For those of us who played City of Heroes ... there was the Global Defense Nerf combined with Enhancement DYSfunction implemented at the exact same time in anticipation of making "headroom" for what later (much much MUCH LATER...) became the Invention System.
When Enhancement Dysfunction was put on the Test Server, the response was overwhelmingly negative (like 9-to-1 AGAINST). It went Live anyway.
When Enhancement Dysfunction went Live ... despite the warnings of a supermajority of beta testers ... the response was so overwhelmingly negative that the FORUM SOFTWARE CRASHED UNDER THE DELUGE OF HATRED and it took Cryptic 3 DAYS to dig out from under the avalanche that fell on them. I had the "pleasure" of bringing up this bit of history to CuppaJo, in person ... and saw her visibly blanche at the memory of the incredibly epic debacle (she had been the Community Manager for CoH at the time, and thus had a "front row seat" to the meltdown). Suffice it to say, CuppaJo is *NOT* an easily rattled woman...
At this point, if the Powers Developer Team "hasn't gotten the message" from the Community on the "verdict" by the playerbase concerning the EPtX changes on Tribble ... and if they go to Holodeck "as is" ... it won't be because there was no feedback on the changes sent.
Whether any of the voluminous feedback already given is LISTENED TO and HEEDED will be determined by what goes to Holodeck in 3 weeks. If the Devs listen to the feedback given ... it is likely that what we currently have on Tribble won't go to Holodeck, with respect to EPtX changes.
That said, I've *met* Adjudicatorhawk (more than once, in person) at the City of Heroes Player Summits (and talked his ear off about stuff in CoH) and so when he says that there are "more changes coming" which would make the current EPtX changes "make sense" on down the line (even if not immediately upon launch of LoR) ... I'm rather inclined to believe him. He's the kind of guy who plays his development cards close to the chest, as far as revealing what he's up to and working on (which, to be fair, is not only to be expected but also PROPER for someone in his line of work) ... but he DOES LISTEN when people (ie. players) tell him things about their sense of the game's balance. The "trouble" is that he doesn't always share the same perception/perspective on issues as players do, because he's got a very different "interaction" going on with the game (and its game balance) than most players do, so there are times when it's difficult to "see things" the same way Adjudicatorhawk does, simply because he's got a different vantage point on issues than most players do.
And as if that isn't enough, Adjudicatorhawk is usually working "in the future" of the game rather than on the present (or even the immediate near future, like a month or two away). Keeping all of that straight in your head while talking to people can get tricky, so the safest thing to do is to SAY very little. When he was working for Paragon Studios on City of Heroes, Arbiter Hawk read the forums almost every single day, although his post count on them was pathetically miniscule, simply because he just didn't post all that much (and even then, most of his posts were in the Testing Forums). I daresay that Adjudicatorhawk is maintaining much the same "policy" with respect to discussion threads here in Star Trek Online as he did in City of Heroes.
All of which means ... if Adjudicatorhawk says there are changes coming for Engineers ... he means what he says and I believe him ... he just can't say any more than that YET.
And Adjudicatorhawk, if you're reading this post ... this is Redlynne, and still value the time we spent together at the Player Summits (even if I did monopolize you more than I should have).
All of which means ... if Adjudicatorhawk says there are changes coming for Engineers ... he means what he says and I believe him ... he just can't say any more than that YET.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but:
1) No official word has been given to my knowledge that these changes are a "Phase one of X" in terms of an engineering power revamp.
2) Even if this is "Phase one of X", it in no way means the interim timeframe isn't going to absolutely suck.
Foundational changes need to be made in their entirety, or not at all. Saying "well we're going to change some more stuff eventually, so as a result we're going to drastically change X,Y and Z a year before you see said stuff" doesn't cut it at all.
The simple fact that, as Ultimatum has pointed out, posters who are normally blood enemies are uniting to oppose these changes should be all the warning sign any observer needs.
The "trouble" is that he doesn't always share the same perception/perspective on issues as players do, because he's got a very different "interaction" going on with the game (and its game balance) than most players do, so there are times when it's difficult to "see things" the same way Adjudicatorhawk does, simply because he's got a different vantage point on issues than most players do.
I think that if this is the case, then possible extremely lengthy delay between this extremely damaging design change and the remainder of the changes being installed is apparently outside of the referenced scope of perception. This is a very bad thing, and I sincerely hope that he considers this aspect of player input.
And as if that isn't enough, Adjudicatorhawk is usually working "in the future" of the game rather than on the present (or even the immediate near future, like a month or two away). Keeping all of that straight in your head while talking to people can get tricky, so the safest thing to do is to SAY very little. When he was working for Paragon Studios on City of Heroes, Arbiter Hawk read the forums almost every single day, although his post count on them was pathetically miniscule, simply because he just didn't post all that much (and even then, most of his posts were in the Testing Forums). I daresay that Adjudicatorhawk is maintaining much the same "policy" with respect to discussion threads here in Star Trek Online as he did in City of Heroes.
That may be the truth. However, I think I speak for all of us when we say that leaving players stranded is completely grossly unacceptable, especially when they tell us nothing of what's coming down the pike. We can't wait 3 or 6 or 12 months as our badly weakened ships rust while changes trickle on to Holodeck, no matter how fantastic the changes are. All the more reason to make our displeasure be heard and clear now. We have to try, at least.
When he says that there are "more changes coming" which would make the current EPtX changes "make sense" on down the line (even if not immediately upon launch of LoR) ... I'm rather inclined to believe him.
We would like to believe him too. Trouble is, he hasn't said anything. We have no clue if this is part of a larger change or not, and that's one of the main reasons for the backlash. Maybe they have something planned....maybe they don't. In either case, we just want to know. I paid money for these ships, most of us did. For this reason alone, we deserve some official feedback on the subject.
The Devs have gone silent exactly because of this.
if the release is a week away and its still instated, then is the time to panic.
Till then, don't take the silence as some nefarious evil plotting scheme, instead think of a group of cryptic employees staring at the forums going 'Christ these people have no clue what theyre talking about, we haven't even rolled out all the changes yet.'
Wait and see if they'll introduce something else, they've certainly been stitching the wound that was 'science' up with all these sets, bonuses, and patches, which was very welcome.
not to mention you're all getting turn rate buffs, horray!
Wait your turn! It's entirely possible the love cruisers desperately need are coming soon.
Wait your turn! It's entirely possible the love cruisers desperately need are coming soon.
Its also entirely possible that its not.
I am sorry, but the "wait and see" mindset is nonsense. It is obvious that 99% of their focus right now is on LoR, and by all rights it should be. However, to introduce such a sweeping change to not only a fundamental cruiser mechanic, but to the base game mechanic, and THEN turn your attention to LoR without so much as a HINT of what is in store is down right shameful and just plain bad form.
Many of us have paid real money for these ships that are being rendered obsolete by this one sweeping change, and we are upset about it. This is not a single power or a console change that effects a small group. This is a change that changes (for the worse) an entire class of ship, while at the same time buffs another that did not need it.
The fear is that they have introduced half a change, shift their focus on LoR for the rest of the year, and maybe getting around to addressing the issue sometime in the future. Meanwhile we have escorts running around stronger than before, cruisers collecting dust, and people who don't like that scenario leaving outright.
A lot of people are not going to buy the Legacy Pack or many of the Romulan ships based on this change, without SOME kind of knowledge of where this change is going, myself included.
The Devs have gone silent exactly because of this.
if the release is a week away and its still instated, then is the time to panic.
Till then, don't take the silence as some nefarious evil plotting scheme, instead think of a group of cryptic employees staring at the forums going 'Christ these people have no clue what theyre talking about, we haven't even rolled out all the changes yet.'
Wait and see if they'll introduce something else, they've certainly been stitching the wound that was 'science' up with all these sets, bonuses, and patches, which was very welcome.
not to mention you're all getting turn rate buffs, horray!
Wait your turn! It's entirely possible the love cruisers desperately need are coming soon.
I don't take the silence as a nefarious plotting. The problem is there is a record of "unfortunate" changes going live from Tribble to Holodeck and then being corrected later on (at least somewhat, but long after some payers rage/there's an outcry/whatever) or just left there with or without promise of a possible future fix.
And such a situation is to be avoided. That's the goal of this (and many more) thread.
TOIVA, Toi Vaxx, Toia Vix, Toveg, T'vritha, To Vrax: Bring in the Allegiance class. Toi'Va, Ti'vath, Toivia, Ty'Vris, Tia Vex, Toi'Virth: Add Tier 6 KDF Carrier and Raider. Tae'Va, T'Vaya, To'Var, Tevra, T'Vira, To'Vrak: Give us Asylums for Romulans.
Firstly, the level of confidence in these changes is low, as the first iteration of these changes was proven quickly to be based on a fallacious understanding of the timings involved. This lack of confidence also translates to a concern that Cryptic does not fully understand the ramifications of this for cruisers. I don't think this comes from malice, but I do think it is neglectful.
Secondly, it is completely appropriate for us to keep putting pressure on Cryptic for them to come to us and discuss these changes in more detail, and continue to make noise about it until we see something that will restore that confidence. And ideally, that will mean that these changes will be iterated on and a solution will be found before the May 21st Live date, as it's unlikely we'll see any kind of major iteration work on powers until the Winter content update, leaving cruisers in an even more sub-par position for six months.
So I will continue to politely assert my wish for said interaction with the devs, because it is by far the best way for them to restore our confidence.
Ye the lack of communication in regards to the "final picture" is shocking. When a change with such HUGE impact happens, one would expect they would present their views about how EP powers should work, should not work, where was the perceived problem, and how it was solved.
"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.”
There was actually discussion on how the EPtX abilities are thought of in both the April 10th and 12th patch note discussions.
Who means, those lines that said EptS should be used as emergency power ? then the cooldown was reduced to 20s, so it is more spammable ? :rolleyes:
"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.”
Emergency Power abilities still give the same Subsystem Power bonus they did before, as well as any new features included in the patch notes. The duration of the Subsystem Power bonus is now 20 seconds instead of 30 seconds, though - 0 second downtime on "Emergency" abilities really kept them from feeling like an emergency at all. The good news is that all of the Emergency Power abilities now feel useful and worth taking - I was having a hard time choosing between EPtS, EPtE, and EPtW in my cruiser while testing, and had I had any offensive Science abilities equipped, EPtA would have been very tempting as well.
We want to keep Emergency Power to Engines and Evasive Maneuvers as distinct from each other as two movement-enhancing powers can be. Emergency Power to Engines is going to be about long-term speed, while Evasive Maneuvers is about short-term defense and maneuverability. EPtE gives a little bit of flat maneuverability when used - an amount that is much more noticeable on slower-turning ships than it is on fast-turning ships, due to being a larger percentage of their base maneuverability.
In testing, the survivability decrease from EPtS's slightly lowered uptime was negligible on cruisers, somewhat noticeable on science vessels, and required player response on my part on most escorts to move or have EM up during its downtime. Definitely hop on and play with the change and let us know if it's impossible to survive ESTFs or whatnot, but I'm fairly confident that the decrease in survivability is very marginal in almost all situations, and that the hole in EPtS's uptime can be covered by other defensive cooldowns by ships built to focus on survivability.
From a PvP perspective, players can choose between increasing burst damage (EPtW) or increasing survivability (EPtS). They can also choose "get me as far from this point as possible" (EPtE) or increasing hold effectiveness and stealth detection (EPtA). All of these are real substantial choices to make due to the 15 second Emergency Power global cooldown - unlike most other offensive powers in the game, activating EPtW or EPtA also opens up the activator to spike damage, since they can't use EPtS in that 15 second window.
This is a much more dynamic set of choices to make than previously, where the only real choice was "Macro EPtS into my spacebar."
Yeah, thanks. Fail on my part, edited now for accuracy. Anyway, I encourage you all to try playing it on Tribble and then providing feedback based on that experience.
Long-term, we believe the EPtX abilities would be more interesting if their effects were yet more substantial but they had significant downtime. However, changing the lockout between two abilities of the same type down to 20 seconds results in the original downtime I had intended for abilities of 11%, rather than the 33% that the previous patch introduced.
So a mandatory 2x Epts spammed 20s is perfectly in line with the last quote :P
"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.”
Hawk took a lot of flack - lot of it personal there and elsewhere.
It's one thing, imho, to go after Geko or Stahl (one could say it's still wrong) - that's part of the fun of being in a "lead/management/etc" type position...you take the flack. It's another to go after the guys in the trenches.
I hear what he's saying, but it doesn't correspond to the reality I know. From the way his posts are written he seems to believe that EPTS is optional. It's not.
I've tried three different drafts of a post trying to explain why he's wrong in the most lucid way possible, but I just realized it's pointless. There's already reams of people outlining why he's wrong and it's not making a dent. It's just a waste of my time at this point.
Your cruisers will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
Hawk took a lot of flack - lot of it personal there and elsewhere.
It's one thing, imho, to go after Geko or Stahl (one could say it's still wrong) - that's part of the fun of being in a "lead/management/etc" type position...you take the flack. It's another to go after the guys in the trenches.
If a dev can communicate out his changes he rarely eats the flak - like Borticus, on the other hand, silent dev that pushes crazy changes and ignores the feedback is demonized on forums - like Geko.
Tribble turned to something like "good feedback = the one with praise" "bad feedback = the one with critique". On top of that the generally feeling is "if you do not like this change - or cruisers .. go roll escorts, we sell plenty of them"
"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.”
Hawk took a lot of flack - lot of it personal there and elsewhere.
I don't think I criticized him personally, and I disapprove of that approach anyway. However, by dropping in a change like this with what appeared to be a lack of understanding or sympathy for the linked issues it turns up, I can see how he might appear to be fair game to some.
Remarkably enough, we've read them. That we still feel that the issue needs to be discussed should be good indication of our disquiet.
That was in response to the folks that were making it out that the changes were made randomly without any reasoning...there was reasoning. No doubt though, many of us disagree with the reasoning given the current state of the game. They're lofty goals, but they just do not fit the reality of the game as many see it. But it's one thing to disagree and it's another to say that there was no reasoning given.
I do not think EPtX abilities should be spammable as they are. However, for the most part - they've all but reached the point of need - heck, in some cases the need has exceeded what they provide.
There appears to be a mixed message coming from them - and - based on how things have been explained about how things work...it's possible they started in one direction, were told to go another, started that way, were told to go another, etc, etc, etc... so we have the current mess.
Frankly, beyond that...how many folks have looked at the new console that will be available from the Qaw'Dun? How many folks have looked at the various set bonuses for the Nukara rep stuff? Both the D/E/S and W/W/C stuff? Shields are definitely going to get hammered more...which only feeds that 2x EPtS feeling of need.
There's quite a few pieces, and yes - it can often appear that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. It can therefore be difficult for them to communicate some of those things, eh?
How many complaints are coming from the PvP community about it and how many are coming from the PvE community? How many folks from each group have detailed how they've tried to work around the changes and posted the results of said tests?
How much is Tac Cruiser? How much is Eng Cruiser? Regarding the Cruiser stuff? How much is coming from Escorts or Science Vessels? What have people tried to do - have they laid out where it has failed?
There's a difference between something failing and it being something that requires more effort on the player's part but is still viable. Was it a case of having to give something up? Was it a case of having to change team composition?
There's just so much there...that's just not being shared, eh? Is it even being tried?
I don't think I criticized him personally, and I disapprove of that approach anyway. However, by dropping in a change like this with what appeared to be a lack of understanding or sympathy for the linked issues it turns up, I can see how he might appear to be fair game to some.
Well, given how entitled the playebase generally is...how willing they are to exploit every little thing they can in their favor...how unwilling they are to adapt...well, the list kind of goes on and on in regard to the players, eh? Cryptic can't come out and say that. It would be a PR nightmare, lol.
There are players that complain non-stop about how easy the PvE is...but at the same time, if you make it the least bit more difficult for them...they flood the forums with epic tears crying about various nerfs and how impossible everything is now.
Which is it?
When Group A of players can complete an ESTF in Mirandas while Group B is complaining it is too hard... I mean, c'mon - think about the Borg changes not that long ago - there were threads from folks complaining that the Borg had been nerfed at the same time there were threads from folks complaining that the Borg had been buffed.
Which is it?
If it's a case that Cryptic's looking at trying to move toward a little more difficulty - still keeping it extremely casual - but kicking it up a notch, I'd say good for them. It's like the updated look on Tribble, eh? It's not as...Saturday Morning Cartoons looking...I think it looks awesome. So if the gameplay was also a little less Saturday Morning Cartoons - that would be a good thing, imho.
Course, that doesn't mean that they need to consider all the parts. They're looking at "nerfing" shields while adding all sorts of things that hammer shields. Almost as if multiple groups were tasked with coming up with an idea on how to address an issue - and - instead of going through and picking the best parts or best option...they're going with them all.
I won't bother to reiterate my previous comments on the subject; instead, I just want to (1) agree that I would love to know what the current thinking is on the subject on the devs' end, (2) ask why they don't just rename Holodeck versions of Emergency Power to X as Reroute Power to X and then give us new and "dynamic" Emergency Power to X abilities, and (3) go back to waiting for my Tribble patch to finish (the patch notes make no mention of EP2X changes anyway).
[Edit] Yes, I know Tribble patch sounds wrong somehow; at the same time, it's funny enough to leave there.
With each passing day I wonder if I stepped into an alternate reality. The Cubs win the world series. Donald Trump is President. Britain leaves the EU. STO gets a dedicated PvP season. Engineers are "out of control" in STO.
(2) ask why they don't just rename Holodeck versions of Emergency Power to X as Reroute Power to X and then give us new and "dynamic" Emergency Power to X abilities
That's one of the things that's kind of struck me as off with some of the change and potentially part of what's causing some of the issues. Each ability appears to be trying to do two things. There is the Emergency aspect and a regular buff aspect. They should perhaps be split in two.
They tend to test things in isolation, unfortunately. That's why there tends to be so many issues when things are used in conjunction with other things.
I have been reading a lot of thread about the upcomming eptx issue and so far I haven't seen any answer from the dev or anyone from Cryptic. Will they keep silent and not comment on anything while pushing changes anyway??
Can we expect an answer before the changes go lives???
Because now all I've seen is talk and speculation among player, which while entertaining doesn't give the slightest idea what the dev and design team think about it.
Will someone from criptic give an answer eventually? whatever it is, whether its we will change it and suck it up or you guys are right and we will change that, whatever it is, some kind of answer would be nice.
Jamal : Tactical space specialist. USS Bug Warrior and many others
E'Mc2 : Science Reman torp T'Varo, deadly annoyance :P
Kunmal: Tactical fed Klingon, ground specialist, USS Kanewaga
Ka -tet Tier 5 fleet fully completed Starbase and fleet property
There appears to be a mixed message coming from them - and - based on how things have been explained about how things work...it's possible they started in one direction, were told to go another, started that way, were told to go another, etc, etc, etc... so we have the current mess.
Welcome to the iterative design style. It has brought us great gems such as Diablo 3. It also implies a lack of a 'vision' which is at the heart of every amazing game.
Iterative design made Diablo 2 which I can tell you was not a failure. The problem with diablo 3 is they tried to cater toward their wow demographic and making as casual accepted as possible.
They began to abandon all the depth the previous titles had for simplicity, that's not iteration, that's changing the target audience of the previous titles. Iteration is the idea of taking some thing that worked before and making it better, instead they decided to take something that worked in completely different game and mismatch it into a action rpg.
But this is honestly offtopic.
Virusdancer you have some very good points, I agree i think they have let boff abilities have too many roles, becuase as soon as you change something with them to make them more interesting you end up with the problem of hurting a one or roles it previously had.
I think they should strip the shield heal of epts, keep the reduction in damage to shields and possible add like like a short buff to shield hp, give it long cooldown. Along with various things to give eptx power to feel more interesting.
Add a new engineering ability which does not share cooldown with epts, call it shield hardening, which shares a cooldown with rotate shield frequency(increase shield damage reduction) and RSP and maybe extend shields. Give it the shield heal along with, a damage reduction to shields.
it can be chained with rotate shield frequency. With Damage control boffs a non engineer could also chain shield hardening, as well reduce cool down RSP abit, and extend shields if they share a cooldown.
This will likely force people to rethink keeping power setting on nearly always 100% to weapons. Especially if you want to tank in a escort.
I do not think EPtX abilities should be spammable as they are. However, for the most part - they've all but reached the point of need - heck, in some cases the need has exceeded what they provide.
As I'm sure you well know, based on the pragmatism of the second sentence above, spamming EPtX abilities is the only route for Engineer-heavy ships to use their slots as efficiently as their Tactical and Science heavy cousins, while giving an option to use the higher rank versions.
There appears to be a mixed message coming from them - and - based on how things have been explained about how things work...it's possible they started in one direction, were told to go another, started that way, were told to go another, etc, etc, etc... so we have the current mess.
Talking of mixed message, reading through your entire post it's difficult to descern whether you're for the changes or against them. It looks like you're for the spirit of the changes, while being unhappy with the way they are being done (and, on the side, with the way in which most complaints about them are being presented), and that's a position I respect.
There's a difference between something failing and it being something that requires more effort on the player's part but is still viable. Was it a case of having to give something up?
There's a difference between changes that open up new possibilities, or at least negatively affect everyone, and those that negatively affect a group that is already an underclass. Almost all changes can be adapted to, but adaptation for that last class usually takes the form of "avoid" or "leave".
If it's a case that Cryptic's looking at trying to move toward a little more difficulty - still keeping it extremely casual - but kicking it up a notch, I'd say good for them.
Difficulty is one thing, but this timing change does not add it. Intentionally or not, the result is that Cryptic are putting the boot in to Cruisers. Imagine if a dev made Tactical weapon buffs deal with similar timing conflicts across the board, in the interests of "making it a more dynamic choice" and to "discourage players from spamming them". The rage would be legendary.
Iterative design made Diablo 2 which I can tell you was not a failure. The problem with diablo 3 is they tried to cater toward their wow demographic and making as casual accepted as possible.
They began to abandon all the depth the previous titles had for simplicity, that's not iteration, that's changing the target audience of the previous titles. Iteration is the idea of taking some thing that worked before and making it better, instead they decided to take something that worked in completely different game and mismatch it into a action rpg.
But this is honestly offtopic.
Virusdancer you have some very good points, I agree i think they have let boff abilities have too many roles, becuase as soon as you change something with them to make them more interesting you end up with the problem of hurting a one or roles it previously had.
I think they should strip the shield heal of epts, keep the reduction in damage to shields and possible add like like a short buff to shield hp, give it long cooldown. Along with various things to give eptx power to feel more interesting.
Add a new engineering ability which does not share cooldown with epts, call it shield hardening, which shares a cooldown with rotate shield frequency(increase shield damage reduction) and RSP and maybe extend shields. Give it the shield heal along with, a damage reduction to shields.
it can be chained with rotate shield frequency. With Damage control boffs a non engineer could also chain shield hardening, as well reduce cool down RSP abit, and extend shields if they share a cooldown.
This will likely force people to rethink keeping power setting on nearly always 100% to weapons. Especially if you want to tank in a escort.
RSF is a captain ability. Since the abilities of tactical and science captains do not share cooldowns with BOFF skills, why you hatin' on engineers?
Talking of mixed message, reading through your entire post it's difficult to descern whether you're for the changes or against them. It looks like you're for the spirit of the changes, while being unhappy with the way they are being done (and, on the side, with the way in which most complaints about them are being presented), and that's a position I respect.
One of those "Yeah, yeah...no, no...wait, what?" sort of things is definitely kind of going on.
I'm one of those people that even if I don't like something, if there's a logical reasoning behind it - if I can rationalize it - then it diminishes the impact to an extent. Oh, it will still have impact - but it is not exacerbated by head throbbing attempts to understand it.
In several of the threads, I've been trying to figure out what the intent was...is....and looking at what has been said and how it does not jibe (for me) with what is actually taking place.
I do think more folks need to lay out the testing they have done - cause sometimes that is what it takes to prove to the devs that people simply aren't whining about a change. That change is actually bad.
At the same time, to be honest - to be fair, I think that if the devs believe that it is fine...they might want to share proof as well, that it is fine, eh? What builds are they playing, what are they doing, where it is fine?
Much like they need proof - the players need proof.
But yeah, personally I think a change was needed (actually, a series of changes - you can't just make one change in isolation without TRIBBLE things up even more)...but that this change, I just don't get what this change is actually trying to accomplish. It's like talking to somebody that's shaking their head from side to side while saying yes. It's one of those "huh?" moments.
Comments
When Enhancement Dysfunction was put on the Test Server, the response was overwhelmingly negative (like 9-to-1 AGAINST). It went Live anyway.
When Enhancement Dysfunction went Live ... despite the warnings of a supermajority of beta testers ... the response was so overwhelmingly negative that the FORUM SOFTWARE CRASHED UNDER THE DELUGE OF HATRED and it took Cryptic 3 DAYS to dig out from under the avalanche that fell on them. I had the "pleasure" of bringing up this bit of history to CuppaJo, in person ... and saw her visibly blanche at the memory of the incredibly epic debacle (she had been the Community Manager for CoH at the time, and thus had a "front row seat" to the meltdown). Suffice it to say, CuppaJo is *NOT* an easily rattled woman...
At this point, if the Powers Developer Team "hasn't gotten the message" from the Community on the "verdict" by the playerbase concerning the EPtX changes on Tribble ... and if they go to Holodeck "as is" ... it won't be because there was no feedback on the changes sent.
Whether any of the voluminous feedback already given is LISTENED TO and HEEDED will be determined by what goes to Holodeck in 3 weeks. If the Devs listen to the feedback given ... it is likely that what we currently have on Tribble won't go to Holodeck, with respect to EPtX changes.
That said, I've *met* Adjudicatorhawk (more than once, in person) at the City of Heroes Player Summits (and talked his ear off about stuff in CoH) and so when he says that there are "more changes coming" which would make the current EPtX changes "make sense" on down the line (even if not immediately upon launch of LoR) ... I'm rather inclined to believe him. He's the kind of guy who plays his development cards close to the chest, as far as revealing what he's up to and working on (which, to be fair, is not only to be expected but also PROPER for someone in his line of work) ... but he DOES LISTEN when people (ie. players) tell him things about their sense of the game's balance. The "trouble" is that he doesn't always share the same perception/perspective on issues as players do, because he's got a very different "interaction" going on with the game (and its game balance) than most players do, so there are times when it's difficult to "see things" the same way Adjudicatorhawk does, simply because he's got a different vantage point on issues than most players do.
And as if that isn't enough, Adjudicatorhawk is usually working "in the future" of the game rather than on the present (or even the immediate near future, like a month or two away). Keeping all of that straight in your head while talking to people can get tricky, so the safest thing to do is to SAY very little. When he was working for Paragon Studios on City of Heroes, Arbiter Hawk read the forums almost every single day, although his post count on them was pathetically miniscule, simply because he just didn't post all that much (and even then, most of his posts were in the Testing Forums). I daresay that Adjudicatorhawk is maintaining much the same "policy" with respect to discussion threads here in Star Trek Online as he did in City of Heroes.
All of which means ... if Adjudicatorhawk says there are changes coming for Engineers ... he means what he says and I believe him ... he just can't say any more than that YET.
And Adjudicatorhawk, if you're reading this post ... this is Redlynne, and still value the time we spent together at the Player Summits (even if I did monopolize you more than I should have).
Protonic Kool-Aid Down The Drain Cruiser
Immortal BOff Skills combo for Ground
Not to put too fine a point on this, but:
1) No official word has been given to my knowledge that these changes are a "Phase one of X" in terms of an engineering power revamp.
2) Even if this is "Phase one of X", it in no way means the interim timeframe isn't going to absolutely suck.
Foundational changes need to be made in their entirety, or not at all. Saying "well we're going to change some more stuff eventually, so as a result we're going to drastically change X,Y and Z a year before you see said stuff" doesn't cut it at all.
The simple fact that, as Ultimatum has pointed out, posters who are normally blood enemies are uniting to oppose these changes should be all the warning sign any observer needs.
I think that if this is the case, then possible extremely lengthy delay between this extremely damaging design change and the remainder of the changes being installed is apparently outside of the referenced scope of perception. This is a very bad thing, and I sincerely hope that he considers this aspect of player input.
That may be the truth. However, I think I speak for all of us when we say that leaving players stranded is completely grossly unacceptable, especially when they tell us nothing of what's coming down the pike. We can't wait 3 or 6 or 12 months as our badly weakened ships rust while changes trickle on to Holodeck, no matter how fantastic the changes are. All the more reason to make our displeasure be heard and clear now. We have to try, at least.
[citation needed]
I really would be a lot happier if a Systems dev would show some willingness to talk to us about it.
if the release is a week away and its still instated, then is the time to panic.
Till then, don't take the silence as some nefarious evil plotting scheme, instead think of a group of cryptic employees staring at the forums going 'Christ these people have no clue what theyre talking about, we haven't even rolled out all the changes yet.'
Wait and see if they'll introduce something else, they've certainly been stitching the wound that was 'science' up with all these sets, bonuses, and patches, which was very welcome.
not to mention you're all getting turn rate buffs, horray!
Wait your turn! It's entirely possible the love cruisers desperately need are coming soon.
Its also entirely possible that its not.
I am sorry, but the "wait and see" mindset is nonsense. It is obvious that 99% of their focus right now is on LoR, and by all rights it should be. However, to introduce such a sweeping change to not only a fundamental cruiser mechanic, but to the base game mechanic, and THEN turn your attention to LoR without so much as a HINT of what is in store is down right shameful and just plain bad form.
Many of us have paid real money for these ships that are being rendered obsolete by this one sweeping change, and we are upset about it. This is not a single power or a console change that effects a small group. This is a change that changes (for the worse) an entire class of ship, while at the same time buffs another that did not need it.
The fear is that they have introduced half a change, shift their focus on LoR for the rest of the year, and maybe getting around to addressing the issue sometime in the future. Meanwhile we have escorts running around stronger than before, cruisers collecting dust, and people who don't like that scenario leaving outright.
A lot of people are not going to buy the Legacy Pack or many of the Romulan ships based on this change, without SOME kind of knowledge of where this change is going, myself included.
I don't take the silence as a nefarious plotting. The problem is there is a record of "unfortunate" changes going live from Tribble to Holodeck and then being corrected later on (at least somewhat, but long after some payers rage/there's an outcry/whatever) or just left there with or without promise of a possible future fix.
And such a situation is to be avoided. That's the goal of this (and many more) thread.
Toi'Va, Ti'vath, Toivia, Ty'Vris, Tia Vex, Toi'Virth: Add Tier 6 KDF Carrier and Raider.
Tae'Va, T'Vaya, To'Var, Tevra, T'Vira, To'Vrak: Give us Asylums for Romulans.
Don't make ARC mandatory! Keep it optional only!
Secondly, it is completely appropriate for us to keep putting pressure on Cryptic for them to come to us and discuss these changes in more detail, and continue to make noise about it until we see something that will restore that confidence. And ideally, that will mean that these changes will be iterated on and a solution will be found before the May 21st Live date, as it's unlikely we'll see any kind of major iteration work on powers until the Winter content update, leaving cruisers in an even more sub-par position for six months.
So I will continue to politely assert my wish for said interaction with the devs, because it is by far the best way for them to restore our confidence.
Was that not the patch that introduced the changes, where hawk demonstrated his misunderstanding of the timers, or was that a different one?
Who means, those lines that said EptS should be used as emergency power ? then the cooldown was reduced to 20s, so it is more spammable ? :rolleyes:
April 10th:
April 12th:
It's one thing, imho, to go after Geko or Stahl (one could say it's still wrong) - that's part of the fun of being in a "lead/management/etc" type position...you take the flack. It's another to go after the guys in the trenches.
I've tried three different drafts of a post trying to explain why he's wrong in the most lucid way possible, but I just realized it's pointless. There's already reams of people outlining why he's wrong and it's not making a dent. It's just a waste of my time at this point.
Your cruisers will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
If a dev can communicate out his changes he rarely eats the flak - like Borticus, on the other hand, silent dev that pushes crazy changes and ignores the feedback is demonized on forums - like Geko.
Tribble turned to something like "good feedback = the one with praise" "bad feedback = the one with critique". On top of that the generally feeling is "if you do not like this change - or cruisers .. go roll escorts, we sell plenty of them"
Remarkably enough, we've read them. That we still feel that the issue needs to be discussed should be good indication of our disquiet.
I don't think I criticized him personally, and I disapprove of that approach anyway. However, by dropping in a change like this with what appeared to be a lack of understanding or sympathy for the linked issues it turns up, I can see how he might appear to be fair game to some.
That was in response to the folks that were making it out that the changes were made randomly without any reasoning...there was reasoning. No doubt though, many of us disagree with the reasoning given the current state of the game. They're lofty goals, but they just do not fit the reality of the game as many see it. But it's one thing to disagree and it's another to say that there was no reasoning given.
I do not think EPtX abilities should be spammable as they are. However, for the most part - they've all but reached the point of need - heck, in some cases the need has exceeded what they provide.
There appears to be a mixed message coming from them - and - based on how things have been explained about how things work...it's possible they started in one direction, were told to go another, started that way, were told to go another, etc, etc, etc... so we have the current mess.
Frankly, beyond that...how many folks have looked at the new console that will be available from the Qaw'Dun? How many folks have looked at the various set bonuses for the Nukara rep stuff? Both the D/E/S and W/W/C stuff? Shields are definitely going to get hammered more...which only feeds that 2x EPtS feeling of need.
There's quite a few pieces, and yes - it can often appear that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. It can therefore be difficult for them to communicate some of those things, eh?
How many complaints are coming from the PvP community about it and how many are coming from the PvE community? How many folks from each group have detailed how they've tried to work around the changes and posted the results of said tests?
How much is Tac Cruiser? How much is Eng Cruiser? Regarding the Cruiser stuff? How much is coming from Escorts or Science Vessels? What have people tried to do - have they laid out where it has failed?
There's a difference between something failing and it being something that requires more effort on the player's part but is still viable. Was it a case of having to give something up? Was it a case of having to change team composition?
There's just so much there...that's just not being shared, eh? Is it even being tried?
Well, given how entitled the playebase generally is...how willing they are to exploit every little thing they can in their favor...how unwilling they are to adapt...well, the list kind of goes on and on in regard to the players, eh? Cryptic can't come out and say that. It would be a PR nightmare, lol.
There are players that complain non-stop about how easy the PvE is...but at the same time, if you make it the least bit more difficult for them...they flood the forums with epic tears crying about various nerfs and how impossible everything is now.
Which is it?
When Group A of players can complete an ESTF in Mirandas while Group B is complaining it is too hard... I mean, c'mon - think about the Borg changes not that long ago - there were threads from folks complaining that the Borg had been nerfed at the same time there were threads from folks complaining that the Borg had been buffed.
Which is it?
If it's a case that Cryptic's looking at trying to move toward a little more difficulty - still keeping it extremely casual - but kicking it up a notch, I'd say good for them. It's like the updated look on Tribble, eh? It's not as...Saturday Morning Cartoons looking...I think it looks awesome. So if the gameplay was also a little less Saturday Morning Cartoons - that would be a good thing, imho.
Course, that doesn't mean that they need to consider all the parts. They're looking at "nerfing" shields while adding all sorts of things that hammer shields. Almost as if multiple groups were tasked with coming up with an idea on how to address an issue - and - instead of going through and picking the best parts or best option...they're going with them all.
[Edit] Yes, I know Tribble patch sounds wrong somehow; at the same time, it's funny enough to leave there.
That's one of the things that's kind of struck me as off with some of the change and potentially part of what's causing some of the issues. Each ability appears to be trying to do two things. There is the Emergency aspect and a regular buff aspect. They should perhaps be split in two.
Can we expect an answer before the changes go lives???
Because now all I've seen is talk and speculation among player, which while entertaining doesn't give the slightest idea what the dev and design team think about it.
Will someone from criptic give an answer eventually? whatever it is, whether its we will change it and suck it up or you guys are right and we will change that, whatever it is, some kind of answer would be nice.
E'Mc2 : Science Reman torp T'Varo, deadly annoyance :P
Kunmal: Tactical fed Klingon, ground specialist, USS Kanewaga
Ka -tet Tier 5 fleet fully completed Starbase and fleet property
Welcome to the iterative design style. It has brought us great gems such as Diablo 3. It also implies a lack of a 'vision' which is at the heart of every amazing game.
Just a personal opinion
They began to abandon all the depth the previous titles had for simplicity, that's not iteration, that's changing the target audience of the previous titles. Iteration is the idea of taking some thing that worked before and making it better, instead they decided to take something that worked in completely different game and mismatch it into a action rpg.
But this is honestly offtopic.
Virusdancer you have some very good points, I agree i think they have let boff abilities have too many roles, becuase as soon as you change something with them to make them more interesting you end up with the problem of hurting a one or roles it previously had.
I think they should strip the shield heal of epts, keep the reduction in damage to shields and possible add like like a short buff to shield hp, give it long cooldown. Along with various things to give eptx power to feel more interesting.
Add a new engineering ability which does not share cooldown with epts, call it shield hardening, which shares a cooldown with rotate shield frequency(increase shield damage reduction) and RSP and maybe extend shields. Give it the shield heal along with, a damage reduction to shields.
it can be chained with rotate shield frequency. With Damage control boffs a non engineer could also chain shield hardening, as well reduce cool down RSP abit, and extend shields if they share a cooldown.
This will likely force people to rethink keeping power setting on nearly always 100% to weapons. Especially if you want to tank in a escort.
As I'm sure you well know, based on the pragmatism of the second sentence above, spamming EPtX abilities is the only route for Engineer-heavy ships to use their slots as efficiently as their Tactical and Science heavy cousins, while giving an option to use the higher rank versions.
Talking of mixed message, reading through your entire post it's difficult to descern whether you're for the changes or against them. It looks like you're for the spirit of the changes, while being unhappy with the way they are being done (and, on the side, with the way in which most complaints about them are being presented), and that's a position I respect.
There's a difference between changes that open up new possibilities, or at least negatively affect everyone, and those that negatively affect a group that is already an underclass. Almost all changes can be adapted to, but adaptation for that last class usually takes the form of "avoid" or "leave".
Difficulty is one thing, but this timing change does not add it. Intentionally or not, the result is that Cryptic are putting the boot in to Cruisers. Imagine if a dev made Tactical weapon buffs deal with similar timing conflicts across the board, in the interests of "making it a more dynamic choice" and to "discourage players from spamming them". The rage would be legendary.
One of those "Yeah, yeah...no, no...wait, what?" sort of things is definitely kind of going on.
I'm one of those people that even if I don't like something, if there's a logical reasoning behind it - if I can rationalize it - then it diminishes the impact to an extent. Oh, it will still have impact - but it is not exacerbated by head throbbing attempts to understand it.
In several of the threads, I've been trying to figure out what the intent was...is....and looking at what has been said and how it does not jibe (for me) with what is actually taking place.
I do think more folks need to lay out the testing they have done - cause sometimes that is what it takes to prove to the devs that people simply aren't whining about a change. That change is actually bad.
At the same time, to be honest - to be fair, I think that if the devs believe that it is fine...they might want to share proof as well, that it is fine, eh? What builds are they playing, what are they doing, where it is fine?
Much like they need proof - the players need proof.
But yeah, personally I think a change was needed (actually, a series of changes - you can't just make one change in isolation without TRIBBLE things up even more)...but that this change, I just don't get what this change is actually trying to accomplish. It's like talking to somebody that's shaking their head from side to side while saying yes. It's one of those "huh?" moments.