are stubborn old men like me or belong to the rare group of people who are actually enjoying being second line?

    And what would you instead propose this obvious dissatisfaction with the game of many? And no, "people are stupid and need to learn" is not the answer. The game is there to entertain the people, not the other way round.



    I read somehwere that the vast majority of players of MMO's don't want to do teamwork - they want to do their own thing in an environment where they can be seen doing it. Which is what that kind of game would allow them to do.



    The overwhelmingly vast majority of PUG matches that I had were obviously not enjoying to do teamwork. Now, that is just m perception - if you have a different one from PUG matches, please share.

    So people playing MMO's don't want to work in teams is what you're getting at here. That sounds...odd. Let's put it this way. If people really want to be the Hero in everything, just make harder and more rewarding story missions. Wouldn't that solve the problem faster compared to a restructuring of the game itself? If everyone wants to be the Hero, just have them as the only player! They can feel as heroic as they want in any ship that they want even in the current system.

    My point is that your system does not encourage team play. You say people don't want team play. Ok, then if that is the case, no point in developing missions where you need to work with others. No more team missions. Problem solved? Probably not because people want to show off. What's the point in victory when you can't gloat right? Well...I don't think there will ever be a fix for that...
  • bluegeekbluegeek Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    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
  • edited January 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • edited January 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • allocaterallocater Member Posts: 289 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    I understand what OP is getting at.

    Since the game struggles to do tank/dps/support. (tank is rarely needed, support is rarely needed) it is not balanced. Tank is not the hero. Support is not the hero. But Dps is the hero.

    Now solution? I'd rather have the game make tank more needed, and make support more needed. Then everybody can be a hero. Tank can be tank hero. Support can be support hero. Dps can (still) be dps hero. :)

    But if this is not possible? We accept that dps > all. We still want a balanced game, so we make 3 classes with dps_a/dps_b/dps_c instead.

    Yes, this is a solution to make the game balanced. But we kind of give up on tank/dps/support, capitulate and settle for pure dps :(

    But ok let's go with it.

    The intended system is then:

    Cruiser does 9 damage like this: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (low sustained damage)
    Escort does 9 damage like this: 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 (intermittent burst damage)
    Science does 9 damage like this: 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 1 1 (some kind of shield disable, gravity burst, disable with dot or something, ...whatever)

    Now it is more fair, than tac-escort doing 15 damage and cruiser and sci doing 6 damage.

    Same principle as OP, everybody makes the same damage just differently/against different targets.
  • lordagamemnonb5lordagamemnonb5 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    But really, if you find it more intuitive to have small and agile ships be the inaccurate damage dealers that take lots of raw, but inacurate (this part is important) damage and deal it, pff, whatever. It strikes me as weird, but that's not what it is about.

    You've seemed to have forgotten that this is a Star Trek game, and three of the most powerful, death dealing ships were small; namely the Jem'hadar Attack Ship, the Defiant-class, and the Tholian Web Weaver (Which is why the devs choose those ships to be the DPS class). Your system would make some of the more iconic Star Trek ships useless.

    sophlogimo wrote: »
    Let me state again: Each ship class will be best (that is, fastest) in defeating its own class. So, the big ships with the big guns fight other ships with big guns best, but will not be good at fighting science ships or escorts (this part is important, and obviously totally escapes some for some reason). The fast and agile ships fight the fast and agile ships best, and will not be as good at fighting science ships or cruisers, and the science ships... well, if by now you haven't got it, I guess I can just as well stop to try to explain it to you.


    You see, this extreme lack of understanding on your part is highly frustrating for me. I believe I have explained very well that the (comparatively) high damage of the cruisers will not affect the science ships or the escorts, because they will not be hit by it very often, resulting in a cruiser doing less damage to a science ship or an escort than it would do to another cruiser..


    First, please drop this Khan-esque "superior intellect" view. It is not helping. It would be one thing if opinions are equally split, but as it stands now no one is agreeing with you, so it's not us.

    Second, as we have stated, it is not needed nor warranted. It needlessly handicaps ships in a joint operation. Right now, if I'm going toe to toe with a cruiser that is tearing me a new one, I can at least count on the TAC/Escort in my group to to do a burst damage, bring his shields down quickly, and maybe force him to disengage. In the system you've laid out, I can no longer depend on the TAC/Escort to help me, as he is now not effective at forcing that cruiser to disengage. I would have to have another cruiser come to my aid since he would now be most effective, since the TAC/Escort now can't do damage and has poor accuracy against that enemy cruiser.
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    How in all worlds do you even consider that this could be written anywhere in my posts?

    That is just... I don't get it at all. It is a very, very strange assumption that ships that are best to fight a certain class of ships would thus be "cannon fodder".

    In your system, the tacs can't deal damage and can't take it either. All they can do is fly fast, and all I would have to do is overload on ACC based weaponry to solve that problem, since even though cruiser would supposidly by ineffective against tacs, the way you've laid it out the Engineers can now deal far more damage than a TAC could take.
    allocater wrote: »
    I understand what OP is getting at.

    Since the game struggles to do tank/dps/support. (tank is rarely needed, support is rarely needed) it is not balanced. Tank is not the hero. Support is not the hero. But Dps is the hero.

    Unless you accidentally destoryed a couple of generators on ISE and need to control the nanite probes and keep the spheres busy, then Science and Engineers become your heroes;)
    allocater wrote: »
    Now it is more fair, than tac-escort doing 15 damage and cruiser and sci doing 6 damage.

    Same principle as OP, everybody makes the same damage just differently/against different targets.

    What's unfair about the DPS class doing more damage? If my cruiser can take, I can deal with it. I actually took some time to learn what buffs do what, and I am currently recruiting the right doffs for my need. If he wants to waiste his burst damage trying to lower my shileds while my beams whittle down his shields slowly but surely, that his issue. On the other hand, I don't want him handicapped by a system that penalizes him for fighting me.


    And really people, how boring would PvP be even more if ship types were only effective against the same class?
    How the Devs see Star Trek, apparently:
    Star Trek: The Original Grind
    Star Trek: The Next Grind
    Star Trek: Deep Space Grind
    Star Trek: Voyage to the Grind
  • malkarrismalkarris Member Posts: 797 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    Honestly, I would much rather have the ship "Classes" removed entirely and have each ship balanced by itself, and by what was in the show, within reason, otherwise Intrepids would be capable of owning Borg cubes all by themselves. And this would put the class back on the character more than the ship., though certain ships would still be better than others for certain things.

    For instance, put a tac captain in a Galaxy class, and he can do about the same amount of damage as he would in a Defiant. Just he can take more hits in a Galaxy, while in a Defiant he is dodging more. Put a sci captain in a galaxy, and he can do all sorts of crazy stuff with a deflector, but less in a defiant, though the defiant has more base firepower than a galaxy. And so on. Of course, this would mean universal slots or something like that on most ships, or maybe slots that adjust based on what class the captain is. But this would let anyone be the "hero" in any ship, based on the captain class.

    However, Cryptic isn't going to do that, but its a nice idea.
    Joined September 2011
    Nouveau riche LTS member
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    I have to agree with bitemepwe (althoug I wouldn't have been as adversarial :D ).

    IMHO, the OP has a bit of tunnel vision; dead set on his idea that he isn't seeing some of the issues or retooling needed to een make it 1/10th effective.
    .

    Definately has vision issues
    I guess the Colon could be seen as tunnel......

    What can I say, Kahn-esque flippancy pushes my buttons.

    There is no doubt that many find not playing a Tac/escort tediuos, even to the point that playing anything else takes too long in thier opinion, but the OPs ideas do not change anything but make the game even less fluid as you stated.


    Seriuosly the innaccurate, hard hitting heavy tank can only be killed by other innaccurate, hard hitting heavy tanks not the fast, accurate, ineffective, low damage dealers or the moderate on all fronts CC/ Debuffers- though last two entities can be killed by thier own class of peers?
    No, it makes perfect sense.

    /sarcasm off.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
This discussion has been closed.