First, I didn't say it was good design, I said there were solutions that you can take for yourself to solve the problem. I said I felt beams were weak. I just do something about it instead of fly around using them anyway and complaining.
Second, beams being weak does not invalidate an entire player class. It invalidates an entire type of player who refuses to adapt.
Right so how about decoupling APA effects from cannon damage?? NI is an eng skill, if engs can't use beams effectively what good are they for. Healing?? they only have self heals. NI is in competition with SNB and GDF, it is not nearly as good at anything as these two.
Making eng run cannons, is like preventing tac buffs from appling to cannons. It makes a whole class obsolete.
Do people realize that EpTS 1 literally doubles your tank in game? Or that Tac Team 1 is the strongest survival tool?
The Players do .
The Devs ... (?) -- well they are currently busy pileing on one passive defense bonus on top of another ... , while at the same time saying that beam weapons work as 'intended' , even when beam weapons were designed before Tac Team acted almost as a Reverse Shield Polarity , and before we got all them fancy new passive bonuses and Doffs that extend & enhance existing defense abilities .
So yeah , beam weapons are just dandy ... , if all you're looking for is a tool to deliver a 2.5% chance for something or other to proc .
As to damage ... , well I used to do that prior to S.5 ... . Now , not so much .
Oh and Al ... , at this point things are so screwed up that even adding more [Acc] through a PvP Rep System would do nothing for beams ... 'cause thanks to all the passives , even the Glass Cannons are reinforced transparent aluminium .
NI still increases damage done by cannons by virtue of energy saved...
Edit: And an eng having self heals lets them save their boff heals for others without not having a heal for themselves.
I won't argue that eng is weak, and I fully agree that beams need a buff. You are arguing with the wrong person on these points. I just say the problems are surmountable. It makes me want to tear my hair out when I see people that know full well beams are weak, yet insist on using them and crying that's why they are under performing. Just adapt already, there are options out there that will make things more pleasant while we hope for a fix.
I once again match my character. Behold the power of PINK!
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
Right so how about decoupling APA effects from cannon damage?? NI is an eng skill, if engs can't use beams effectively what good are they for. Healing?? they only have self heals. NI is in competition with SNB and GDF, it is not nearly as good at anything as these two.
Making eng run cannons, is like preventing tac buffs from appling to cannons. It makes a whole class obsolete.
Not quite. While yes having my DHCs all fire at 125 power instead of 125/113/101/89 power is not the same boost making my beams fire at 125 instead of 65 is, it is still a boost on the best damaging weapons.
PS: My Eng, my sci? Yup they are in escorts with DHCs too.
And I must once again repeat. The weapons are fine. The power drain mechanics and firing cycles are the problem.
You mean just as mature as making an entire shipclass out of your favourite ship.
Just as mature as making your least favourite ship the most boring one?
Lol.
In all fairness, his favorite ship is the Excelsior. He's even said so in past interviews.
But, you are saying that the differences would be enough to matter. They would not. Your average pug player is between 2-4k dps. I know, I run my parser all the time. High end players are at 6-9k, 9-11k for tacs.
The difference in lowering cannons or raising beams is going to be *NOWHERE* near a 7k DPS difference...
The system here is really really really loosely tuned...
For the second time, player dps analyzed at in a vacuum tells you nothing beyond how fast a person pew pews. Stop pinning your entire "everything will be fine" argument solely on dps parses.
Because everyone knows most cruisers can't use cannons. Hell, it'd be nice if they could use turrets actually, but again, most can't. Fed side I think the only cruiser that can use cannons, is the Dread.
Every ship in the game can equip single cannons. Every ship in the game can equip turrets.
I say it in every "cannons vs. beams" and "escorts vs. cruisers" thread, I personally have no problems with the ways the various ships and weapons behave; inherently the game design seems balanced.
The problem with balance in this game, and where the devs show their bias towards damage and "pew pew," is that eng and sci consoles have diminishing returns but tac consoles do not. Escorts can stack up to 5 of the same tac consoles to increase damage to crazy high levels w/ no penalty, yet if I try to slap on another field generator or alloy armor, I lose effectiveness. Logically, it makes sense when you have multiple redundant systems, there's going to be inefficiencies and diminishing returns. Why would tac consoles be any different? It's as if the devs intend dmg to be superior, thereby escorts (since they can load more tac consoles). This is not balance.
Either add diminishing returns to tac consoles or remove them from eng and sci consoles. Perhaps consider doing away with universal consoles, as well. If a captain had to slot a (current) universal console as a eng, sci or tac console (according to its function, ie point defense would be a tac console), the tac-focused universal consoles would force captains to make captains to make a choice: slot the special console or slot the extra stacking tac console.
Good point now let's look at Fe/scorts (Fleet Defiant and Kumari) vs. KDF scorts. Os there is a nerf incoming to the 5th tac consoles, and the forward weapon slot of the kumari? I mean if you see a bump in the road....
The KDF doesn't have escorts. They have raiders, raptors, battle cruisers, carriers, destroyers, support vessels and flight deck cruisers.
In all fairness, his favorite ship is the Excelsior. He's even said so in past interviews.
Lol, i forgot that bucket.
Sorry, my fault...
A 130 year old ship being able to outgun the Galaxy Class, if someone does something like that and admits to be a fan of that ship, i think there is no further comment needed...:rolleyes:
IF Mr. Rivera had as much knowledge about Star trek as he believes, then he would know a few things about other ships too. This and just a bit of common sense is all i ask from a game developer.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
. It makes me want to tear my hair out when I see people that know full well beams are weak, yet insist on using them and crying that's why they are under performing. Just adapt already, there are options out there that will make things more pleasant while we hope for a fix.
Adapt ?
Let's see , as far as I can remember most of our favorite Captains choose to yell at their chief engineers for "moar power" .
As far as I can see , we're just doing the same ... :P , except our chief engineer seems to insist that everything is just fine ... .
(except in the land of the horrid pvp , where he fears to tread)
But, you are saying that the differences would be enough to matter. They would not. Your average pug player is between 2-4k dps. I know, I run my parser all the time. High end players are at 6-9k, 9-11k for tacs.
The difference in lowering cannons or raising beams is going to be *NOWHERE* near a 7k DPS difference...
The system here is really really really loosely tuned...
My beam cruiser does between 7-9k dps in the STFs on average, and is a tank with full threat control. There isn't a 7k dps difference. A slight change to drain mechanics would make them PvE fine.. PvP is another story.
My tac escort varies massively, anywhere from 15k in CSE to 6k in HOSE (yes the beam cruiser out dps a tac escort in that situation).
Beams are limited in total DPS by BFaW mechanics, cannons are multiplied much further due to CSV not having a total max damage but just multiple and max # of targets.
You misunderstood me. There isn't a 7k DPS between beams and cannon users. There is a 7k DPS on average between your average player and your star players.
The difference between beams and cannons is much less then that. The point was that the system we play in can soak differences in DPS of a very wide margin.
I once again match my character. Behold the power of PINK!
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
Right so how about decoupling APA effects from cannon damage?? NI is an eng skill, if engs can't use beams effectively what good are they for. Healing?? they only have self heals. NI is in competition with SNB and GDF, it is not nearly as good at anything as these two.
Making eng run cannons, is like preventing tac buffs from appling to cannons. It makes a whole class obsolete.
You are so stuck inside your box its not even funny. My engi cruiser alt doesn't feel as limited as you clearly do in yours. Something must be wrong since I'm not an engi cruiser expert as you clearly are, nor is my alt nearly as geared as a dedicated engi cruiser main would be. Maybe its that you're not using engi cruisers to the best of their abilities?
I've been following this thread now since it's creation and I've got to say I'm impressed with the forum community's inventiveness in how to solve the perceived (and I'm using this word so those who don't see a problem won't bite my head off) issue with beams on cruisers, tanking on escorts and lack of sci in sci.
Ideas for reducing the shots per cycle and increasing power drain on DHC's.
Ideas for increasing the shots per cycle and decreasing power drain on beams.
Ideas for making universal consoles career specific (I actually love this one in the case of earned consoles but think that those purchased with a specific ship should be slottable anywhere on that ship (breen energy dissipator, for example) unless we have pack consoles (eg the different consoles from each Vesta type should go in the slot for the class it came from).
I see merit in all of these, and others.
I am drawn to one of Gecko's comments about finding a bump on the floor... you don't raise the floor to the level of the bump (alluding to DHC's DPS), you hammer down the bump. Well, I don't... I find the cause of the bump and try to stop it from happening again. Hammer down the bump and there's nothing to prevent another bump.
Anyway, I just think that we have all (myself included ) have put this thought and argument into a thread designed to praise a Dev for his nature, his work and his perseverance in doing a 4 hour interview. A thread created to say Gecko is the OP's favourite Dev, in fact. So, with that in mind, I prefer Tacofangs
"...we are far more united and have far more in common with each other than the things that divide us.”
Jo Cox 22.6.1974 - 16.6.2016
See what I did there? What are you plans to bring this OP item down in line with the other escorts?
I agree. The bugship part of the problem that gives the perceptoon of Escort OPness.
Another is missperception that all Escort/Tac players have such a huge difference in DPS output.
Not all Escorts are capable high burst DPS simply because not all Escorts players are capable of it due to how they play escorts. A few Escorts/ Tacs can burst in the high DPS range sure and new players can learn the timing do it but not all actuallh do.
The problem with balance in this game, and where the devs show their bias towards damage and "pew pew," is that eng and sci consoles have diminishing returns but tac consoles do not. Escorts can stack up to 5 of the same tac consoles to increase damage to crazy high levels w/ no penalty, yet if I try to slap on another field generator or alloy armor, I lose effectiveness. Logically, it makes sense when you have multiple redundant systems, there's going to be inefficiencies and diminishing returns. Why would tac consoles be any different? It's as if the devs intend dmg to be superior, thereby escorts (since they can load more tac consoles). This is not balance.
Either add diminishing returns to tac consoles or remove them from eng and sci consoles. Perhaps consider doing away with universal consoles, as well. If a captain had to slot a (current) universal console as a eng, sci or tac console (according to its function, ie point defense would be a tac console), the tac-focused universal consoles would force captains to make captains to make a choice: slot the special console or slot the extra stacking tac console.
False.
All consoles work with the same basic math. You have the base value that is then improved upon by both skills and consoles that add their bonus. Then things get multiplied by the other things.
No console has built in diminishing returns. Armor values have a forced diminishing returns when they are converted to the reduction % value, this effects everything though armor consoles, skills that provide armor, abilities that provide armor etc.
If tac console 1 adds 100 DPV to your gun, so will console 2, 3 and 4.
If Sci console 1 adds 100 DPS to your ability, so will console 2, 3 and 4.
If Sci console 1 adds 1,000 shields so will console 2, 3 and 4.
This is not complicated, and it should be documented. The sheer amount of mis-information and bad assumptions made inside the feedback/forums makes my head spin.
My beam cruiser does between 7-9k dps in the STFs on average, and is a tank with full threat control. There isn't a 7k dps difference. A slight change to drain mechanics would make them PvE fine.. PvP is another story.
My tac escort varies massively, anywhere from 15k in CSE to 6k in HOSE (yes the beam cruiser out dps a tac escort in that situation).
Beams are limited in total DPS by BFaW mechanics, cannons are multiplied much further due to CSV not having a total max damage but just multiple and max # of targets.
PuGs or premade?
Whats are the builds?
Are both piloted by Tacs?
How do they compare in a solo situation where the team doesn't spam APB/Tac Fleet/etc to boost your cruiser beam boat damage?
The broad 'I do this much DPS' statements mean very little without the complete picture.
No console has built in diminishing returns. Armor values have a forced diminishing returns when they are converted to the reduction % value, this effects everything though armor consoles, skills that provide armor, abilities that provide armor etc.
Did you really just follow the statement that no console has a DR mechanic with an explanation of armor consoles' DR mechanic?
Did you really just follow the statement that no console has a DR mechanic with an explanation of armor consoles' DR mechanic?
Yes, to clarify how it works.
The details are everything and frequently over looked. DR is a broad term that can be applied to many things depending on how you are looking at them that creates confusion and rarely does it accurately describe what is going on.
Case in point, if you have just two armor consoles providing resists (no skills/buffs/etc) than they do not really suffer any DR from the system. But the moment you start adding on things like polarize hull and a aux2strut then the DR really starts to kick in on them.
Another example is the entire beam array damage debate. Beam arrays deal perfectly acceptable damage but they suffer immensely from the power drain and weapon cycle mechanics that make them inferior to cannons but especially DHCs.
Most of the engagements in Star trek where 1 vs. 1 or 1 vs 2 or even 3.
Why should a Star Trek game be completely different?
Because it is bad, BAD, BAD game design in almost any MMO that pushes PvE first because 1v1 PvP balance interferes DRAMATICALLY with PvE design. Because 1v1 PvP balance impacts PvE balance worse than 5v5 PvP balance does. Because PvP is not a core focus of the game but is a side feature that they do not want to force anyone into ever adopting as the main feature.
1v1 PvP balance is the devil. Better they strip PvP out or disallow 1v1 (which, incidentally, they've already disqualified for some rewards) than shoot for that.
This is not a Star Trek simulator.
It is an MMO with a Star Trek theme. No MMO that is trying to push you into PvE has 1v1 PvP balance except for prefabs and monster play because pretty much all such scenarios RELLY on assymetric capabilities that result in, at best, paper-rock-scissors combat where scissors is VERY RARELY going to be defeated by paper without someone going AFK or teams focus firing in more coordinated ways than the other team. PvE is the bread and butter of this game. It is the intended bread and butter of the game. Having balanced 1v1 means you cannot have effective or meaningful specialization of roles in PvE. And to the extent that we don't (and we actually do but one problem is that skilled players in PvP builds are already overcompetitive in PvE), fixing that will require making 1v1 PvP LESS balanced, not MORE balanced.
I would bring cannon power drain in line with beams instead of making beams more powerful. The analogy I was suggesting is that if everything good, and one thing is OP, its healthier for the game to bring the OP item down in line with all the other items instead of raising all items to the level of the one OP item.
Just curious, but...wouldn't bringing beams up vs. lowering cannons pretty much be the same thing? I mean, if beams are increased to on-par with cannons, or if cannons were reduced to be on-par with beams....what difference in game play would it matter 1 way or the other?
I mean, as of right now, they're both support classes. How bizarre is that? I don't know of a single MMO with five or less classes that has two classes devoted to support. That is just odd.
Because it is bad, BAD, BAD game design in almost any MMO that pushes PvE first because 1v1 PvP balance interferes DRAMATICALLY with PvE design. Because 1v1 PvP balance impacts PvE balance worse than 5v5 PvP balance does. Because PvP is not a core focus of the game but is a side feature that they do not want to force anyone into ever adopting as the main feature.
1v1 PvP balance is the devil. Better they strip PvP out or disallow 1v1 (which, incidentally, they've already disqualified for some rewards) than shoot for that.
This is not a Star Trek simulator.
It is an MMO with a Star Trek theme. No MMO that is trying to push you into PvE has 1v1 PvP balance except for prefabs and monster play because pretty much all such scenarios RELLY on assymetric capabilities that result in, at best, paper-rock-scissors combat where scissors is VERY RARELY going to be defeated by paper without someone going AFK or teams focus firing in more coordinated ways than the other team. PvE is the bread and butter of this game. It is the intended bread and butter of the game. Having balanced 1v1 means you cannot have effective or meaningful specialization of roles in PvE. And to the extent that we don't (and we actually do but one problem is that skilled players in PvP builds are already overcompetitive in PvE), fixing that will require making 1v1 PvP LESS balanced, not MORE balanced.
To be honest i haven't understood anything of this MMO stuff and i really don't see a clear logic in it.
Well even if this game where balanced for 1 vs 1, it wouldn't automaticly exclude teamplay, why should it?
How can a game developer balance all the possible combinations of a 5 player team?
In my opinion it would be much easier to ultimately make all ships equal strong, just with different focus and different capabilities. Different ships would have different focuses and could work very well in combination with other. I don't see a problem there.
I just find it extremely lazy and cheap to balance a sci fi universe for 5 vs 5 (why not 17 vs 17?) balance which is clearly not appropriate for that.
I may have no idea how other MMOs work but i know how Star Trek ships are supposed to work and STO is lightyears away from that.
Rock / Paper / Scissors... every time i read that i get headarche...
Star Trek ships don't work that way, the more you try to press Star trek ships into those roles the more they will become just generic Sci Fi ships.
Maybe most people don't realize the uniqueness of Star Trek ships, i don't know.
If you have the chance please try to play Birth of the Federation a bit. If Cryptic would have made ships more like that game STO would be a much better Star Trek game.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Rock / Paper / Scissors... every time i read that i get headarche...
Star Trek ships don't work that way, the more you try to press Star trek ships into those roles the more they will become just generic Sci Fi ships.
Maybe most people don't realize the uniqueness of Star Trek ships, i don't know.
If you have the chance please try to play Birth of the Federation a bit. If Cryptic would have made ships more like that game STO would be a much better Star Trek game.
That game was a Strategy game, and those ships would not fit in an MMO, since they were turnbase .
Tac Captains in Escorts are the Heroes of STO. Everybody else is in a Supporting Role.
They need to rename the game: Sisko & the Defiant Online.
In a fantasy MMO, which this borrows from, the hero/leader is traditionally the damage aborber, not the damage dealer.
Now, what might be constructive is offering feedback on tanking (ie. distraction, enemy focus/threat, damage absorption) and how to make it more fun and more central.
Because it is bad, BAD, BAD game design in almost any MMO that pushes PvE first because 1v1 PvP balance interferes DRAMATICALLY with PvE design. Because 1v1 PvP balance impacts PvE balance worse than 5v5 PvP balance does. Because PvP is not a core focus of the game but is a side feature that they do not want to force anyone into ever adopting as the main feature.
1v1 PvP balance is the devil. Better they strip PvP out or disallow 1v1 (which, incidentally, they've already disqualified for some rewards) than shoot for that.
That is nonsense. Personally I'm really sick of the Dynasty Warriors school of game design. I've slaughtered countless foes, overcome insurmountable waves upon waves of enemies, enough. Give me an enemy that's as dangerous as I am, give me something that can surprise me. If 1v1 PvP is of the devil, find some way to make it angelic. If I want to slaughter hoards of weak minions I have literally every MMO in existence to play.
In a fantasy MMO, which this borrows from, the hero/leader is traditionally the damage aborber, not the damage dealer.
Now, what might be constructive is offering feedback on tanking (ie. distraction, enemy focus/threat, damage absorption) and how to make it more fun and more central.
This is a big problem though. One way to do this is to give Cruisers a "Sniping" sort of ability allowing them to shoot farther than escorts can, or give them a Glacier that moves and fires really slowly, but kills you nigh on instantly when you get really close.
Or some sort of combination of the two. That would be interesting.
The question I was asked was basically "my beams are not as good as cannons, can you make them better".
My feeling is that beams are fine. They are WAD and don't need to be made better. The outlier are the cannons, and, in a perfect world (see what I did there), I would bring cannon power drain in line with beams instead of making beams more powerful. The analogy I was suggesting is that if everything good, and one thing is OP, its healthier for the game to bring the OP item down in line with all the other items instead of raising all items to the level of the one OP item.
My comment was suggesting the question should evaluate what the real problem is.
I meant no subtext to suggest if enough players complained, there would be justification to nerf cannons.
Again, we have no plans to nerf cannons in any way. I cant make it any more clear than that.
i hope i am not too late answering this and that you see my post, mr geko.
thank for responding on the forum to calm down some fear that somes player seem to have about that so called nerfed to canon.
what you said in the interviews was perfectly clear to me and i don't known why some begun to imaginating things.
however, i must give you my feeling about your opinion on the state of beam vs canon.
you take as a postulate that beam are good but canon ar OP, so therefore, ideally, the best way would be to nerfed canon ( wich we all known you will not do now;) ).
i think that this postulate is wrong, canon are very powerfull, yes, but needed in pvp to get throught the tanking abilitie, natural resist, passive power and cross healing that this game offer.
so they are not overpowered considering all the "counter" present in the game.
beam however are shortcomming.
how can you put pression on an enemy with beam?
beam overload is very powerfull but last only 1 second and leave us with huge power drain that take long to recover and render the beam that follow inofensive for a couple of second.
beside you really need to fire it when you are at 125 weapon power or the effect is greatly reduced.
clearly this is a finisher or an opening power.
beam fire at will could be the equivalent of rapid fire in term of pression but, imediatly loose this status at the moment you are fighting more than 1 enemy.
so it is not a reliable source of pressure for beam, it best use at the moment is for spam clearing ( and that is view on the intended use of this power, i don't speak about the "bug" affecting it that borticus is working on ).
then, all what left is unbuffed beam to maintain pression while the escort with rapid fire power is hammering you for this long 10 seconds.
and what is true for canon is true for beam also, because beam user too have to deal with shield regen, cross healing, hight defence score and passive regen.
the only difference is that we are using unbuffed weapons 90% of the time ( when it is not debuff weapon after a beam overload, one not alway have a batterie available ) while canon user have most likely a 80% buff weapons available.
so decrease the power drain on beam may not be the solution, but i think beam user need an other power that can allow them to put pression AT THERE LEVEL.
we don't ask for a power that give us the same damage potential than rapid fire.
a beam fire at will to 1 target is the solution in my opinion.
you can fine tune it to do less damage per shot than the multi target one, but we need an alternative to unbuffed beam.
because right now, even considering a cruiser or a sci ship as a support is a joke, unless support only mean a healing machine, it feel sometime that we could remove weapons from the ship, one would bearly noticed!
You should get a raise for making them better and killing this vicious rumor. :cool:
I actually include a Dual Beam Bank Forward and a Beam Array Aft to take advantage of BA:O III and I'm an Engineer with a Red Matter Capacitor so no power problems.
Have them email me a survey and I'll give you good feedback.
The question I was asked was basically "my beams are not as good as cannons, can you make them better".
My feeling is that beams are fine. They are WAD and don't need to be made better. The outlier are the cannons, and, in a perfect world (see what I did there), I would bring cannon power drain in line with beams instead of making beams more powerful. The analogy I was suggesting is that if everything good, and one thing is OP, its healthier for the game to bring the OP item down in line with all the other items instead of raising all items to the level of the one OP item.
My comment was suggesting the question should evaluate what the real problem is.
I meant no subtext to suggest if enough players complained, there would be justification to nerf cannons.
Again, we have no plans to nerf cannons in any way. I cant make it any more clear than that.
Beams aren't fine b/c resists and passive regen/repairs are too high for them to be effective.
Take the Human Boff fix, people can get 3-5% hull repair/second. That's ~30 seconds to full refill of hull.
Now think of the pressure damage w/o that repair. Ask how long should it take for applied pressure damage to require a target to use massive repair/resists boosts or flee or explode? If it's say 30 seconds then that's ~3.3% hull damage/second. If 5 ships are using that amount of pressure damage you're down to 6 seconds of time before responding. It's not that simple b/c they need to get through shield 1st, but I hope you get my point that 3-5% passive Hull regen is a lot (it basically negates 1 ship's potential pressure damage).
Now toss in the Fleet shields and their adaptive resists, the Embassy proc repairs, and Rep system proc repairs, and you've basically eliminated the pressure damage role in PvP.
[Zone] Dack@****: cowards can't take a fed 1 on 1 crinckley cowards Hahahaha you smell like flowers
Random Quote from Kerrat
"Sumlobus@****: your mums eat Iced Targ Poo"
C&H Fed banter
Comments
Right so how about decoupling APA effects from cannon damage?? NI is an eng skill, if engs can't use beams effectively what good are they for. Healing?? they only have self heals. NI is in competition with SNB and GDF, it is not nearly as good at anything as these two.
Making eng run cannons, is like preventing tac buffs from appling to cannons. It makes a whole class obsolete.
a history of sto pvp: 2010 - 2011
a history of sto pvp: 2012 - 2013
The Players do .
The Devs ... (?) -- well they are currently busy pileing on one passive defense bonus on top of another ... , while at the same time saying that beam weapons work as 'intended' , even when beam weapons were designed before Tac Team acted almost as a Reverse Shield Polarity , and before we got all them fancy new passive bonuses and Doffs that extend & enhance existing defense abilities .
So yeah , beam weapons are just dandy ... , if all you're looking for is a tool to deliver a 2.5% chance for something or other to proc .
As to damage ... , well I used to do that prior to S.5 ... . Now , not so much .
Oh and Al ... , at this point things are so screwed up that even adding more [Acc] through a PvP Rep System would do nothing for beams ... 'cause thanks to all the passives , even the Glass Cannons are reinforced transparent aluminium .
Edit: And an eng having self heals lets them save their boff heals for others without not having a heal for themselves.
I won't argue that eng is weak, and I fully agree that beams need a buff. You are arguing with the wrong person on these points. I just say the problems are surmountable. It makes me want to tear my hair out when I see people that know full well beams are weak, yet insist on using them and crying that's why they are under performing. Just adapt already, there are options out there that will make things more pleasant while we hope for a fix.
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
Not quite. While yes having my DHCs all fire at 125 power instead of 125/113/101/89 power is not the same boost making my beams fire at 125 instead of 65 is, it is still a boost on the best damaging weapons.
PS: My Eng, my sci? Yup they are in escorts with DHCs too.
And I must once again repeat. The weapons are fine. The power drain mechanics and firing cycles are the problem.
In all fairness, his favorite ship is the Excelsior. He's even said so in past interviews.
For the second time, player dps analyzed at in a vacuum tells you nothing beyond how fast a person pew pews. Stop pinning your entire "everything will be fine" argument solely on dps parses.
Which explains the phenomenon of "the older we make a T5 ship, the more powerful it seems to be".
Every ship in the game can equip single cannons. Every ship in the game can equip turrets.
The problem with balance in this game, and where the devs show their bias towards damage and "pew pew," is that eng and sci consoles have diminishing returns but tac consoles do not. Escorts can stack up to 5 of the same tac consoles to increase damage to crazy high levels w/ no penalty, yet if I try to slap on another field generator or alloy armor, I lose effectiveness. Logically, it makes sense when you have multiple redundant systems, there's going to be inefficiencies and diminishing returns. Why would tac consoles be any different? It's as if the devs intend dmg to be superior, thereby escorts (since they can load more tac consoles). This is not balance.
Either add diminishing returns to tac consoles or remove them from eng and sci consoles. Perhaps consider doing away with universal consoles, as well. If a captain had to slot a (current) universal console as a eng, sci or tac console (according to its function, ie point defense would be a tac console), the tac-focused universal consoles would force captains to make captains to make a choice: slot the special console or slot the extra stacking tac console.
The KDF doesn't have escorts. They have raiders, raptors, battle cruisers, carriers, destroyers, support vessels and flight deck cruisers.
Sorry, my fault...
A 130 year old ship being able to outgun the Galaxy Class, if someone does something like that and admits to be a fan of that ship, i think there is no further comment needed...:rolleyes:
IF Mr. Rivera had as much knowledge about Star trek as he believes, then he would know a few things about other ships too. This and just a bit of common sense is all i ask from a game developer.
Adapt ?
Let's see , as far as I can remember most of our favorite Captains choose to yell at their chief engineers for "moar power" .
As far as I can see , we're just doing the same ... :P , except our chief engineer seems to insist that everything is just fine ... .
(except in the land of the horrid pvp , where he fears to tread)
My beam cruiser does between 7-9k dps in the STFs on average, and is a tank with full threat control. There isn't a 7k dps difference. A slight change to drain mechanics would make them PvE fine.. PvP is another story.
My tac escort varies massively, anywhere from 15k in CSE to 6k in HOSE (yes the beam cruiser out dps a tac escort in that situation).
Beams are limited in total DPS by BFaW mechanics, cannons are multiplied much further due to CSV not having a total max damage but just multiple and max # of targets.
Completed Starbase, Embassy, Mine, Spire and No Win Scenario
Nothing to do anymore.
http://dtfleet.com/
Visit our Youtube channel
The difference between beams and cannons is much less then that. The point was that the system we play in can soak differences in DPS of a very wide margin.
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
You are so stuck inside your box its not even funny. My engi cruiser alt doesn't feel as limited as you clearly do in yours. Something must be wrong since I'm not an engi cruiser expert as you clearly are, nor is my alt nearly as geared as a dedicated engi cruiser main would be. Maybe its that you're not using engi cruisers to the best of their abilities?
Ideas for reducing the shots per cycle and increasing power drain on DHC's.
Ideas for increasing the shots per cycle and decreasing power drain on beams.
Ideas for making universal consoles career specific (I actually love this one in the case of earned consoles but think that those purchased with a specific ship should be slottable anywhere on that ship (breen energy dissipator, for example) unless we have pack consoles (eg the different consoles from each Vesta type should go in the slot for the class it came from).
I see merit in all of these, and others.
I am drawn to one of Gecko's comments about finding a bump on the floor... you don't raise the floor to the level of the bump (alluding to DHC's DPS), you hammer down the bump. Well, I don't... I find the cause of the bump and try to stop it from happening again. Hammer down the bump and there's nothing to prevent another bump.
Anyway, I just think that we have all (myself included
Jo Cox 22.6.1974 - 16.6.2016
I agree. The bugship part of the problem that gives the perceptoon of Escort OPness.
Another is missperception that all Escort/Tac players have such a huge difference in DPS output.
Not all Escorts are capable high burst DPS simply because not all Escorts players are capable of it due to how they play escorts. A few Escorts/ Tacs can burst in the high DPS range sure and new players can learn the timing do it but not all actuallh do.
R.I.P
False.
All consoles work with the same basic math. You have the base value that is then improved upon by both skills and consoles that add their bonus. Then things get multiplied by the other things.
No console has built in diminishing returns. Armor values have a forced diminishing returns when they are converted to the reduction % value, this effects everything though armor consoles, skills that provide armor, abilities that provide armor etc.
If tac console 1 adds 100 DPV to your gun, so will console 2, 3 and 4.
If Sci console 1 adds 100 DPS to your ability, so will console 2, 3 and 4.
If Sci console 1 adds 1,000 shields so will console 2, 3 and 4.
This is not complicated, and it should be documented. The sheer amount of mis-information and bad assumptions made inside the feedback/forums makes my head spin.
PuGs or premade?
Whats are the builds?
Are both piloted by Tacs?
How do they compare in a solo situation where the team doesn't spam APB/Tac Fleet/etc to boost your cruiser beam boat damage?
The broad 'I do this much DPS' statements mean very little without the complete picture.
Did you really just follow the statement that no console has a DR mechanic with an explanation of armor consoles' DR mechanic?
Yes, to clarify how it works.
The details are everything and frequently over looked. DR is a broad term that can be applied to many things depending on how you are looking at them that creates confusion and rarely does it accurately describe what is going on.
Case in point, if you have just two armor consoles providing resists (no skills/buffs/etc) than they do not really suffer any DR from the system. But the moment you start adding on things like polarize hull and a aux2strut then the DR really starts to kick in on them.
Another example is the entire beam array damage debate. Beam arrays deal perfectly acceptable damage but they suffer immensely from the power drain and weapon cycle mechanics that make them inferior to cannons but especially DHCs.
Because it is bad, BAD, BAD game design in almost any MMO that pushes PvE first because 1v1 PvP balance interferes DRAMATICALLY with PvE design. Because 1v1 PvP balance impacts PvE balance worse than 5v5 PvP balance does. Because PvP is not a core focus of the game but is a side feature that they do not want to force anyone into ever adopting as the main feature.
1v1 PvP balance is the devil. Better they strip PvP out or disallow 1v1 (which, incidentally, they've already disqualified for some rewards) than shoot for that.
This is not a Star Trek simulator.
It is an MMO with a Star Trek theme. No MMO that is trying to push you into PvE has 1v1 PvP balance except for prefabs and monster play because pretty much all such scenarios RELLY on assymetric capabilities that result in, at best, paper-rock-scissors combat where scissors is VERY RARELY going to be defeated by paper without someone going AFK or teams focus firing in more coordinated ways than the other team. PvE is the bread and butter of this game. It is the intended bread and butter of the game. Having balanced 1v1 means you cannot have effective or meaningful specialization of roles in PvE. And to the extent that we don't (and we actually do but one problem is that skilled players in PvP builds are already overcompetitive in PvE), fixing that will require making 1v1 PvP LESS balanced, not MORE balanced.
Just curious, but...wouldn't bringing beams up vs. lowering cannons pretty much be the same thing? I mean, if beams are increased to on-par with cannons, or if cannons were reduced to be on-par with beams....what difference in game play would it matter 1 way or the other?
> than becomes =
just like
< than becomes =
3 words......
Just
Plain
Sucks
Well even if this game where balanced for 1 vs 1, it wouldn't automaticly exclude teamplay, why should it?
How can a game developer balance all the possible combinations of a 5 player team?
In my opinion it would be much easier to ultimately make all ships equal strong, just with different focus and different capabilities. Different ships would have different focuses and could work very well in combination with other. I don't see a problem there.
I just find it extremely lazy and cheap to balance a sci fi universe for 5 vs 5 (why not 17 vs 17?) balance which is clearly not appropriate for that.
I may have no idea how other MMOs work but i know how Star Trek ships are supposed to work and STO is lightyears away from that.
Rock / Paper / Scissors... every time i read that i get headarche...
Star Trek ships don't work that way, the more you try to press Star trek ships into those roles the more they will become just generic Sci Fi ships.
Maybe most people don't realize the uniqueness of Star Trek ships, i don't know.
If you have the chance please try to play Birth of the Federation a bit. If Cryptic would have made ships more like that game STO would be a much better Star Trek game.
One Word: True
That game was a Strategy game, and those ships would not fit in an MMO, since they were turnbase .
Tac Captains in Escorts are the Heroes of STO. Everybody else is in a Supporting Role.
They need to rename the game: Sisko & the Defiant Online.
In a fantasy MMO, which this borrows from, the hero/leader is traditionally the damage aborber, not the damage dealer.
Now, what might be constructive is offering feedback on tanking (ie. distraction, enemy focus/threat, damage absorption) and how to make it more fun and more central.
That is nonsense. Personally I'm really sick of the Dynasty Warriors school of game design. I've slaughtered countless foes, overcome insurmountable waves upon waves of enemies, enough. Give me an enemy that's as dangerous as I am, give me something that can surprise me. If 1v1 PvP is of the devil, find some way to make it angelic. If I want to slaughter hoards of weak minions I have literally every MMO in existence to play.
I want something different.
This is a big problem though. One way to do this is to give Cruisers a "Sniping" sort of ability allowing them to shoot farther than escorts can, or give them a Glacier that moves and fires really slowly, but kills you nigh on instantly when you get really close.
Or some sort of combination of the two. That would be interesting.
i hope i am not too late answering this and that you see my post, mr geko.
thank for responding on the forum to calm down some fear that somes player seem to have about that so called nerfed to canon.
what you said in the interviews was perfectly clear to me and i don't known why some begun to imaginating things.
however, i must give you my feeling about your opinion on the state of beam vs canon.
you take as a postulate that beam are good but canon ar OP, so therefore, ideally, the best way would be to nerfed canon ( wich we all known you will not do now;) ).
i think that this postulate is wrong, canon are very powerfull, yes, but needed in pvp to get throught the tanking abilitie, natural resist, passive power and cross healing that this game offer.
so they are not overpowered considering all the "counter" present in the game.
beam however are shortcomming.
how can you put pression on an enemy with beam?
beam overload is very powerfull but last only 1 second and leave us with huge power drain that take long to recover and render the beam that follow inofensive for a couple of second.
beside you really need to fire it when you are at 125 weapon power or the effect is greatly reduced.
clearly this is a finisher or an opening power.
beam fire at will could be the equivalent of rapid fire in term of pression but, imediatly loose this status at the moment you are fighting more than 1 enemy.
so it is not a reliable source of pressure for beam, it best use at the moment is for spam clearing ( and that is view on the intended use of this power, i don't speak about the "bug" affecting it that borticus is working on ).
then, all what left is unbuffed beam to maintain pression while the escort with rapid fire power is hammering you for this long 10 seconds.
and what is true for canon is true for beam also, because beam user too have to deal with shield regen, cross healing, hight defence score and passive regen.
the only difference is that we are using unbuffed weapons 90% of the time ( when it is not debuff weapon after a beam overload, one not alway have a batterie available ) while canon user have most likely a 80% buff weapons available.
so decrease the power drain on beam may not be the solution, but i think beam user need an other power that can allow them to put pression AT THERE LEVEL.
we don't ask for a power that give us the same damage potential than rapid fire.
a beam fire at will to 1 target is the solution in my opinion.
you can fine tune it to do less damage per shot than the multi target one, but we need an alternative to unbuffed beam.
because right now, even considering a cruiser or a sci ship as a support is a joke, unless support only mean a healing machine, it feel sometime that we could remove weapons from the ship, one would bearly noticed!
i am not the first to have noticed this lack in beam power, this issue have already been mentioned in this thread http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=535071
so this is my 2 cents, in hope that someone bring this post to your eyes and make you see things from beam user perspective.
PS: i known the forum is a dangerous place but i would love to see you responding more to some critical thread around here.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
YES!
You should get a raise for making them better and killing this vicious rumor. :cool:
I actually include a Dual Beam Bank Forward and a Beam Array Aft to take advantage of BA:O III and I'm an Engineer with a Red Matter Capacitor so no power problems.
Have them email me a survey and I'll give you good feedback.
Beams aren't fine b/c resists and passive regen/repairs are too high for them to be effective.
Take the Human Boff fix, people can get 3-5% hull repair/second. That's ~30 seconds to full refill of hull.
Now think of the pressure damage w/o that repair. Ask how long should it take for applied pressure damage to require a target to use massive repair/resists boosts or flee or explode? If it's say 30 seconds then that's ~3.3% hull damage/second. If 5 ships are using that amount of pressure damage you're down to 6 seconds of time before responding. It's not that simple b/c they need to get through shield 1st, but I hope you get my point that 3-5% passive Hull regen is a lot (it basically negates 1 ship's potential pressure damage).
Now toss in the Fleet shields and their adaptive resists, the Embassy proc repairs, and Rep system proc repairs, and you've basically eliminated the pressure damage role in PvP.
Random Quote from Kerrat
"Sumlobus@****: your mums eat Iced Targ Poo"
C&H Fed banter