test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Synergy - Roles and Classes

bluegeekbluegeek Member Posts: 0 Arc User
I've decided that I agree an alternative approach is needed in regard to the whole Tac/Enginer/Sci/Escort/Cruiser/Sci question.

Nerfing Tac/Escort is not the answer. Neither is buffing DPS for Eng/Cruiser or Sci/Sci.

Cruisers and Science Vessels don't need DPS... They do, however, need an effective and satisfying niche in both PvP and PvE gameplay.

I believe that Cruisers need to have a synergistic relationship with the other ship types and that Engineering Captain and BOFF abilities need to have synergy with the Tactical and Science abilities.

If the point of an Engineer is to make systems work better, then synergy is a good answer. He should affect certain Tac and Science abilities so they work more effectively than they do on their own. He should be able to do that not only with his allies but also with his own BOFFs.

The synergies should take the form of side-benefits that add special effects to the use of a power. Think of it as cross-career, team-friendly, "Space Combos" that are the realm of the Engineer.

A couple of (probably bad) examples I thought of:

1. Emergency Power to Weapons temporarily interacts with Beam Overload and causes a drain of Aux power on the target (if BO is fired within 5 seconds)

2. Distributed Energy Modulation interacts with Jam Sensors and gives the attacker's beams a chance to proc a Scramble Sensors effect.

Tac and Science Captains don't lose out completely because their own Engineering BOFF's would also have synergies, but less powerful synergies than you can get in a Cruiser with a high-ranking Engineer.

Synergy could also be used with Science in a different way.

If the Engineer's paradigm is to make systems work better, the Science officer's paradigm could be creative problem-solving. In other words, they don't just analyze sensor readings and make weird things happen. They apply scientific principles to develop new solutions.

The question is how to quantify that in game terms.

One answer could be another type of "Combo" system where specific combinations of Science abilities in specific orders trigger specific additional effects.

For example...

1. Chaining Hazard Emitters and Polarize Hull has a chance of reflecting plasma attacks in a way similar to Feedback Pulse.

2. Chaining Gravity Well and Tyken's Rift increases the chance to proc for all chroniton weapons for 20 seconds.

This "Synergy" idea has at least couple of serious "cons":

1. Not a short-term solution.
2. Increases balance complexity and more opportunities for imbalance.

If you think about it, Tac/Escorts already have their own kind of synergy where the Tactical abilities improve the ship's tactical capabilities and combinations of powers make the Tac in an Escort even more effective.
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
Post edited by bluegeek on
«1

Comments

  • lordmalak1lordmalak1 Member Posts: 4,681 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    2. Distributed Energy Modulation interacts with Jam Sensors and gives the attacker's beams a chance to proc a Scramble Sensors effect.

    I like that one. Aren't there some of these already (besides the well known TAC ones) ? Something like an acetone beam and feedback pulse triggering a viral matrix type effect ?
    KBF Lord MalaK
    Awoken Dead
    giphy.gif

    Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
  • haravikkharavikk Member Posts: 278
    edited March 2013
    I like the idea of ability combos for engineering and science; I think that science could really do with it more than engineers though, as most Emergency Power to X abilities already have great synergy with other abilities. I already frequently use Emergency Power to Weapons before a Beam Overload as it significantly reduces the penalty of firing it, and with my already high power transfer I gain an improvement to damage overall when I do this; even more so with EPS Power Transfer and/or Nadion Inversion.


    One combo that engineers could really do with however is something to intentionally draw aggro from NPC enemies, as currently the only sources of threat are really the skill, embassy consoles, and damage. But personally even if I were going for a full-on tank I would rather draw aggro when it's most beneficial, rather than doing so all the time, as you can't currently rely on anyone to back you up with healing abilities. A combo such as Aceton Beam + Reverse Shield Polarity however could be great if they combined to instantly redirect the target's attacks against you (though maybe that should just be an in-built feature of Aceton Beam?) as it's pretty much the ultimate tank combo, though you don't currently see anyone using it very much; personally I have both abilities as I find them really useful, but most ships seem to favour slotting lots of short cool-down abilities over the slower ones, so combos would be a big bonus to those.

    Anyway, an "irresistible aggro" combo would be very useful as you could then do it on-demand when your team-mates are threatened, in order to immediately draw fire away from them and give them a chance to recover. It could possibly apply in PvP as well in a similar way to sensor interference, by making you the only targetable enemy so long as you're in range.
  • bpharmabpharma Member Posts: 2,022
    edited March 2013
    I like the idea of powers interacting with each other in a synergistic way, I think it really could do with being slanted towards science abilities though as engineering and tactical skills already work well with each other and themselves, though less pronounced with engineering and engineering. Science however I find quite lacking with the synergy with the exception of gravity well as it not only makes grouping targets up for AoE damage easy but the warp core explosions increase damage significantly.

    Just so we are clear to people reading this, synergy is like having 2+2=7, it is meant to do more than the sum of its parts. So you would perhaps see a boost in each skills damage or effects and maybe an extra effect.

    It is through repetition that we learn our weakness.
    A master with a stone is better than a novice with a sword.

    Has damage got out of control?
    This is the last thing I will post.
  • edited March 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • chuckingramchuckingram Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    bluegeek wrote: »
    This "Synergy" idea has at least couple of serious "cons":

    1. Not a short-term solution.
    2. Increases balance complexity and more opportunities for imbalance.

    If you think about it, Tac/Escorts already have their own kind of synergy where the Tactical abilities improve the ship's tactical capabilities and combinations of powers make the Tac in an Escort even more effective.

    I agree that a more analytical approach is needed to increase enjoyment for everyone. However, I think it should start with the user. One of the biggest mistakes I see with new users, indeed I made the same mistake initially, was to not focus my traits to match my profession. Once I spec'd hard for tactical the game was a lot more fun for me.

    Synergy is a great idea and could easily manifest itself in tertiary effects to present power combinations. However, first and foremost, synergy should exist between profession and the ship type that matches that profession. By this I mean something more than a cruiser having four engineer consoles, etc. Perhaps, say, an engineer in a cruiser receiving 5000 points added to both shields and hull, and maybe even a high bonus defense for sitting stationary in space and hosing things down with beams.
  • edited March 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • chuckingramchuckingram Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    skollulfr wrote: »
    because forcing people to play in a predefined way with a specific set of gear is more fun than making it a tactical decision as to how a player uses a class of ship...:rolleyes:

    obsolete thinking.

    You may have read what I said, I don't know, but you didn't waste any time at all not understanding it. The only thing that qualifies as obsolete in this thread is that same tired, sarcastic BS that's to often used to cover for a lack of real thought. BG started this thread seemingly to address the wall-to-wall whining about the way things work in this game. I assumed that the idea was to bat around some ideas, which is what I offered, not to poke at each other for the sake of poking at each other.

    In the future, just ignore what I post, please.
  • edited March 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • bpharmabpharma Member Posts: 2,022
    edited March 2013
    Kind of agree with skollulfr about the engi/escort, tac/cruiser ideas of changing the way a ship and class behaves. There's too much you are an cruiser you must tank, you are a sci, heal me, ***** mentality. Also as pointed out tactical captains have synergy with way too many ships and skills. Engineers and science captains have less synergy but I think some of that comes from the way missions focus only on destroying enemies and there are no other options to win.

    It is through repetition that we learn our weakness.
    A master with a stone is better than a novice with a sword.

    Has damage got out of control?
    This is the last thing I will post.
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    It would certainly be useful to disabuse the playerbase of the impression that they must fly a ship that "matches" their class.
  • tpalelenatpalelena Member Posts: 1 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    I would prefer science and engineering getting a buff instead of the tacticals getting a nerf.

    That would not ruin STFs for all the tacticals.
    Let us wear Swimsuits on Foundry maps or bridges please! I would pay zen for that.
  • bluegeekbluegeek Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    skollulfr wrote: »
    {snip}
    {snip}

    Guys, I started this thread to float the synergy idea and I really don't mind if people critique that idea. There are a lot of smart people who are better at this game than I am and who will have useful opinions, both positive and negative.

    Please don't argue about it. I would prefer if people have a criticism that they do it with respect for others.

    I'd like to see feedback on what "synergy" in STO means to you, personally, and if you have any specific ideas about how it might work in regard to the game.

    Since this is all theoretical brainstorming anyway, there are no "bad" ideas here. Some ideas may be unworkable, unreasonable, or impractical. But let's let the Devs decide those things if they take an interest in this subject, okay? We can discuss, but should not argue.

    I hate having to hand out warnings in my own threads, but I do play closer attention to them, so...
    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 March 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • eraserfisheraserfish Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    bluegeek wrote: »
    [Original Post]

    Engineer captains and cruisers simply do not have a role in the current game, and don't really excel at anything either. Cruisers can't do anything quite as well as any other ship type and lack flexibility to boot. While this problem is more evident on Federation cruisers (which have poor handling and offensive capabilities), I would say that this applies to KDF battlecruisers as well.

    The solution will not be found in adding special new game mechanics, but rather by modifying cruiser attributes, BOff skills, and the Engineering PC skillset.
  • eraserfisheraserfish Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    As for synergy, I feel that most of the Engineering BOff abilities actually work better on other ships than the cruiser platform that supposedly specializes in their use. Just look at how Klingons use their BOPs to chain Science disables to Warp Plasma, or how well DEM complements Cannons and Rapid Fire/Scatter Volley.

    That's what cruisers should be doing, but they're limited by their BOff layout, poor movement characteristics, and weaponry options.
  • edited March 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • rakija879rakija879 Member Posts: 646 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    Something like a proc of Scramble Sensors effect, or jam would be great ! ;) But increasing the base dmg of beams would be even better :P
  • virusdancervirusdancer Member Posts: 18,687 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    bluegeek wrote: »
    I'd like to see feedback on what "synergy" in STO means to you, personally, and if you have any specific ideas about how it might work in regard to the game.

    How often does a Tac use a Captain ability compared to a Tac BOFF ability?
    How often does an Eng use a Captain ability compared to an Eng BOFF ability?
    How often does a Sci use a Captain ability compared to a Sci BOFF ability?

    In a 15 minute period or so, there will only be 10-27% uptime on Captain abilities. That's 73% or more downtime. Now of course, timing is important in regard to when those abilities are used - but in the end you're still going to be looking at 73% or more of the time during a 15 minute period where there is no difference between a Tac, Eng, or Sci in whatever ship you are flying.

    In Space, there is no difference in the potential skill build one selects. There are no differences in regard to the Traits. There are no Career restrictions on any gear.

    10-27% of each 15 minute period...that is all that separates the Careers in Space.

    If we look at the base three ship types (yes, this means ignoring a whole bunch of ships) - Escort, Cruiser, and Science Vessel...there's a general gist as far as what each one does. Different people will have different thoughts on that, so some may not agree with what I offer below:

    Escort - Damage
    Cruiser - Healing/Tank
    Science Vessel - Control/Damage/Debuff/Healing

    That being said, a quick look at the Captain abilities:

    Tac - Damage
    Eng - Tank
    Sci - Buff/Debuff

    It's not so much about Synergy, but rather about Balance (which is massively out of whack)...imho. But I will touch upon Synergy in a moment (since imo Career matters little overall and should matter more).

    A Tac in an Escort? Damage + Damage
    A Tac in a Cruiser? Damage + Healing/Tank
    A Tac in a Science Vessel? Damage + Control/Damage/Debuff/Healing

    An Eng in an Escort? Tank + Damage
    An Eng in a Cruiser? Tank + Healing/Tank
    An Eng in a Science Vessel? Tank + Control/Damage/Debuff/Healing

    A Sci in an Escort? Buff/Debuff + Damage
    A Sci in a Cruiser? Buff/Debuff + Healing/Tank
    A Sci in a Science Vessel? Buff/Debuff + Control/Damage/Debuff/Healing

    That Tac in the Escort should be capable of the most damage.
    That Tac in the Escort should also be the squishiest thing in Space without actual support.

    That Tac in the Escort SHOULD REQUIRE support...or spend most of the time looking at a Respawn button.

    That Eng in a Cruiser should be capable of taking the most damage.
    That Eng in a Cruiser should also be doing the least damage imaginable.

    There is not any content that requires the Eng in a Cruiser TANK.

    That Sci in a Science Vessel should be capable of being the most annoying player.
    That Sci in a Science Vessel should be capable of being the most annoying player.

    Yes, I repeated myself. Think about it. Aha, yeah? Goodl

    There is not any content that requires the Sci in a Science Vessel CONTROL/DEBUFF.

    Those three things right there...tada...you've got your STF where folks complain when there is an Eng/Cruiser or Sci/Sci - since the five Tac/Escorts can do it more efficiently.

    One can look at the various options of why you'd put each of the three Careers in each of the three Ships - there's all sorts of balance options there...that er, just aren't in the game.

    Want some Damage & Control? Grab a Tac in a Sci or a Sci in an Escort. Have more than one healer and want more damage? How about a pair of Tacs in Cruisers? Have some tough content where you need that mix of damage and tank? Eng in Escorts and Tac in Cruisers, eh? Yes, you can envision the various possibilities - the different ways in which different groups could be put together to handle various scenarios...rather than it being the severe case of Cookie Cutter Syndrome we've got going on.

    Okay then, so am I ready to discuss Synergy with Captains? Er, nope. First I want to address the curious manner in which BOFF abilities are the same regardless of ship. Though, I suppose one could say that's a form of discussing Synergy, eh? Maybe? Dunno.

    Nah, not really. It's just a case of how many abilities do the same thing regardless of the ship that they are on. There's not enough dynamic there, imho, about how the Ships should vary. Kind of ties into thoughts about the Captains, eh? Kind of gets back to that Cookie Cutter Syndrome, I suppose...

    Okay, so how about that Synergy now?

    Should be "three" things, imo:

    Captain
    Ship
    BOFF Ability

    They should all be somewhat different, modified by all three.

    A Tac Captain in an Escort using Ability X should be different than a Tac Captain in a Cruiser using Ability X should be different than a Tac Captain in a Science Vessel using Ability X should be different than an Eng Captain in an Escort using Ability X should be different than an Eng Captain in a Cruiser using Ability X should be different than...a Sci Captain in a Science Vessel using Ability X.

    Yes, I shortened that list of "should be different" - but you get the gist. Both the Captain and the Ship should affect the particular "thingamabob" that each BOFF Ability does. Likewise of course, each Captain Ability should be affected by the Ship they're flying.

    Would this already be mind-boggling in complexity before one even began to look at the various gear out there and the affect all of this would have on Balance? No sh...sugar.

    To an extent though, some of it would be as simple as what we see with various abilities being DOFF'd. Rather than having those 5 Active DOFFs - it would be a case of those "specials" coming about (that form of Synergy forming) because of the Captain and Ship with regard to the BOFF Ability.

    And...it would all go back to the basics that I typed out about the three Careers and three base Ships.

    Maybe, eh?

    Something along the lines of...

    Tac Captain, Science Vessel, Engineer BOFF: +Dmg, +Control/Debuff, +Tank/Heal

    Maybe it's a case that one expands those basic things, cause a Tac actually does more than just that. There's even ways one can flip things around a bit - because of their specialty, eh?

    Take a look at EPtS - and - what you could put together for a Tac in a Sci, eh?
    How about BO for a Sci in a Cruiser? How about Jam for an Eng in an Escort?

    Does that make sense? That overall combination of Synergy...Flavor?

    Course, oodles and oodles would have to be addressed before any of that was even considered, eh?

    But sometimes it is just fun to type things out - knowing that even though they will never happen, they're not going to be nagging you...like a form of release.
  • cmdrskyfallercmdrskyfaller Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    bluegeek wrote: »
    I've decided that I agree an alternative approach is needed in regard to the whole Tac/Enginer/Sci/Escort/Cruiser/Sci question.

    Nerfing Tac/Escort is not the answer. Neither is buffing DPS for Eng/Cruiser or Sci/Sci.

    Cruisers and Science Vessels don't need DPS... They do, however, need an effective and satisfying niche in both PvP and PvE gameplay.

    ...snip...

    If you think about it, Tac/Escorts already have their own kind of synergy where the Tactical abilities improve the ship's tactical capabilities and combinations of powers make the Tac in an Escort even more effective.

    Bluegeek,

    I agree in principle that there needs to be a very serious review of sci and cruiser / sci capt&eng Capt types for role synergy.

    I disagree with your approach however.

    I disagree because it does not address the source of the imbalance between the classes, it merely acts as a band-aid and that literally will simply create more serious problems down the line.

    To find the source of the current problem we need to identify how it came to be.

    We know this already. The F2P patch was the start of the class imbalance. Ships and captain types were almost perfectly in sync with their roles and could function very well in other ships. So what did the F2P patch do?

    It narrowed down the required skill boxes for tactical skills and retained the highly complex boxes for engineering and science. That was the biggest change. Suddenly, any captain could literally max out the tactical skills and have more then plenty of skill points left over to max out defensive skills. Superficially this is a good thing for all captain types and I'm sure this is what cryptic thought at the time.

    But....the reality of the change became apparent just within a week of the F2P patch. While cruisers and science ships did find themselves able to max out weapons, they also had to spend their points into both sci and engineer skills to try and perform their roles of tanks and debuffers/crowd control. To do so, the ships simply could not be running around with high weapon power and the cruiser/sci ships were simply not nimble, fast or (in sci's case) armed well enough to benefit from the reduction in tactical skills. For these 2 classes the game changed little at the start of the F2P patch.

    Tactical/escorts on the other hand..received a massive boost from the changes. Full weapon skills for cheap investment in skill points meant they had tons of skill points left over to max out their armor/shield defensive skills as well as the power bonuses skill boxes. The result was that the once fast, high damage yet very vulnerable escort became very fast, extremely high damage output and very survivable. Lt level skills with 9pnts in the healing boxes coupled with very high defense stat from high power levels and speed skills meant the escort was free from needing a cruiser to hold hate and free from needing a science ship to debuff the target so he could it hit it better. Sci and cruiser on the other hand remained basically the same as pre-F2P.

    That was when we begun to see escorts literally able to wipe out ships in one pass when before it would take them several passes. It is why we began to see a dramatic increase in escort population. All this happened in the first 3 months after F2P patch.

    Shortly after those months another HUGE source of the current imbalance took place:

    1- Tactical buffs and tac kinetic consoles began to boost science damage skills.
    2- Shield auto-balance ability added to Tactical Team
    3- Due to #1, the devs gave a huge boost to resist abilities which made most sci skills useless.
    4- Omega Atk Pattern given immunity to hold.
    5- For some unknown reason, cryptic begun to dramatically increase the 'bonus to' stats when a player ranked up.

    To cover them 1 by 1:

    1- The tac buffs and kinetic consoles boosting sci abilities became a huge boon to tac captains. We saw a dramatic shift in ship choice. Tacticals were flying the nimbler science ships or the advanced escort in great numbers for the gravity well, with tac buffs and kinetic consoles, could do absolutely insane damage per tick (if memory serves me right I had mine doing 6k/tic and the grav well held targets in the very middle the entire time). Tac buffs also boosted drain abilities and hold ability damage.

    2- Shield autobalance was and is one the biggest causes of role imbalance today. The ability alone makes shield facings (fore/aft/left/right) no longer be relevant. Each shield facing literally became the sum of all shield facing HP's worth. What did this do? Escort survivability skyrocketed dramatically and it, at the same time, removed their role-function as the maneuverable ship that was the only one that could continuously maneuver to hit the same shield facing. In essence, the escort and any other ship simply stopped caring about maneuvering and the only maneuver that mattered was turning max weapons to target..where they hit was irrelevant.

    3- Because of #1 science abilities became the primary source of complaints in the game. Cryptic decided to increase the effectiveness of the resist skills as a counter...which meant that basically every 1 point in a resist box would nullify nearly 7 points in the offensive sci stat skill. Result? What we see now: 9pnts in graviton/particle/flow cap does just 1/8th the damage it should vs a ship with just 1 point in power insulators and dampener skill.

    When #1 and #3 were implemented the ship type population shifted once again from tacs in sci-heavy ships to tacs in escorts. By that time, the escorts had gained the ability to quadruple their survivability via tac team and were now almost immune to any sci abilities that could be tossed at them.

    NPCs gained these resists as well. This is why where Pre-F2P a single well skilled out gravity well 3 pulled in ships into its maw and held them there (player ships could only break from it with emg to engine&full engine power or via polarize hull or evasive maneuvers) and did high damage, it became an ability where NPCs are pulled in just once and they, and players, simply fly out of it even with min engine power. The damage still being kinetic (not exotic as pre-f2p) was highly resisted and did little.

    4- After a time, Cryptic gave the escorts one final boost: Attack Omega was given IMMUNITY to holds. Before it, atk omega only gave a very high resist bonus and it would only function against holds if the ability was activated...but since the resist amount was set, an omega 1 resist boost was beaten by a tractor beam 3. The change made the ability both a complete immunity when activated and while active. Since it was no longer a boost in resist but a on/off immunity, no tier of tractor beam could counter it. Result: Most escorts begun to use the standard 'dual omega1' setups that makes them fully immune to all holds while giving them tremendous damage, speed and defensive boosts.

    Sci ships and most cruisers simply did not benefit from such a change. It was an escort-only bonus.

    5- Finally, when all this was done Cryptic for some reason boosted the per-skill rank up bonus to stats. This is so absurd and so visible and so powerful a boost that it is noticeable the instant you rank up.

    For example, if you start a KDF character now (before they make them start at rank 1) you will notice that no matter what ship you fly and no matter if you've maxed out your speed/maneuvering/damage skill boxes available to you @ Cmdr level... the instant you rank up to captain your ship instantly, suddenly, gains a turn rate boost equivalent of having equipped 3 RCS consoles. Your speed jumps dramatically. Your weapons just stop missing so much and hit tons harder.

    This happens the instant you get the 'congratulations, Captain!' audio message...even in the middle of combat. BAM! Rank up and your ship performance just skyrockets. The same happens when you hit 40 and then 50. It has nothing to do with skill points..its an automatic rank-based boost.

    ....but it only affects ship movement, speed and weapon damage and accuracy. It does not improve sci abilities, healing abilities or resist abilities.

    In short, it only benefits escorts.

    So you have the source of the imbalance we have now:

    1- simplified tac stats (=higher weapon effectiveness per point spent)
    2- Tac Team shield autobalance
    3- Omega Immunity to holds
    4- Increase in effectiveness to resist skills
    5- Tac skills boosting science attacks
    6- Remove the increase in skill gained through captain rank-up. Make skill points spent and ship equipment the ONLY thing affecting gameplay.

    All what these changes made was remove the escort from the 'trinity' of roles. They can now put out massive damage without caring where they hit (no need to shoot a shield facing), they have absolutely insane survivability compared to pre-F2P, are basically immune to their role weakness: holds thanks to the increase in resists and omega immunity ... and finally, because they have so many points left over after fully filling up their weapon skill boxes, they can fully spec into defensive abilities and power abilities that in turn makes them even less needy of having a cruiser tank or a sci ship debuff (though they really cant debuff npcs or players anymore due to resists).


    Instead of adding band-aid solutions on top of the existing problem what needs to be done is address the ROOT of the cause.

    This can be done in two different ways:

    Option #1: Re-asses the changes made in the past which I outlined above.

    This would mandate:

    a- removal of shield autobalance from tac team. Replace with reduction of shield regen time to 2s not 6s as it is currently.

    b- removal of hold immunity on/off from omega and turn it into a hold resist boost that only functions if the ability is active before a hold ability is used on you.

    c- complete removal of all rank-based boosts to stats. Let ship stats/gear and capt skills alone determine performance.

    d- addition of one more row of tactical skill boxes. Split the attack patterns into two skill boxes: One that improves damage bonuses the other improves defensive bonuses (of same atk pattern boff abilities); two more advanced weapon (energy/proj) categories that increases secondary effects/procs; crew combat efficiency (improves repair/regen in red alert) and finally bridge officer efficiency (reduces global/shared timers while in red alert).

    This will reduce the amount of points tac section has left over to spend in eng/sci skills and introduces more variety into the now-cookie-cutter templates.

    e- Return to exotic/particle damage type for sci abilities so tac skills do not boost them.

    f- parity between sci offensive abilities and resistance to sci ability skills. One point in flow cap should be countered by one point in power insulators.


    Option # 2

    The above is ONE way of fixing things. Requires lots of work but it solves the root of the problem and creates a new balance to the roles in the game.

    The second option is more cryptic-like... easy fix that does not address the source of the problem but rather buries it under a new combat paradigm.

    and its so simple:

    1- Increase hull HP and resists of all NPC's dramatically so that weapon damage is not very effective unless the target is debuffed by sci. NPC damage is not increased only their resists and hull hitpoints.

    2- Modify NPC AI to have self-heals and trigger resist-boosting abilities (some NPCs do this now actually).

    3- Add new slots to ship: Armor Slot. Each ship class has different number of armor slots.

    Armor slots literally increase hull hitpoints not the resists to damage. Think of them as permanent jevonite hardpoints of sort.

    Escorts: 2 slots
    Science: 4 slots
    Cruisers: 6 slots
    Carriers: 8 slots
    Dreadnaughts (includes voquv): 10 slots.

    4- Removal of tac team autobalance shield and omega hold immunity (replaced by resist to function). This is non negotiable regardless of option.

    What these 4 basic changes do: Reduces the current escort OP weapon damage output in both PVE and PVP as they need to shred much higher amounts of hull. Armor slots guarantee cruisers can really tank while escorts return to being highest damage but also most vulnerable. Since weapon damage from PVE and PVP is not being increased it does not mean they will lose survivability they have now... instead it simple makes their damage output not as effective as it is now.

    ...and it adds a whole new element to the game. With the return of the trinity of sci debuffs and holds greatly assisting tanks and escorts, with cruisers and bigger ships being able to tank once again...and escorts once again being the ones that can maneuver and slam a single shield facing and then the hull (no tac team shield autobalance remember?) the game returns to role balance.

    ... just like it was pre-F2P . sort of.
  • lordmalak1lordmalak1 Member Posts: 4,681 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    Yikes, Ill post now before I lose my thoughts reading that wall of text :D

    I don't like the way the game forces player/ships into a particular role but see the importance of those roles. The worst idea IMHO is gifting ships a bonus when a particular captain in flying it. I'm more of the mind that captains with their boffs and doffs should get the bonus' depending on the combination, in whatever ship they can seat them just like the escorts who can seat tac boffs with APO, CRF and equip cannons. Almost anyone can use a tractor beam but I feel that ship with a seated high level aux2bat or ep2aux should have a better tractor ability than a escort who can only slot the tractor ability (as an example).

    I think this is what BG was getting at, and I think there should be some 'wicked combo's for other than TACs, if the BOFF seats are filled correctly.
    KBF Lord MalaK
    Awoken Dead
    giphy.gif

    Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
  • bpharmabpharma Member Posts: 2,022
    edited March 2013
    I also had another thought, what about synergy between skills from other players being used concurrently. An example of this might be gravity well being used and warp plasma at the same time, this would create a sort of mini nebula which not only draws players to the centre but also disables sensors and propulsion while doing increased damage.

    You would also be able to have different scaling of this so using the level 1 abilities of both will create a fairly weak nebula which is not much better than using them independently. If both abilities are level 3 though you will want to avoid falling into the nebula and death is very likely.

    Just a thought.

    It is through repetition that we learn our weakness.
    A master with a stone is better than a novice with a sword.

    Has damage got out of control?
    This is the last thing I will post.
  • miri2miri2 Member Posts: 112 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    As much as I like the idea of skill-combos (and I really do like it-- the Grav-Well + Warp Plasma = Micro-nebula idea that BPharma mentioned sounds so Trek that it's incredible), I'm worried that it really wouldn't help the current situation all that much. It sounds awesome and fun, but I fear that it won't be sufficient to fix the role-disparity problems that the game currently suffers from.
    bluegeek wrote: »
    Nerfing Tac/Escort is not the answer. Neither is buffing DPS for Eng/Cruiser or Sci/Sci.
    I agree with you that buffing weapon DPS for cruisers and science vessels isn't necessary-- my tac/support cruiser hits like a ton of bricks when provoked, and a science vessel is supposed to be deriving its effectiveness from shutting down an enemy with devastatingly obnoxious control powers, not from dealing direct damage.

    Unfortunately-- and I almost hate to say this, since my primary character is a Tactical officer and I spent well over a year flying an escort...
    ...escorts do need to be nerfed a little. Not only do escorts have overwhelming damage capabilities, but they also have the ability to stave off the effects of taking damage for quite some time (my patrol escort has tanked cubes in KAS:E for close to two minutes before). Call me a pessimist if you will, but I don't think that any sort of fix for restoring some semblance of role parity between escorts, cruisers, and science vessels can proceed without some sort of defuff/small-scale nerfing to escorts.
    And I sincerely hope I'm wrong on this count, since PWE/Cryptic seems to be totally smitten with escorts and tactical ships. (But really, what kind of fan of DS9 wouldn't be, right?) The odds of them actually following through with a debuff to escorts is slim to none.

    ... if I went a little far afield from the intended topic here, sorry. I'm kinda' bad about that. P

    <Not copying the whole thing here>
    I found your post to be quite enlightening. I've been experimenting with science control powers to try to step back from my KDF sci's standard heal-boat set-up, and have found all of them that I've tried so far to be utterly useless except for high-end Gravity Wells. (Haven't tried Charged Particle Burst, Energy Syphon, Tyken's Rift yet, or a high-level Tachyon Beam yet.) This certainly helps explain why this situation has arisen. I cope with things much better when I know the reason for it. :P
    “True success is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm.”
    -- Winston Churchill
  • cmdrskyfallercmdrskyfaller Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    miri2 wrote: »
    As much as I like the idea of skill-combos (and I really do like it-- the Grav-Well + Warp Plasma = Micro-nebula idea that BPharma mentioned sounds so Trek that it's incredible), I'm worried that it really wouldn't help the current situation all that much. It sounds awesome and fun, but I fear that it won't be sufficient to fix the role-disparity problems that the game currently suffers from.

    You can do this manually with the Nebula class starship and the Vesta and Sci oddy. Dump the Gwell and hug them in warp plasma :P.

    The irony of it is... this comboa...uses a science ability... and a cruiser ability... and both are massively damage boosted by atk pattern alpha/fire on my mark/go down fighting tac capt skills. Massively. And they're not 'weapon' damage.
    I agree with you that buffing weapon DPS for cruisers and science vessels isn't necessary-- my tac/support cruiser hits like a ton of bricks when provoked, and a science vessel is supposed to be deriving its effectiveness from shutting down an enemy with devastatingly obnoxious control powers, not from dealing direct damage.

    Yep, the sci and cruisers dont need DPS. They need their role abilities back to a functional state AND tac/escorts need to have the abilities that they were given which makes them immune to sci and cruisers REMOVED (tac team shield balance & omega immunity).

    I found your post to be quite enlightening. I've been experimenting with science control powers to try to step back from my KDF sci's standard heal-boat set-up, and have found all of them that I've tried so far to be utterly useless except for high-end Gravity Wells. (Haven't tried Charged Particle Burst, Energy Syphon, Tyken's Rift yet, or a high-level Tachyon Beam yet.) This certainly helps explain why this situation has arisen. I cope with things much better when I know the reason for it. :P

    Thank you for reading it.

    particle burst and tachyon beam are worthless since flow cap effectiveness is completely neutered thanks to the power insulator skill super-effectiveness. Tachyon 3 and charged particle burst with 9 flow cap/particle and max aux for example barely drains 3k shields in 10 seconds (or 4k instantly in particle burst). Know how much a shield regens in high shield power? 2 to 5k (split between 4 shields). A single shield heal @ ensign level heals far more than that too. A single proc from a regen heals more than that.

    Siphon does work great to gain power but it does nothing to drain it. In yet another brilliant example of absolute lazy/I-care-less programming, Cryptic made it so that the siphon drains nothing (power insulators) but gives the ship a non-nerfed power bonus.

    oooh by the way, since its a LT level ability guess who benefits a LOT from it? Escorts! YES! Howd you guess? :P

    Tyken rift is almost harmless. Stuff just flies away from it and the drain is neutered by power insulators.


    Pre-F2P my science ship ran at min power levels with 2 beam arrays and 1 torpedo fore/rear. Escorts and cruisers engaged me with an abundance of caution because science ships came in multiple specs and they had no way of knowing if I was a drain-type, a shield tank type, a system-shutdown type, a sensor assault type or a combination of one of the above plus gravity well type.

    In combat the science ship would literally debuff the target down to putty and proceed to kill it with its weak weapon power and gravity well. Try doing that to any ship today and you will just get laughed at.
  • weylandjuarezweylandjuarez Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    It's late and I'm too lazy to read through this thread right now so apologies if this idea's already been mooted:

    Class choice should bring with it an inherent bonus: Tacs do 10% more damage, Eng gets 10% more healing or resists (or 5/5), Sci gets 10% more Sci 'zing'.

    Ship choice adds to this: Tac ships +10% damage, Eng ships heals/resists, Sci more zing.

    Power levels are dictated by Warp Core so you can swap in a 'Combat' Core for +15 to Weapons Power or whatever.

    Captain Powers should be tied to the skill system, not levels - invest enough skill points in a given skill and *bam* you get a Captain ability - more points=higher level abilities.

    Boff skills should enhance and augment existing Captain skills - the better the Boff (i.e. Common/Very-Rare etc.) the bigger the bonus.

    As an example, a Sci Captain picks an Escort - she gets 10% more DPS for using an Escort and 10% extra Sci 'zing' for being a Sci - she puts 6 points in Graviton Generators and gets GWell2 as a Captain power - her rare Sci Boff has a skill that boosts Graviton Generators so *bam* it becomes a beast for a few seconds sucking everything in (in a Sci ship, with 9 points, GWell3 unlocked and a Very-Rare Boff nothing's getting out of there).

    All weapons of a given rank should do the same DPS and use the same amount of power unless there's a specific reason not too - beams as primary weapons should do slightly less than DHCs because they're more effective at long range.

    An Engineer in an Escort still wouldn't be able to do sustainable DPS at the same level as a Tac in the same ship, but a Tac in a Cruiser would be comparable (just with some extra healing/resists).

    I'm sure there's lots of gotchas I haven't thought about yet, but the basic idea is that a given class in their class specific ship will always be superior in their field than say a Tac in a Cruiser but if you wanted to be a 'DPS' Sci or Eng, you could.

    TL;DR

    Ship and Class each gives a base bonus.

    Skill Tree choices grant Captain Abilities.

    Boff Skills enhance Captain Abilities.
    Please join our peaceful protest to help make STO a better game
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Proudly not contributing to PWE's bottom-line since October 2012
  • miri2miri2 Member Posts: 112 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    While there is something to be said for what you've suggested, Weylandjuarez, I do have three specific issues with what you've proposed. I'm going to address them in order of how long my responses are, to maximize how much people get through before declaring "TLDR" and moving on.
    All weapons of a given rank should do the same DPS and use the same amount of power unless there's a specific reason not too - beams as primary weapons should do slightly less than DHCs because they're more effective at long range.
    Actually, the reason that weapon types do more/less damage than each other right now is for a specific reason-- the width of their fire arcs. Turrets do the least damage because they have the widest fire arc. Next are Beam Arrays, with a somewhat narrower arc, next are Single Cannons with a slightly narrower arc yet, then Beam Banks with their 90-degree arc, and finally, at the highest DPS, are Dual Cannons and Dual Heavy Cannons-- which share the same fire arc, so have the same DPS.
    If it wasn't for the auto-shield-redistribution effect of Tactical Team, the narrower fire arcs of dual cannons would be a huge resilience problem for escorts, since they would have to disengage with their most powerful weapons to allow thier foreward face to recover, and they would suffer a massive fall-off in DPS if they were to try to "flinch" their forward shield arc out of the way of high-damage attacks (as I was want to do with my torp-boat, enabled by its wider fire-arc).

    Class choice should bring with it an inherent bonus: Tacs do 10% more damage, Eng gets 10% more healing or resists (or 5/5), Sci gets 10% more Sci 'zing'.

    Ship choice adds to this: Tac ships +10% damage, Eng ships heals/resists, Sci more zing.
    I suppose this depends on how you work out what the specific difference between ship classes would be, but if the whole of my ship-specific qualities boils down to a 10% buff to whatever its job is, I'm not sure that's enough differentiation. For example, if a Defiant-class is 10% shootier than a Galaxy-class, and a Galaxy is only 10% more resilient than the Defiant... that strikes me as potentially trivializing the enormous size, crew, and handling differences between these two polar-opposite classes of ships.
    What's more, I'm a little concerned that just being 20% Cooler at your job (shoost, tank, and thwarting, respectively) won't be a sufficient difference to lead to a defined role. If you're only 10-20% harder to kill than your buddy, is it really that important or even helpful to draw agro from him to yourself, especially if he's only 10-20% shootier than you are?
    Maybe its. I could just be underestimating what 10% really means in absolute terms, but I'm a little sceptical.

    Captain Powers should be tied to the skill system, not levels - invest enough skill points in a given skill and *bam* you get a Captain ability - more points=higher level abilities.

    Boff skills should enhance and augment existing Captain skills - the better the Boff (i.e. Common/Very-Rare etc.) the bigger the bonus.

    As an example, a Sci Captain picks an Escort - she gets 10% more DPS for using an Escort and 10% extra Sci 'zing' for being a Sci - she puts 6 points in Graviton Generators and gets GWell2 as a Captain power - her rare Sci Boff has a skill that boosts Graviton Generators so *bam* it becomes a beast for a few seconds sucking everything in (in a Sci ship, with 9 points, GWell3 unlocked and a Very-Rare Boff nothing's getting out of there).
    This is the part that I have the most issue with, because I really like the current BOff system for allowing me to do something really coll-- I change my role to what's needed, or what I feel like playing. With one or two alternate BOffs, for instance, I was able to transition fairly successfully from tac/escort-gunboat to tac/cruiser-healboat. Moreover, my KDF sci character can switch at the start of a mission from heal-boat to control-boat, based on what the party seems to need, simply by having my three science Boffs change seats (hypothetically, at least-- I'm still working out the skill spread on the alternate science Boff).
    On top of all that fun, having the majority of your powers localized on your Boffs allows a player, through a little bit of BOff re-training, to test several skills before setting on a build that works for them without having to re-specialize their captain.
    The Boff system as it exists now creates some capabilities in this game which I believe are fairly unique to STO (at least, as far as I can tell), and I would be very sad to see them go.
    “True success is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm.”
    -- Winston Churchill
  • eurialoeurialo Member Posts: 667 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    I like the general idea, however:

    1) the real problem is that a lot of players do not spend time learning how skills and abilities work and how combine abilities in a combo. So most of players do not have a decent build. This is why when you think that cruisers and sci vessels are bad, there is always a cruiser or a sci ship that do its work well and can deal a reasonable damage.

    2) I do not like the idea of giving to eng abilities a sci or tactical buff. The same about sci and tactical abilities. Ex. I do not like
    bluegeek wrote: »
    1. Emergency Power to Weapons temporarily interacts with Beam Overload and causes a drain of Aux power on the target (if BO is fired within 5 seconds)

    2. Distributed Energy Modulation interacts with Jam Sensors and gives the attacker's beams a chance to proc a Scramble Sensors effect.

    sinergy should be some career's specific abilities (or ships specific abilities) enabled only if you fly a certain ship: sci vessel for science captain, escorts for tactical captain, cruisers for eng captain.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Playing STO spamming FAW is like playing chess using always the computer's suggested moves
  • weylandjuarezweylandjuarez Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    miri2 wrote: »
    While there is something to be said for what you've suggested, Weylandjuarez, I do have three specific issues with what you've proposed. I'm going to address them in order of how long my responses are, to maximize how much people get through before declaring "TLDR" and moving on.

    Thanks for the feedback!

    miri2 wrote: »
    Actually, the reason that weapon types do more/less damage than each other right now is for a specific reason-- the width of their fire arcs. Turrets do the least damage because they have the widest fire arc. Next are Beam Arrays, with a somewhat narrower arc, next are Single Cannons with a slightly narrower arc yet, then Beam Banks with their 90-degree arc, and finally, at the highest DPS, are Dual Cannons and Dual Heavy Cannons-- which share the same fire arc, so have the same DPS.
    If it wasn't for the auto-shield-redistribution effect of Tactical Team, the narrower fire arcs of dual cannons would be a huge resilience problem for escorts, since they would have to disengage with their most powerful weapons to allow thier foreward face to recover, and they would suffer a massive fall-off in DPS if they were to try to "flinch" their forward shield arc out of the way of high-damage attacks (as I was want to do with my torp-boat, enabled by its wider fire-arc).

    Yes, and this is something I don't see changing drastically, more it was intended to convey that 'main' weapons (DHC/Beams/DC/DBB) should do comparable DPS and drain in a typical end-game tactical layout - the DPS varying (modestly) based on the utility of the weapon.

    We sort-of had this originally, but now the lesser efficiency of DCs, the huge energy drain of Beam Arrays and the lack of potency of DBBs means we don't and DHC is the undisputed DPS king.
    miri2 wrote: »
    I suppose this depends on how you work out what the specific difference between ship classes would be, but if the whole of my ship-specific qualities boils down to a 10% buff to whatever its job is, I'm not sure that's enough differentiation. For example, if a Defiant-class is 10% shootier than a Galaxy-class, and a Galaxy is only 10% more resilient than the Defiant... that strikes me as potentially trivializing the enormous size, crew, and handling differences between these two polar-opposite classes of ships.
    What's more, I'm a little concerned that just being 20% Cooler at your job (shoost, tank, and thwarting, respectively) won't be a sufficient difference to lead to a defined role. If you're only 10-20% harder to kill than your buddy, is it really that important or even helpful to draw agro from him to yourself, especially if he's only 10-20% shootier than you are?
    Maybe its. I could just be underestimating what 10% really means in absolute terms, but I'm a little sceptical.

    Well, 10% is just a number I picked late at night :D But really, all this is replacing is the bonuses to Warp Core we get at the moment (which you could get back from a specialized Warp Core component) - ships can still have varying hull/shield modifiers and capabilities.

    The idea behind it is that things like APA/GDF shouldn't exist - the crazy damage multipliers they apply completely unbalances the game and makes Eng/Sci look neutered in comparison. Giving a Tac/Tac setup a flat 20% DPS bonus that's always running plus some interesting Captain/Boff skills that modify how you deliver that DPS (Rapid Fire/Bypassing Shields/FAW/System Disables etc.) means that DPS can be kept within 'manageable' levels and allow Eng/Sci to get their mojo back.
    miri2 wrote: »
    This is the part that I have the most issue with, because I really like the current BOff system for allowing me to do something really coll-- I change my role to what's needed, or what I feel like playing. With one or two alternate BOffs, for instance, I was able to transition fairly successfully from tac/escort-gunboat to tac/cruiser-healboat. Moreover, my KDF sci character can switch at the start of a mission from heal-boat to control-boat, based on what the party seems to need, simply by having my three science Boffs change seats (hypothetically, at least-- I'm still working out the skill spread on the alternate science Boff).
    On top of all that fun, having the majority of your powers localized on your Boffs allows a player, through a little bit of BOff re-training, to test several skills before setting on a build that works for them without having to re-specialize their captain.
    The Boff system as it exists now creates some capabilities in this game which I believe are fairly unique to STO (at least, as far as I can tell), and I would be very sad to see them go.

    The way I see it is that you wouldn't lose any (great) Boff skills, instead they'd become basic Captain abilities that the Boffs can enhance in interesting ways - I'd need to think it through a little more but a good example is how some of the Doff procs work at the moment like Gravity Well Aftershock - taking basic skills that are already in the game and making them far more potent (as mentioned, a fully specced GWell should be epic but counterable by a Captain that's got points in skills that counter the effects and a Boff ability that enhances those skills).

    Anyway, that's all before a morning coffee so it's as likely as random as the first post :D

    I don't seriously expect to see any major changes like this though but I would love to see a system that makes all classes equally potent in their own fields but also free to mix it up a bit.

    It'd require an (unlikely) rethink of things like Rep passives/Doff procs, and even more significantly, content but even so, the system we have at the moment is so broken it does stupid things like rendering entire builds redundant via a handful of skill points in Power Insulators (Drain builds).
    Please join our peaceful protest to help make STO a better game
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Proudly not contributing to PWE's bottom-line since October 2012
  • miri2miri2 Member Posts: 112 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    We sort-of had this originally, but now the lesser efficiency of DCs, the huge energy drain of Beam Arrays and the lack of potency of DBBs means we don't and DHC is the undisputed DPS king.
    Y'know, Dual Beam Banks actually aren't that bad, I'm starting to discover. I'm experimenting with running 3 banks on the fore of a support cruiser (and 3 beam arrays and a turret aft) to focus the damage cone of Fire At Will... and I've so far been getting some pretty good use of it. It helps that I have Emergency Power to Weapons twice, though...


    Captain/Boff skills that modify how you deliver that DPS (Rapid Fire/Bypassing Shields/FAW/System Disables etc.) means that DPS can be kept within 'manageable' levels and allow Eng/Sci to get their mojo back.
    Ooh... I do like that idea of making weapon-damage-buffing tac skills modify damage functionality without increasing macro-scale DPS (like Beam: Overload had a damage bonus followed by an effective damage penalty). That could bring escorts from everything-dies-always to softeners and finishers, if, for example, the damage bonus from Rapid Fire was counter-balanced by power drain or a brief window of down-time for the cannons to literally cool down.
    I'm not sure that's necessarily the best way to fix them (I'm pretty bad at coming up with "bests"), but it certainly is an interesting prospect.

    The way I see it is that you wouldn't lose any (great) Boff skills, instead they'd become basic Captain abilities that the Boffs can enhance in interesting ways - I'd need to think it through a little more but a good example is how some of the Doff procs work at the moment like Gravity Well Aftershock - taking basic skills that are already in the game and making them far more potent . . .
    I'm not really worried about losing the powers, as such, I'm worried about losing the ability to easily slot them in and out, based on what I intend to do that mission (for example, swapping two science officers with each other to go from HE-1, ST-2, TSS-3 to JS-1, TB-2, VM-1).


    eurialo wrote: »
    2) I do not like the idea of giving to eng abilities a sci or tactical buff. The same about sci and tactical abilities.
    I dunnow. What appealed to me most about the idea was the possibilities for team-work. While, yes, a Nebula-class could do the micro-nebula combo all by its lonesome, I love the idea even more of someone dropping a Gravity Well, and a team-mate looking at it, thinking "Score!", and rushing in to dump Warp Plasma onto the situation.
    Even with the combos being performed by a ship on its own, to keep combos limited to just one officer type severely limits them, since many powers within the same class share cooldowns (especially for tactical officers, but the same applies to certain sci builds). But more importantly, the primary appeal (to me at least) of this combo system is the fun, inventive nature of it-- much like how TNG solved so many of its problems: pooling resources from multiple disciplines, shoving it through the main deflector dish, and watching the techno-sorcery unfold!
    Almost all of the most inventive combos I can think of would involve crossing disciplines
    (E.g.: Warp Plasma + Ionize Hull = Spike shield-drain within the plasma cloud; Beam Overload + Directed Energy Modulation = Drastically increased Proc rate; Attack Pattern Delta + Feedback Pulse = Weapons power drain; just to spit-ball a few ideas).
    “True success is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm.”
    -- Winston Churchill
  • eurialoeurialo Member Posts: 667 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    I think in a team a combo involving eng/sci/tact abilities should be done by cooperating captains/ships (think about a team leader calling for a GW so that escorts can use CSV to quickly destroy spheres in a infected space elite... not using a special "CSV" improved by a GW secondary effect).
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Playing STO spamming FAW is like playing chess using always the computer's suggested moves
  • miri2miri2 Member Posts: 112 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    eurialo wrote: »
    I think in a team a combo involving eng/sci/tact abilities should be done by cooperating captains/ships (think about a team leader calling for a GW so that escorts can use CSV to quickly destroy spheres in a infected space elite... not using a special "CSV" improved by a GW secondary effect).

    That's fair. I might have gotten a little carried away, but coming up with those was so much fun! :P
    “True success is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm.”
    -- Winston Churchill
This discussion has been closed.