Potential compromise: Return the duration to 30s, but for the last 10 seconds of the ability have the effect of EPtX diminish by 10% per second.
You still have an exploitable gap in coverage but it's more nuanced, less binary. The skill also behaves more like one would expect an "emergency battery" to -- spike in power followed by slow return to normal.
Alternate suggestion: 15s of 100% effectiveness followed by 15s of slowly draining to 0% effectiveness if the systems team finds the initial suggestion gives too much uptime, though I prefer the 20-10 split myself.
I personally would prefer if the duration would be scaled of rank. Rank I is already good as it is. It is an ENSIGN rank ability. No need to optimize everything so escorts have easy access to it.
I: 20s
II: 25s
III: 30s
Something that does not benefit escorts, but gives cruisers few more options.
On the other hand, there is still lack of ensign engineering ability choices, so still having rank III emegerncy power brings huge oppurtunity cost.
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
EPtX 3 is usually a false choice for a good player, because it's a selfish choice that doesn't help a team, though there are a handful of exceptions. A group of selfish tanks (most fed pugs) will always lose to selfless cross-healers. There's a similar truth to be said about selfish damage dealers (most Klingon pugs) and a team with the proper amount of spike and debuff support.
On one hand, increasing the power of higher tiers of EPtX abilities will lower the gap between greedy, selfish builds and properly team focused ones. On the other hand, it makes those fail builds that much more tempting for players.
EPtX 3 is usually a false choice for a good player, because it's a selfish choice that doesn't help a team, though there are a handful of exceptions. A group of selfish tanks will always lose to selfless cross-healers. On one hand, increasing the power of higher tiers of EPtX abilities will lower the gap between greedy, selfish builds and proper team focused ones. On the other hand, it makes those fail builds more tempting for players.
But is not that part of the problem ? Why should an ensign rank ability be omnipotent and "the only choice".
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
I did say "usually" and "there are a handful of exceptions" :P
I also don't think selfish builds should be buffed and balanced to have equality with selfless ones. That hardly seems right. At the same time, no skill should be completely useless at the high end. It's a tough call.
EPtS 3 is usually a skill I would call "noob bait," but Naz (one of the premiere PvPers in the game, for those PvErs who are joining us today) has a certain D'kora build with massive spike and general damage dealing potential. Last I remembered he actually does use EPtS 3, but it works on his build because he has everything set up where he doesn't need to give too much up to slot it, and with the amount of damage he can output he generates a substantial amount of aggro from the other team.
The fact that there are a small handful of proper team builds where you do want to slot an EPtX 3 ability makes me hesitant to ask for a buff, for all of the reasons I've outlined in my last few posts.
Well, I wasn't speaking only about EPtS, but generally EptX abilities. Of course EptS is hit the hardest by this, but my point is, why should an ensign rank skill be so good.
As long as there are no more choices in ensign level engineering department, using high rank EptX is nono anyway, improving the duration buff would at least make it more attractive.
Even if I would use EptS III and EptW III for example what would I put to ensign slots ? For a ships like Galaxy or Negh'var with 3 ensign slots....
What should be my incentive to slot EptE 3 ?
It still seems that the change won't help cruisers much. But in the end, will benefit escorts most, because they can at least speed tank in the EptS gaps.
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
Well, I personally dislike the whole extra bonus stuff anyway. I would tie bonuses to power levels and let EPtX powers increase power only to grant these bonus. It would also raise the power cap with the skill. Should make EPS engineering ability interesting.
Right now, EptS for example gives you two bonuses to shield dmg resistance. One through shield power bonus, the other through stat. It reminds me to double taxing for some reason and I do not like it. Why not just give XX power, that means XX% shield dmg reduction through shield subsystem power.
Giving power would be clean and elegant solution and it would also encourage proper power management. Raising the cap with EP power could also be interesting.
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
Well, I personally dislike the whole extra bonus stuff anyway. I would tie bonuses to power levels and let EPtX powers increase power only to grant these bonus. It would also raise the power cap with the skill. Should make EPS engineering ability interesting.
Right now, EptS for example gives you two bonuses to shield dmg resistance. One through shield power bonus, the other through stat. It reminds me to double taxing for some reason and I do not like it. Why not just give XX power, that means XX% shield dmg reduction through shield subsystem power.
Giving power would be clean and elegant solution and it would also encourage proper power management. Raising the cap with EP power could also be interesting.
All of them provide a double bonus.
EPtW boosts Weapon Power (Weapon Damage) and Weapon Damage.
EPtS boosts Shield Power (Shield Damage Reduction) and Shield Damage Reduction.
EPtE boosts Engine Power (Speed) and Speed.
EPtA boosts Aux Power (Stealth/StealthSight) and Stealth/StealthSight.
They should either boost the * Power and not provide the other buff or they should provide the other buff and not boost the * Power.
Theirs nothing I can say at this point that hasn't been said earlier (and probably better) by others but bare with me a sec. If these changes can be taken at face value then survivability is going down while damage output is going up because, let's face it damage output is king in this game right now.
Without testing it's hard to see if the benefit to EPtW will matter when you take increased percentage and decreased length into consideration. The way it looks to me right now is as another burst increase as the old short percent increase was negligible. Changes to engines and Aux don't seam to be in the debate at the moment so lets not worry about that right now.
Emergency power and survivability are supposed to be the bread and butter of the cruiser classes and engineering captains. In a time when dual cannon damage is so high why lower the ability of these players/ships to counter that? Cruiser damage output is so low and the ships are so slow and difficult to turn, why lower there persistent damage resists? I can understand something would have to be done if everyone was using two EPtS but you are lowering cruisers ability to counter damage. Why lower a tanks ability to tank while giving everyone another stacking damage increase?
Alright I've babbled enough here's some suggestions:
Cruiser innate buffs/abilities
"Improved Emergency power generator"
All Emergency power abilities last 5(10) seconds longer
I could live with a 5sec downtime, 10sec leaves you open for too long.
"Hardened shields"
Improved shield resists relative to current shield power. More then you already get.
or
"Thicker plate"
Improved hull resists relative to current shield power (or a flat bonus like the captain skill)
Would have to be strong enough to make up for shield resist loss. Makes sense that the larger ships would have a thicker hull anyway.
Also something, anything besides Engineering team at the ensign level that wasn't on a shared cooldown.
EPtS having 100% uptime meant that shields essentially had innate 18% damage resistance, at which point why not just bake it in to them inherently, remove 2 engineering boff abilities, and save everyone the trouble of hitting their spacebar? This is a good change because it makes survivability cooldowns actually used when you need survivability, not just used as soon as they come off cooldown. Damage might need some rebalancing to account for this change, but the idea is a good one.
Thanks for having the courage to try it... and I really hope it holds long enough to implement it.
Seconded.
I hope devs take time to fix the warp core tooltips in game and post a comprehensive list of warp core types and modifiers so that we can find a new synergy. I'm sure new warp cores and space traits will compensate the loss of EPTS for eng/cruisers.
If there's no changes to resistances and tanking somewhere, cruisers will be even more immortal, and that's not even funny. I don't feel very challenged in pve or pvp currently, except in c&h when I have 7-8 player ships attacking my galor with a couple of scis trying to make good use of the SNB. And if you have two cruisers with cross-healing... Well, you get the picture. You play in god mode. So, more tanking with traits and warp cores without any nerf in return? No way.
I'm going to go out there and say it: I like it. On paper at least, haven't played with it yet.
Yes. I know, I've really done it now, and I don't know what I'm talking about and all that.
However, I think something like this was due for some time now, since people started stacking elite fleet shields, Rep bonuses (boni?) and all the other +shield stuff on top of epts. To be honest, I think the system was fine, until all of these things kicked in. Now, we're looking at the addition of warp cores, maybe even armor slots, trait revamp and potentially more rep bonuses/new gear.
All these things combined, with epts as it was, would likely have been way to powerful.
Of course, these changes will hit some people more than others. And most of the fall-out will be in PvP, as in PvE epts chaining was pretty optional anyway, even in ESTF's. But I think we'll just have to roll with these changes and adapt, and take the coming stuff into account too, plus the fleet/rep stuff already present.
Personally, I think these changes will lead to a combination of shield and hull tanking, rather than the pure shield-meta we've been seeing, lately. 20secs of shield tanking and 10secs of hull tanking should be very doable for a decent cruiser-pilot and a good sci pilot should also have plenty of options to adapt (think PH, TSS or even creative use of TB or ES). Escorts will still be doing speed tanking, business as usual there.
The good thing about these changes to epts is that, since everybody was using it, everybody gets hit. It's a democratic nerf, and one that I feel is justified considering the all other factors involved.
As for the other eptx changes: really like them. Makes them much more viable. Especially curious as to epte, with the flat turn rate buff and all... Might be just what ships with lots of eng slots but low turn rate need.
Also like the looks of epta; hoping it'll put some extra spice into offensive sci powers. Note to devs: take another look at how raising sci skill tree numbers above 100 scale. Between regular skill specs, deflector/console bonuses, the romulan T5 skill and now epta, it'll be very easy to be pushing or surpassing 200 points in these areas - maybe even 300, if stacking all these things. I'm not sure how much +damage that'll grant, but it'd be great to see some nice benefits from serious specialisation into sci-damage powers. Though that'll make it liable to abuse by tac captain-buffs, I suppose. Hmpf. Tricky. Well, just throwing it out there.
Name one good thing that this brings to tanks who rely on EptS. Name one bad thing that this brings to alpha escorts who rely on TT instead. Now you can see how dire this update is.
If there's no changes to resistances and tanking somewhere, cruisers will be even more immortal, and that's not even funny.
Possibly, possibly not. However, 20 seconds of the same resistance followed by 10 seconds of absolutely no resistance is definitely not the right direction, since this is the functional equivalent of being subnuked every 20 seconds.
On top of that, this change doesn't improve EPTW...EPTW is actually worse as a result, with the sole exception of those running spike builds, where not much changes. For those who have to do sustained output, having your weapon power go into the terlet for 10 seconds out of 30 significantly worsens your actual damage output by far more than the small boost of EPTW.
I don't feel very challenged in pve or pvp currently, except in c&h when I have 7-8 player ships attacking my galor with a couple of scis trying to make good use of the SNB. And if you have two cruisers with cross-healing... Well, you get the picture. You play in god mode. So, more tanking with traits and warp cores without any nerf in return? No way.
I hope it's not a case that you're patting yourself on the back from PUG PvP. It's a dangerous path that can brutally bruise the ego. I often travel it. I mean, c'mon - if I can fly a Sci in a Hegh'ta with 4 Sci BOFFs (no TT, no EPtS) and not have to worry about recloaking against 4-5 opponents...um, it's not that I'm doing something right - it's that they're doing so much so wrong. There's a lot of that out there. Heck, many times I'm one of the goobers doing everything wrong he can to make the other guy feel like a champ. It's just the way that goes...
I hope devs take time to fix the warp core tooltips in game and post a comprehensive list of warp core types and modifiers so that we can find a new synergy. I'm sure new warp cores and space traits will compensate the loss of EPTS for eng/cruisers.
Why are you sure about this? What are your numbers? Each unit of shield power only grants 0.28% shield resistance. This implies that +6 shield power will give you +1.68% shield resistance, and +20 shield power will give you +5.6% shield resistance.
Maybe, they should just add a shield resistance modifier and hull resistance modifier to all ships, with the magnitude depending on ship class.
For shield resistances, the order can be
science vessels > cruisers > escorts
or
cruisers > science vessels > escorts.
For hull resistances, the order should be
cruisers > science vessels > escorts.
Clearly not an escort pilot........
"But it ain't all buttons and charts, little albatross. You know what the first rule of flyin' is? Love. You can know all the math in the 'Verse, but take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughta fall down, tells ya she's hurtin' 'fore she keens. Makes her home."
I'm not sure I understand what your position is. Are you saying that the ship class with the highest damage should have equal survivability to the other ship classes?
I'm not sure I understand what your position is. Are you saying that the ship class with the highest damage should have equal survivability to the other ship classes?
If you cant get the same amount of survivability out of sci ship an crusers your not doing it right... of course if i say that after this proposed change i an got a leg to stand on but it is gona hurt the sci ships an crusers the most....
"But it ain't all buttons and charts, little albatross. You know what the first rule of flyin' is? Love. You can know all the math in the 'Verse, but take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughta fall down, tells ya she's hurtin' 'fore she keens. Makes her home."
If you cant get the same amount of survivability out of sci ship an crusers your not doing it right... of course if i say that after this proposed change i an got a leg to stand on but it is gona hurt the sci ships an crusers the most....
I think you misunderstood me. What I am saying is that you should be able to get more survivability out of a cruiser and science ship than an escort. To compensate for the 10-second gap in EPtS, I am suggesting that all ships be given native shield and hull resistances, with escorts receiving the least and cruisers and science ships receiving more. What is your objection to this?
I think you misunderstood me. What I am saying is that you should be able to get more survivability out of a cruiser and science ship than an escort. To compensate for the 10-second gap in EPtS, I am suggesting that all ships be given native shield and hull resistances, with escorts receiving the least and cruisers and science ships receiving more. What is your objection to this?
A. the shield cap thing you speak of already exists cruses 1.0/1.1 shield modifier escorts 0.9/0.99 shield modifier an sci ship 1.3/1.43 modifier
B. In what world dose the shield tank get to have more Armour than an escort
"But it ain't all buttons and charts, little albatross. You know what the first rule of flyin' is? Love. You can know all the math in the 'Verse, but take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughta fall down, tells ya she's hurtin' 'fore she keens. Makes her home."
A. the shield cap thing you speak of already exists cruses 1.0/1.1 shield modifier escorts 0.9/0.99 shield modifier an sci ship 1.3/1.43 modifier
B. In what world dose the shield tank get to have more Armour than an escort
A. I am talking about shield resistances, not shield caps.
B. What do you suggest that escorts trade for their damage then, if not survivability?
A. I am talking about shield resistances, not shield caps.
B. What do you suggest that escorts trade for their damage then, if not survivability?
If i lose my survivability i am gona go for so hard into doing more damage it will make your head spin this is my escourt with 2 copys of EPT-S 1 just imagine if i go for EPT-W (I Need A Tac Team) http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=30mn6f6&s=6
"But it ain't all buttons and charts, little albatross. You know what the first rule of flyin' is? Love. You can know all the math in the 'Verse, but take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughta fall down, tells ya she's hurtin' 'fore she keens. Makes her home."
If i lose my survivability i am gona go for so hard into doing more damage it will make your head spin this is my escourt with 2 copys of EPT-S 1 just imagine if i go for EPT-W (I Need A Tac Team) http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=30mn6f6&s=6
I'm not sure I understand your argument. Do you agree or disagree with my idea to give ships native resistances to compensate for the 10-second gap in EPtS? If you agree with that idea, are you saying that escorts should be given equal resistances to the other two classes? If so, why?
I'm not sure I understand your argument. Do you agree or disagree with my idea to give ships native resistances to compensate for the 10-second gap in EPtS? If you agree with that idea, are you saying that escorts should be given equal resistances to the other two classes? If so, why?
As it is escorts are sacrificing dps for survivability if they cant get that survivability because of some resist cap based on there shields they are gona go for more damage to compensate......
"But it ain't all buttons and charts, little albatross. You know what the first rule of flyin' is? Love. You can know all the math in the 'Verse, but take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughta fall down, tells ya she's hurtin' 'fore she keens. Makes her home."
As it is escorts are sacrificing dps for survivability if they can get that survivability because of some resist cap based on there shields they are gona go for more damage to compensate......
Huh, escort sacrficies nothing. You just get EPtW and EptS together with damage control doffs, much like cruiser.
However, I still dont see why PVE wise its such a big deal.
It is not...
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
People were going to get the escort tanking ability nerfed. Now it happened, everyone is mad.
Be careful what you whine for. It will be done horribly wrong.
However, I still dont see why PVE wise its such a big deal.
Thats cause its not a big deal pve wise any pvp build spet scramble boats is gona pwn any thing pve wise in this game
"But it ain't all buttons and charts, little albatross. You know what the first rule of flyin' is? Love. You can know all the math in the 'Verse, but take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughta fall down, tells ya she's hurtin' 'fore she keens. Makes her home."
Comments
You still have an exploitable gap in coverage but it's more nuanced, less binary. The skill also behaves more like one would expect an "emergency battery" to -- spike in power followed by slow return to normal.
Alternate suggestion: 15s of 100% effectiveness followed by 15s of slowly draining to 0% effectiveness if the systems team finds the initial suggestion gives too much uptime, though I prefer the 20-10 split myself.
I: 20s
II: 25s
III: 30s
Something that does not benefit escorts, but gives cruisers few more options.
On the other hand, there is still lack of ensign engineering ability choices, so still having rank III emegerncy power brings huge oppurtunity cost.
On one hand, increasing the power of higher tiers of EPtX abilities will lower the gap between greedy, selfish builds and properly team focused ones. On the other hand, it makes those fail builds that much more tempting for players.
But is not that part of the problem ? Why should an ensign rank ability be omnipotent and "the only choice".
I also don't think selfish builds should be buffed and balanced to have equality with selfless ones. That hardly seems right. At the same time, no skill should be completely useless at the high end. It's a tough call.
EPtS 3 is usually a skill I would call "noob bait," but Naz (one of the premiere PvPers in the game, for those PvErs who are joining us today) has a certain D'kora build with massive spike and general damage dealing potential. Last I remembered he actually does use EPtS 3, but it works on his build because he has everything set up where he doesn't need to give too much up to slot it, and with the amount of damage he can output he generates a substantial amount of aggro from the other team.
The fact that there are a small handful of proper team builds where you do want to slot an EPtX 3 ability makes me hesitant to ask for a buff, for all of the reasons I've outlined in my last few posts.
As long as there are no more choices in ensign level engineering department, using high rank EptX is nono anyway, improving the duration buff would at least make it more attractive.
Even if I would use EptS III and EptW III for example what would I put to ensign slots ? For a ships like Galaxy or Negh'var with 3 ensign slots....
What should be my incentive to slot EptE 3 ?
It still seems that the change won't help cruisers much. But in the end, will benefit escorts most, because they can at least speed tank in the EptS gaps.
For shield resistances, the order can be
science vessels > cruisers > escorts
or
cruisers > science vessels > escorts.
For hull resistances, the order should be
cruisers > science vessels > escorts.
Right now, EptS for example gives you two bonuses to shield dmg resistance. One through shield power bonus, the other through stat. It reminds me to double taxing for some reason and I do not like it. Why not just give XX power, that means XX% shield dmg reduction through shield subsystem power.
Giving power would be clean and elegant solution and it would also encourage proper power management. Raising the cap with EP power could also be interesting.
All of them provide a double bonus.
EPtW boosts Weapon Power (Weapon Damage) and Weapon Damage.
EPtS boosts Shield Power (Shield Damage Reduction) and Shield Damage Reduction.
EPtE boosts Engine Power (Speed) and Speed.
EPtA boosts Aux Power (Stealth/StealthSight) and Stealth/StealthSight.
They should either boost the * Power and not provide the other buff or they should provide the other buff and not boost the * Power.
Without testing it's hard to see if the benefit to EPtW will matter when you take increased percentage and decreased length into consideration. The way it looks to me right now is as another burst increase as the old short percent increase was negligible. Changes to engines and Aux don't seam to be in the debate at the moment so lets not worry about that right now.
Emergency power and survivability are supposed to be the bread and butter of the cruiser classes and engineering captains. In a time when dual cannon damage is so high why lower the ability of these players/ships to counter that? Cruiser damage output is so low and the ships are so slow and difficult to turn, why lower there persistent damage resists? I can understand something would have to be done if everyone was using two EPtS but you are lowering cruisers ability to counter damage. Why lower a tanks ability to tank while giving everyone another stacking damage increase?
Alright I've babbled enough here's some suggestions:
Cruiser innate buffs/abilities
"Improved Emergency power generator"
All Emergency power abilities last 5(10) seconds longer
I could live with a 5sec downtime, 10sec leaves you open for too long.
"Hardened shields"
Improved shield resists relative to current shield power. More then you already get.
or
"Thicker plate"
Improved hull resists relative to current shield power (or a flat bonus like the captain skill)
Would have to be strong enough to make up for shield resist loss. Makes sense that the larger ships would have a thicker hull anyway.
Also something, anything besides Engineering team at the ensign level that wasn't on a shared cooldown.
Okay, I'm done. (drops keyboard and walks away)
Seconded.
I hope devs take time to fix the warp core tooltips in game and post a comprehensive list of warp core types and modifiers so that we can find a new synergy. I'm sure new warp cores and space traits will compensate the loss of EPTS for eng/cruisers.
If there's no changes to resistances and tanking somewhere, cruisers will be even more immortal, and that's not even funny.
God, lvl 60 CW. 17k.
Yes. I know, I've really done it now, and I don't know what I'm talking about and all that.
However, I think something like this was due for some time now, since people started stacking elite fleet shields, Rep bonuses (boni?) and all the other +shield stuff on top of epts. To be honest, I think the system was fine, until all of these things kicked in. Now, we're looking at the addition of warp cores, maybe even armor slots, trait revamp and potentially more rep bonuses/new gear.
All these things combined, with epts as it was, would likely have been way to powerful.
Of course, these changes will hit some people more than others. And most of the fall-out will be in PvP, as in PvE epts chaining was pretty optional anyway, even in ESTF's. But I think we'll just have to roll with these changes and adapt, and take the coming stuff into account too, plus the fleet/rep stuff already present.
Personally, I think these changes will lead to a combination of shield and hull tanking, rather than the pure shield-meta we've been seeing, lately. 20secs of shield tanking and 10secs of hull tanking should be very doable for a decent cruiser-pilot and a good sci pilot should also have plenty of options to adapt (think PH, TSS or even creative use of TB or ES). Escorts will still be doing speed tanking, business as usual there.
The good thing about these changes to epts is that, since everybody was using it, everybody gets hit. It's a democratic nerf, and one that I feel is justified considering the all other factors involved.
As for the other eptx changes: really like them. Makes them much more viable. Especially curious as to epte, with the flat turn rate buff and all... Might be just what ships with lots of eng slots but low turn rate need.
Also like the looks of epta; hoping it'll put some extra spice into offensive sci powers. Note to devs: take another look at how raising sci skill tree numbers above 100 scale. Between regular skill specs, deflector/console bonuses, the romulan T5 skill and now epta, it'll be very easy to be pushing or surpassing 200 points in these areas - maybe even 300, if stacking all these things. I'm not sure how much +damage that'll grant, but it'd be great to see some nice benefits from serious specialisation into sci-damage powers. Though that'll make it liable to abuse by tac captain-buffs, I suppose. Hmpf. Tricky. Well, just throwing it out there.
On top of that, this change doesn't improve EPTW...EPTW is actually worse as a result, with the sole exception of those running spike builds, where not much changes. For those who have to do sustained output, having your weapon power go into the terlet for 10 seconds out of 30 significantly worsens your actual damage output by far more than the small boost of EPTW.
I hope it's not a case that you're patting yourself on the back from PUG PvP. It's a dangerous path that can brutally bruise the ego. I often travel it. I mean, c'mon - if I can fly a Sci in a Hegh'ta with 4 Sci BOFFs (no TT, no EPtS) and not have to worry about recloaking against 4-5 opponents...um, it's not that I'm doing something right - it's that they're doing so much so wrong. There's a lot of that out there. Heck, many times I'm one of the goobers doing everything wrong he can to make the other guy feel like a champ. It's just the way that goes...
Why are you sure about this? What are your numbers? Each unit of shield power only grants 0.28% shield resistance. This implies that +6 shield power will give you +1.68% shield resistance, and +20 shield power will give you +5.6% shield resistance.
Clearly not an escort pilot........
I'm not sure I understand what your position is. Are you saying that the ship class with the highest damage should have equal survivability to the other ship classes?
If you cant get the same amount of survivability out of sci ship an crusers your not doing it right... of course if i say that after this proposed change i an got a leg to stand on but it is gona hurt the sci ships an crusers the most....
I think you misunderstood me. What I am saying is that you should be able to get more survivability out of a cruiser and science ship than an escort. To compensate for the 10-second gap in EPtS, I am suggesting that all ships be given native shield and hull resistances, with escorts receiving the least and cruisers and science ships receiving more. What is your objection to this?
A. the shield cap thing you speak of already exists cruses 1.0/1.1 shield modifier escorts 0.9/0.99 shield modifier an sci ship 1.3/1.43 modifier
B. In what world dose the shield tank get to have more Armour than an escort
A. I am talking about shield resistances, not shield caps.
B. What do you suggest that escorts trade for their damage then, if not survivability?
They could trade speed for it , hah. But that we already have in a battlecruiser.
If i lose my survivability i am gona go for so hard into doing more damage it will make your head spin this is my escourt with 2 copys of EPT-S 1 just imagine if i go for EPT-W (I Need A Tac Team)
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=30mn6f6&s=6
I'm not sure I understand your argument. Do you agree or disagree with my idea to give ships native resistances to compensate for the 10-second gap in EPtS? If you agree with that idea, are you saying that escorts should be given equal resistances to the other two classes? If so, why?
As it is escorts are sacrificing dps for survivability if they cant get that survivability because of some resist cap based on there shields they are gona go for more damage to compensate......
Be careful what you whine for. It will be done horribly wrong.
However, I still dont see why PVE wise its such a big deal.
Huh, escort sacrficies nothing. You just get EPtW and EptS together with damage control doffs, much like cruiser.
It is not...
Thats cause its not a big deal pve wise any pvp build spet scramble boats is gona pwn any thing pve wise in this game