Technically, you did claim that we don't have any good engineers.
Well honestly its not that you don't have good engi players its that you unlikely have any that are geared up or rep uped. None of us bother on our engi toons. I would rather claw my eyes out then endure a month of pve on my engi toon. So indeed I know you and bibes are both good engi pilots, I would however bet that neither of you has any more then the first tier of either reps.
I won't argue that engi is the worst possible class to bring into pvp... I am simply saying that a rule to include a min of one per team. Is perfectly in keeping with the types of rules the community makes in general in regards to prearanged games. I really don't understand your argument that somehow its any different.
No bringing an engi into a team is not optimal... my point is and I think others like mancom likely made the point better then I did. We have rules against X number of ships or X number of consoles or X max number of one captain type... it could be argued that plenty of rules we make limit "optimal" setups.
2 tac 3 sci likely is the most optimal setup... I guess what it really comes down to. We need Cryptic to make engi have a point of existing... in PvP and even in PvE. Then we have nothing to even argue about. I might even go and get my rep for my engi toons... as it is ya there is no way I am going to frustrate myself dooing PvE with any of my engis, I don't get high while I play so there is no enjoyment in it.
Well honestly its not that you don't have good engi players its that you unlikely have any that are geared up or rep uped. None of us bother on our engi toons. I would rather claw my eyes out then endure a month of pve on my engi toon. So indeed I know you and bibes are both good engi pilots, I would however bet that neither of you has any more then the first tier of either reps.
Bieber is fully geared and rep'd, I'm not.
Another thing to consider is because there are so few people who can jump into a premade quality (as far as that's even possible) engineer you end up shooting yourself in the foot when it comes to getting teams to actually show up and play. If teams tend to have one, maybe two guys who can jump into that role it means even more teams will pull out last moment when a few of those players are not able to make a match and there is no one capable of replacing them. Full participation is hard enough to attain as it is without artificially making it harder.
I won't argue that engi is the worst possible class to bring into pvp... I am simply saying that a rule to include a min of one per team. Is perfectly in keeping with the types of rules the community makes in general in regards to prearanged games. I really don't understand your argument that somehow its any different.
I'm getting a bit tired of explaining how moderating overpowered abilities is different from forcing teams to use underpowered ones.
We have rules against X number of ships or X number of consoles or X max number of one captain type... it could be argued that plenty of rules we make limit "optimal" setups.
Such rules are misguided. If something is broken or overpowered, you don't limit it to X number of copies -- you simply ban it. There's no shades of grey except in the minds of people who don't know better.
I've said it before that I dislike the somewhat standard "max three of one captain type" rule as it limits variety, but in reality it's also quite cowardly. People can't quite find the voice to say "I don't want the other team to bring more than three nukes," because saying it makes one sound bad, if not whiny. Instead we say "max of three of each captain type" as if anyone would have any issue against a team that brought four tacticals and a lone science or engineer captain. :rolleyes:
The dishonesty is subtle, but quite obvious when it's pointed out.
The difference between misguided "max of" rules and this proposal is that the former doesn't force teams to gimp themselves into taking underpowered abilities while ignoring the actual meta. You aren't going to strengthen the community by forcing fail tactics and bad habits onto it, you're just going to confuse the feeble minded and grow the skill chasm.
2 tac 3 sci likely is the most optimal setup... I guess what it really comes down to. We need Cryptic to make engi have a point of existing... in PvP and even in PvE. Then we have nothing to even argue about.
Or we could compensate for the crappy design behind the engineering class by forcing people to play them anyway :rolleyes:
The whole idea of 'No more then 2 classes per team' thing is a basic and simple result of imbalance by cryptic, i don't think anyone will disagree on that.
But its the same as comparing Tachyon Beam 3 versus Transfer Shield 3. Which one is more worth it?
Imo, but thats just purely personal, there is as little reason not to apply the rule to bridge officer abilities as it is with classes imo. Are you going to steer every individual player because they dont know which BO abilities are useless and which are not? Lets throw out a diaper while we're at it.
The balance is partly the choice you make as an individual player and as a team.
On top of that its well known Engi's are least wanted it pretty much any scenario, so players/teams can anticipate on that and decide not to bring it.
Ok, lets say we will do a tournament with a mandatory Engi user, the amount of people that either have proper gear/full tier 5 rep versus the ones that do not is too big of a gap, and will only cause more imbalance in a tournament.
I think the majority of the communities crying about things, setups, consoles, etc, is for the simple fact that they are annoyed by it, or they dont want to change their builds/team setup they are so fond of and simply call the alternative OP, not-done etc.
We all know about the horrible imbalance on certain things, TIF i guess, Theta, cloaks, scrambles, alpha bops, hell. even defiant ambush is OP these days. whatever fits your bill, but despite that try to broaden your view and take advantage of the possibilities you are freely capable of choosing.
Dont wanna bother with repu? fine, who cares. Move on to the next grind game.
If we deem 4+ SNBs problematic and Jorf says "don't limit numbers, rather ban completely" - how about matches where sci captains are banned?
I think that might be an interesting experience. Maybe our hesitation to call for a massive nerf to SNB (because any change by the current devs would probably render the game unplayable) is actually holding back the rebalancing of the game? Let's nerf the hell out of SNB (it is rather unbalanced compared to pretty much everything else in the game), break the game and thus force the devs to do a proper rebalancing of everything?
Again, there's a big difference between banning something that is widely deemed to be overpowered and forcing people to take things that are under-powered.
....
As far as pets go, I have a feeling we might be stuck with danoobs, but if you think Cryptic isn't going to eventually get around to properly balancing something as extreme as siphon drones you're kidding yourself.
Your opinion does not equal widely. SP brought the bug, when it was/is widely regarded as OP. DHC are OP compared to all other weapons, so is SNB as far as captain abilities go. You rules, and your attempt to enforcing them on the forums, are just as random as anything else.
You don't want to fight a siphons team, or don't want GVP in matches....fine. Figure it out pre-matc. But these attempts to police the community in order to spread "good panda habits" on how to fly are a bad joke.
Siphon drones had 3 balance passes already, eng have the only drain counter, go figure that no-eng teams are most annoyed by them. Danoobs have been buffed last time we asked for a nerf, and that was before the elite fleet version. Not sure who is kidding himself here jorf?
This whole eng drama is not just about forcing vets with multiple alts to remain competitive. It's even worse for new players who might only have one toon. Telling them that they should have known better when they installed the game is either dumb or dishonest. Just look at the many engs that showd up at boot camp. Boy are they likely to pick up pvp proper if we aren't even willing to include a simple rule so they can join the fun.
Where was that ingame documentation at character creation that says...."33% of the trinity represented by engs are not usable in pvp in this game."
No sense to keep arguing the point with you any further.
Enjoy the meta
If we deem 4+ SNBs problematic and Jorf says "don't limit numbers, rather ban completely" - how about matches where sci captains are banned?
You'd most likely end up with a lot of tactical escorts and fast paced games, and while I doubt the community would be willing to give up sci captains full stop there have been themed escort only tournaments in the past that were essentially the same thing.
I think that might be an interesting experience. Maybe our hesitation to call for a massive nerf to SNB (because any change by the current devs would probably render the game unplayable) is actually holding back the rebalancing of the game? Let's nerf the hell out of SNB (it is rather unbalanced compared to pretty much everything else in the game), break the game and thus force the devs to do a proper rebalancing of everything?
SNB does need a nerf, but not in the way you'd expect. You're right that removing the strip could work if there was a massive game wide re-balance to make up for it, but if we're honest with ourselves we know the chances of that happening, much less if we even want that to happen. For now, I don't think there's anything much to gain by even entertaining the notion.
The other half of SNB, slowing down recharge times on abilities, should definitely be removed from the game. In a premade vs. premade match you're almost guaranteed to be cleared of the debuff within three seconds, but in a pug you are not. Besides siphon drones, TIF, and GPG an uncleared SNB is the next most debilitating thing that can happen to a player, akin to a death sentence. Removing the slowing down recharge times part of SNB would make practically no difference to premades, but a world of difference to pugs and is one of the lowest hanging fruits for narrowing the skill chasm.
You'd most likely end up with a lot of tactical escorts and fast paced games, and while I doubt the community would be willing to give up sci captains full stop there have been themed escort only tournaments in the past that were essentially the same thing.
Are you sure that a tac-heavy team would beat an eng-heavy team in the absence of sci captains? I'm not that certain. (Well, at least if the tacs have to stay in the fight and not just do hit&run until they finally succeed.)
SNB does need a nerf, but not in the way you'd expect.
SNB is not only a buff-strip. In a way it's the only on-demand shield resist reduction ability. Maybe one could turn e.g. Nadion Inversion into a shield resist debuff (like FOMM or Scan, but for shields) and thus at the same time remove the total dependency on scis and make engineers useful again.
Your opinion does not equal widely. SP brought the bug, when it was/is widely regarded as OP. DHC are OP compared to all other weapons, so is SNB as far as captain abilities go. You rules, and your attempt to enforcing them on the forums, are just as random as anything else.
You can't see how the attempt to limit ships and careers is going to be an exercise in frustration? As if players are willing to change every single aspect of their build for a single match? You can't see how that's different from taking off a single console, skill, or item?
And are you seriously complaining that SP doesen't want to ban DHCs? Seriously?
You don't want to fight a siphons team, or don't want GVP in matches....fine. Figure it out pre-matc. But these attempts to police the community in order to spread "good panda habits" on how to fly are a bad joke.
Police the community? Actually, we tend to look at teams we meet who use that kind of cheese as a challenge. Is removing obvious I-win buttons like GPG, siphon drones, and TIF from tournaments a good idea though? Well, obviously.
Danoobs have been buffed last time we asked for a nerf, and that was before the elite fleet version. Not sure who is kidding himself here jorf?
I'm not saying that I like danoobs, just that I don't expect Cryptic to do anything about them. Getting stuck in a lot of movement control isn't quite the same as losing almost all of your power.
Are you sure that a tac-heavy team would beat an eng-heavy team in the absence of sci captains? I'm not that certain. (Well, at least if the tacs have to stay in the fight and not just do hit&run until they finally succeed.)
I doubt you'd see a full team of engineers. Most would probably settle on a 4/1 or 3/2 ratio of tacticals to engineers.
SNB is not only a buff-strip. In a way it's the only on-demand shield resist reduction ability. Maybe one could turn e.g. Nadion Inversion into a shield resist debuff (like FOMM or Scan, but for shields) and thus at the same time remove the total dependency on scis and make engineers useful again.
Perhaps. I've always thought Cryptic should change engineers into more of an anti-control role. One thing for certain is that a dedicated tank isn't good design for a PvP class. Hell, it wasn't a good design even back when people used engineers -- players took engineers into PvP for the power management with the additional tank being an added benefit on top of that.
changing the game so people just run 3 / 2 of another combo isn't really fixing a damn thing.
We all agree engi is broken... I don't think removing Sci completely is the way to go. Sure I agree sub nuke is more powerful then it should be, although not more then it needs to be.
There are a ton of good ideas to make engi a part of the PvP trinity.
Wouldn't it be great if all 3 where optimal... with the other 2 being completely up to how the team wants to come at it.
Ya ya where not there... but we don't have to like it.
Sure I agree sub nuke is more powerful then it should be, although not more then it needs to be.
That's basically the root of the issue. SNB is broken, but fixing it would only break things more. Twisted, eh? The game needs the broken SNB for the game to be less broken. Definitely twisted. Since what's otherwise broken with the game is unlikely to be fixed, SNB will remain.
So in having all that there...the Engineer will forever remain on the outside.
Can't drop the SNB out on a target. Can't do the spike during the small gaps created by dropping SNB out on a target.
Changing the Engineer to counter SNB in any way, would be as bad as adjusting SNB in any way - it would be worse for the game.
Within the current broken meta, the Eng would need either to increase the effect of the SNB or to increase the amount of spike that can be done during those gaps created by the SNB...to generate any sort of need for the Eng, no?
So in some twisted mirror universe, rather than looking at Tac/Eng and Sci as the hybrid Tac/Eng...you'd have Tac/Sci and Eng as a hybrid Tac/Sci...?
So as folks are looking at their 3/2 Sci/Tac or Tac/Sci, one also introduces the 2.5/2.5 by having the Tac/Sci/Eng...?
Changing the Engineer to counter SNB in any way, would be as bad as adjusting SNB in any way - it would be worse for the game.
I'm not so sure about that. Really would depend on implementation. For example, if eng fleet granted a team immunity to SNB for 15 seconds that would probably be fine due to the long cooldown compared to the duration. You could pop an eng fleet when you expect the enemy to try to line up a kill, or just at the start of the match so your tactical pilots' alphas are safe.
People are right that there are many ways to make engineers viable though. For example, having RSF castable and/or changing MW away from a self heal into a team-wide debuff cleanse that counters any debuff would certainly do it. I'm sure there's dozens of other ways to make engineers viable too. Cryptic has to pick one and go for it.
I'm not so sure about that. Really would depend on implementation. For example, if eng fleet granted a team immunity to SNB for 15 seconds that would probably be fine due to the long cooldown compared to the duration. You could pop an eng fleet when you expect the enemy to try to line up a kill, or just at the start of the match so your tactical pilots' alphas are safe.
People are right that there are many ways to make engineers viable though. For example, having RSF castable and/or changing MW away from a self heal into a team-wide debuff cleanse that counters any debuff would certainly do it. I'm sure there's dozens of other ways to make engineers viable too. Cryptic has to pick one and go for it.
I agree that perhaps engi having some soft sub nuke counters may not be game breaking... but it sure could be. I wouldn't trust Cryptic to get it right.
I would prefer they remove nadion... I know the nadion defenders will pipe up. But lets be honest its pretty pointless its completely replaced by gear once you can proc the omega amp... and it does a better job of it then nadion as it replaces power when it procs.
Take nadion and give it some sort of debuff ability... sci has sensor scan... tac has fire on my mark... engi needs something like that to add some real TEAM based damage help. Make Rotate and or MW castable to go along with ... and you give them a debuff and a heal.
I know that won't make anyone want to run 3 engis and thats a good thing... we just need Cryptic to make ONE worth something on a team... good enough that it makes sense to only take a couple subnukes... or 1 tac... and the game would be much more interesting. IMO anyway.
Agree with you 100% though Jorf there are plenty of ways to make engi relevant. I hope Cryptic listens up though... cause as others have pointed out. The boot camp type stuff is filled with kids playing there engis. I don't want people to get the idea tanks belong in PvP cause they don't so I hope any changes they do make to engi are clearly a move AWAY from that idea. Leave the +threat consoles in the game and anyone that wants to take a "tanky" ship and make it the team tank in pve can go ahead and have fun with that.
I'm not so sure about that. Really would depend on implementation. For example, if eng fleet granted a team immunity to SNB for 15 seconds that would probably be fine due to the long cooldown compared to the duration. You could pop an eng fleet when you expect the enemy to try to line up a kill, or just at the start of the match so your tactical pilots' alphas are safe.
People are right that there are many ways to make engineers viable though. For example, having RSF castable and/or changing MW away from a self heal into a team-wide debuff cleanse that counters any debuff would certainly do it. I'm sure there's dozens of other ways to make engineers viable too. Cryptic has to pick one and go for it.
How often is a kill scored without SNB being part of that kill cycle? It's because of all the resistances/healing/etc, no? So if the Eng contributed by reducing the amount of SNB, that would increase the duration between kills, no? And if the Eng contributed by increasing the amount of heals/resistance/etc out there after the SNB, that too would increase the duration between kills, no?
Wouldn't either lead to the need for more SNB? But you could only get more SNB by having less Tac. If you had less Tac, you wouldn't have the damage for those gaps.
The Eng would still not be invited to any of the reindeer games, not because they were seen as useless...but because people smoke, eat, have to go the bathroom, have girlfriends/boyfriends/spouses, and generally have lives...they wouldn't have the spare time to invest in matches that could go on forever...
Doesn't it become a case of it being better for the Eng to add to one series of problems rather than the Eng countering those problems while adding to another set of problems that the earlier problems are a bad fix for in the first place?
To be blunt, you can see it in the threads over on Tribble and even hear it in podcasts - there are just so many people that are complete fail at the simple PvE in this game, that the game has become a broken mess for anybody that's capable of tying their shoes because Cryptic has catered to the folks that can't manage to get their toes in right with a pair of flipflops... /sigh
How often is a kill scored without SNB being part of that kill cycle? It's because of all the resistances/healing/etc, no?
Depends on makeup. Most vapers don't need an SNB, but they do need some level of distraction on the other team. Sometimes SNB is certainly needed to get kills.
So if the Eng contributed by reducing the amount of SNB, that would increase the duration between kills, no?
I don't think so. Any counter to SNB by definition needs to be a soft counter that is used in anticipation of a subnuke. The easiest subnuke to anticipate is on your tacticals once they have alpha'd up.
For that reason if you had a high cooldown, short duration power grant team wide SNB immunity it would usually end up being used offensively, not defensively. Time between kills would likely go down.
And if the Eng contributed by increasing the amount of heals/resistance/etc out there after the SNB, that too would increase the duration between kills, no?
Wouldn't either lead to the need for more SNB? But you could only get more SNB by having less Tac. If you had less Tac, you wouldn't have the damage for those gaps.
That's one reason I would rather see the engineer more in an anti-control role as opposed to just making all of it's skills cast-able.
To be blunt, you can see it in the threads over on Tribble and even hear it in podcasts - there are just so many people that are complete fail at the simple PvE in this game, that the game has become a broken mess for anybody that's capable of tying their shoes because Cryptic has catered to the folks that can't manage to get their toes in right with a pair of flipflops... /sigh
I don't think so. Any counter to SNB by definition needs to a soft counter that is used in anticipation of a subnuke. The easiest subnuke to anticipate is on your tacticals once they have alpha'd up.
For that reason if you had a high cooldown, short duration power grant team wide SNB immunity it would usually end up being used offensively, not defensively. Time between kills would likely go down.
I suppose that comes from my bias of experience. My two Sci use it differently, and I play one of them less. There's also what I experience on my main who isn't Sci.
My Fed Sci is a Snooper and mainly uses it Defensively to strip the BoP before the alpha. My KDF Sci is a Tankbuster and mainly uses it Offensively to strip the guy that doesn't want to die.
My main faces it almost exclusively being used in an Offensive manner - basically in trying to kill me. My main's a Wheeeeejock. Depending on the skill of the opposing team, five Tacscorts are going to die one by one to him. If they've got a clue at all, then he won't kill any of them but they're not going to kill him either. A single Sci can make a world of difference in that if they've got any skill, but even then it can take two Sci depending on their skill level. Two skilled Tacs may or may not be able to shred me, but a skilled Tac/Sci duo can do it without even trying.
So I mainly see it being used Offensively. It also leads to seeing kills against coordinated teams near impossible without it. So yeah, bias on my part from experience...which doesn't carry over that well to all scenarios.
Course, with the stealth changes to Defense...meh...my Wheeeejock's not as much fun as he was. Figure they did that on Holo to make the changes on Tribble more acceptable...will have to see how that plays out, bah.
But yeah, since I was looking to go go Sci-Rom and be a little more team friendly - that's something regarding the different uses that I'll need to keep in mind...get away from that bias and look at that larger picture. Something to consider with building that Sci-Rom...hrmm, thanks.
Comments
Well honestly its not that you don't have good engi players its that you unlikely have any that are geared up or rep uped. None of us bother on our engi toons. I would rather claw my eyes out then endure a month of pve on my engi toon. So indeed I know you and bibes are both good engi pilots, I would however bet that neither of you has any more then the first tier of either reps.
I won't argue that engi is the worst possible class to bring into pvp... I am simply saying that a rule to include a min of one per team. Is perfectly in keeping with the types of rules the community makes in general in regards to prearanged games. I really don't understand your argument that somehow its any different.
No bringing an engi into a team is not optimal... my point is and I think others like mancom likely made the point better then I did. We have rules against X number of ships or X number of consoles or X max number of one captain type... it could be argued that plenty of rules we make limit "optimal" setups.
2 tac 3 sci likely is the most optimal setup... I guess what it really comes down to. We need Cryptic to make engi have a point of existing... in PvP and even in PvE. Then we have nothing to even argue about. I might even go and get my rep for my engi toons... as it is ya there is no way I am going to frustrate myself dooing PvE with any of my engis, I don't get high while I play so there is no enjoyment in it.
Bieber is fully geared and rep'd, I'm not.
Another thing to consider is because there are so few people who can jump into a premade quality (as far as that's even possible) engineer you end up shooting yourself in the foot when it comes to getting teams to actually show up and play. If teams tend to have one, maybe two guys who can jump into that role it means even more teams will pull out last moment when a few of those players are not able to make a match and there is no one capable of replacing them. Full participation is hard enough to attain as it is without artificially making it harder.
I'm getting a bit tired of explaining how moderating overpowered abilities is different from forcing teams to use underpowered ones.
Such rules are misguided. If something is broken or overpowered, you don't limit it to X number of copies -- you simply ban it. There's no shades of grey except in the minds of people who don't know better.
I've said it before that I dislike the somewhat standard "max three of one captain type" rule as it limits variety, but in reality it's also quite cowardly. People can't quite find the voice to say "I don't want the other team to bring more than three nukes," because saying it makes one sound bad, if not whiny. Instead we say "max of three of each captain type" as if anyone would have any issue against a team that brought four tacticals and a lone science or engineer captain. :rolleyes:
The dishonesty is subtle, but quite obvious when it's pointed out.
The difference between misguided "max of" rules and this proposal is that the former doesn't force teams to gimp themselves into taking underpowered abilities while ignoring the actual meta. You aren't going to strengthen the community by forcing fail tactics and bad habits onto it, you're just going to confuse the feeble minded and grow the skill chasm.
Or we could compensate for the crappy design behind the engineering class by forcing people to play them anyway :rolleyes:
Nuke is a crutch for true premade skill... there I said that to.
But its the same as comparing Tachyon Beam 3 versus Transfer Shield 3. Which one is more worth it?
Imo, but thats just purely personal, there is as little reason not to apply the rule to bridge officer abilities as it is with classes imo. Are you going to steer every individual player because they dont know which BO abilities are useless and which are not? Lets throw out a diaper while we're at it.
The balance is partly the choice you make as an individual player and as a team.
On top of that its well known Engi's are least wanted it pretty much any scenario, so players/teams can anticipate on that and decide not to bring it.
Ok, lets say we will do a tournament with a mandatory Engi user, the amount of people that either have proper gear/full tier 5 rep versus the ones that do not is too big of a gap, and will only cause more imbalance in a tournament.
I think the majority of the communities crying about things, setups, consoles, etc, is for the simple fact that they are annoyed by it, or they dont want to change their builds/team setup they are so fond of and simply call the alternative OP, not-done etc.
We all know about the horrible imbalance on certain things, TIF i guess, Theta, cloaks, scrambles, alpha bops, hell. even defiant ambush is OP these days. whatever fits your bill, but despite that try to broaden your view and take advantage of the possibilities you are freely capable of choosing.
Dont wanna bother with repu? fine, who cares. Move on to the next grind game.
I think that might be an interesting experience. Maybe our hesitation to call for a massive nerf to SNB (because any change by the current devs would probably render the game unplayable) is actually holding back the rebalancing of the game? Let's nerf the hell out of SNB (it is rather unbalanced compared to pretty much everything else in the game), break the game and thus force the devs to do a proper rebalancing of everything?
Your opinion does not equal widely. SP brought the bug, when it was/is widely regarded as OP. DHC are OP compared to all other weapons, so is SNB as far as captain abilities go. You rules, and your attempt to enforcing them on the forums, are just as random as anything else.
You don't want to fight a siphons team, or don't want GVP in matches....fine. Figure it out pre-matc. But these attempts to police the community in order to spread "good panda habits" on how to fly are a bad joke.
Siphon drones had 3 balance passes already, eng have the only drain counter, go figure that no-eng teams are most annoyed by them. Danoobs have been buffed last time we asked for a nerf, and that was before the elite fleet version. Not sure who is kidding himself here jorf?
This whole eng drama is not just about forcing vets with multiple alts to remain competitive. It's even worse for new players who might only have one toon. Telling them that they should have known better when they installed the game is either dumb or dishonest. Just look at the many engs that showd up at boot camp. Boy are they likely to pick up pvp proper if we aren't even willing to include a simple rule so they can join the fun.
Where was that ingame documentation at character creation that says...."33% of the trinity represented by engs are not usable in pvp in this game."
No sense to keep arguing the point with you any further.
Enjoy the meta
a history of sto pvp: 2010 - 2011
a history of sto pvp: 2012 - 2013
You'd most likely end up with a lot of tactical escorts and fast paced games, and while I doubt the community would be willing to give up sci captains full stop there have been themed escort only tournaments in the past that were essentially the same thing.
SNB does need a nerf, but not in the way you'd expect. You're right that removing the strip could work if there was a massive game wide re-balance to make up for it, but if we're honest with ourselves we know the chances of that happening, much less if we even want that to happen. For now, I don't think there's anything much to gain by even entertaining the notion.
The other half of SNB, slowing down recharge times on abilities, should definitely be removed from the game. In a premade vs. premade match you're almost guaranteed to be cleared of the debuff within three seconds, but in a pug you are not. Besides siphon drones, TIF, and GPG an uncleared SNB is the next most debilitating thing that can happen to a player, akin to a death sentence. Removing the slowing down recharge times part of SNB would make practically no difference to premades, but a world of difference to pugs and is one of the lowest hanging fruits for narrowing the skill chasm.
SNB is not only a buff-strip. In a way it's the only on-demand shield resist reduction ability. Maybe one could turn e.g. Nadion Inversion into a shield resist debuff (like FOMM or Scan, but for shields) and thus at the same time remove the total dependency on scis and make engineers useful again.
You can't see how the attempt to limit ships and careers is going to be an exercise in frustration? As if players are willing to change every single aspect of their build for a single match? You can't see how that's different from taking off a single console, skill, or item?
And are you seriously complaining that SP doesen't want to ban DHCs? Seriously?
Police the community? Actually, we tend to look at teams we meet who use that kind of cheese as a challenge. Is removing obvious I-win buttons like GPG, siphon drones, and TIF from tournaments a good idea though? Well, obviously.
And they all failed to balance them. If you want to cling to the belief that siphons won't get hit again though, be my guest.
I'm not saying that I like danoobs, just that I don't expect Cryptic to do anything about them. Getting stuck in a lot of movement control isn't quite the same as losing almost all of your power.
And where has anyone said that?
There aren't any rules that prohibit them from doing so. We don't need affirmative action for engineers.
I doubt you'd see a full team of engineers. Most would probably settle on a 4/1 or 3/2 ratio of tacticals to engineers.
Perhaps. I've always thought Cryptic should change engineers into more of an anti-control role. One thing for certain is that a dedicated tank isn't good design for a PvP class. Hell, it wasn't a good design even back when people used engineers -- players took engineers into PvP for the power management with the additional tank being an added benefit on top of that.
We all agree engi is broken... I don't think removing Sci completely is the way to go. Sure I agree sub nuke is more powerful then it should be, although not more then it needs to be.
There are a ton of good ideas to make engi a part of the PvP trinity.
Wouldn't it be great if all 3 where optimal... with the other 2 being completely up to how the team wants to come at it.
Ya ya where not there... but we don't have to like it.
That's basically the root of the issue. SNB is broken, but fixing it would only break things more. Twisted, eh? The game needs the broken SNB for the game to be less broken. Definitely twisted. Since what's otherwise broken with the game is unlikely to be fixed, SNB will remain.
So in having all that there...the Engineer will forever remain on the outside.
Can't drop the SNB out on a target. Can't do the spike during the small gaps created by dropping SNB out on a target.
Changing the Engineer to counter SNB in any way, would be as bad as adjusting SNB in any way - it would be worse for the game.
Within the current broken meta, the Eng would need either to increase the effect of the SNB or to increase the amount of spike that can be done during those gaps created by the SNB...to generate any sort of need for the Eng, no?
So in some twisted mirror universe, rather than looking at Tac/Eng and Sci as the hybrid Tac/Eng...you'd have Tac/Sci and Eng as a hybrid Tac/Sci...?
So as folks are looking at their 3/2 Sci/Tac or Tac/Sci, one also introduces the 2.5/2.5 by having the Tac/Sci/Eng...?
I'm not so sure about that. Really would depend on implementation. For example, if eng fleet granted a team immunity to SNB for 15 seconds that would probably be fine due to the long cooldown compared to the duration. You could pop an eng fleet when you expect the enemy to try to line up a kill, or just at the start of the match so your tactical pilots' alphas are safe.
People are right that there are many ways to make engineers viable though. For example, having RSF castable and/or changing MW away from a self heal into a team-wide debuff cleanse that counters any debuff would certainly do it. I'm sure there's dozens of other ways to make engineers viable too. Cryptic has to pick one and go for it.
I agree that perhaps engi having some soft sub nuke counters may not be game breaking... but it sure could be. I wouldn't trust Cryptic to get it right.
I would prefer they remove nadion... I know the nadion defenders will pipe up. But lets be honest its pretty pointless its completely replaced by gear once you can proc the omega amp... and it does a better job of it then nadion as it replaces power when it procs.
Take nadion and give it some sort of debuff ability... sci has sensor scan... tac has fire on my mark... engi needs something like that to add some real TEAM based damage help. Make Rotate and or MW castable to go along with ... and you give them a debuff and a heal.
I know that won't make anyone want to run 3 engis and thats a good thing... we just need Cryptic to make ONE worth something on a team... good enough that it makes sense to only take a couple subnukes... or 1 tac... and the game would be much more interesting. IMO anyway.
Agree with you 100% though Jorf there are plenty of ways to make engi relevant. I hope Cryptic listens up though... cause as others have pointed out. The boot camp type stuff is filled with kids playing there engis. I don't want people to get the idea tanks belong in PvP cause they don't so I hope any changes they do make to engi are clearly a move AWAY from that idea. Leave the +threat consoles in the game and anyone that wants to take a "tanky" ship and make it the team tank in pve can go ahead and have fun with that.
How often is a kill scored without SNB being part of that kill cycle? It's because of all the resistances/healing/etc, no? So if the Eng contributed by reducing the amount of SNB, that would increase the duration between kills, no? And if the Eng contributed by increasing the amount of heals/resistance/etc out there after the SNB, that too would increase the duration between kills, no?
Wouldn't either lead to the need for more SNB? But you could only get more SNB by having less Tac. If you had less Tac, you wouldn't have the damage for those gaps.
The Eng would still not be invited to any of the reindeer games, not because they were seen as useless...but because people smoke, eat, have to go the bathroom, have girlfriends/boyfriends/spouses, and generally have lives...they wouldn't have the spare time to invest in matches that could go on forever...
Doesn't it become a case of it being better for the Eng to add to one series of problems rather than the Eng countering those problems while adding to another set of problems that the earlier problems are a bad fix for in the first place?
To be blunt, you can see it in the threads over on Tribble and even hear it in podcasts - there are just so many people that are complete fail at the simple PvE in this game, that the game has become a broken mess for anybody that's capable of tying their shoes because Cryptic has catered to the folks that can't manage to get their toes in right with a pair of flipflops... /sigh
Depends on makeup. Most vapers don't need an SNB, but they do need some level of distraction on the other team. Sometimes SNB is certainly needed to get kills.
I don't think so. Any counter to SNB by definition needs to be a soft counter that is used in anticipation of a subnuke. The easiest subnuke to anticipate is on your tacticals once they have alpha'd up.
For that reason if you had a high cooldown, short duration power grant team wide SNB immunity it would usually end up being used offensively, not defensively. Time between kills would likely go down.
That's one reason I would rather see the engineer more in an anti-control role as opposed to just making all of it's skills cast-able.
It certainly doesn't help.
I suppose that comes from my bias of experience. My two Sci use it differently, and I play one of them less. There's also what I experience on my main who isn't Sci.
My Fed Sci is a Snooper and mainly uses it Defensively to strip the BoP before the alpha. My KDF Sci is a Tankbuster and mainly uses it Offensively to strip the guy that doesn't want to die.
My main faces it almost exclusively being used in an Offensive manner - basically in trying to kill me. My main's a Wheeeeejock. Depending on the skill of the opposing team, five Tacscorts are going to die one by one to him. If they've got a clue at all, then he won't kill any of them but they're not going to kill him either. A single Sci can make a world of difference in that if they've got any skill, but even then it can take two Sci depending on their skill level. Two skilled Tacs may or may not be able to shred me, but a skilled Tac/Sci duo can do it without even trying.
So I mainly see it being used Offensively. It also leads to seeing kills against coordinated teams near impossible without it. So yeah, bias on my part from experience...which doesn't carry over that well to all scenarios.
Course, with the stealth changes to Defense...meh...my Wheeeejock's not as much fun as he was. Figure they did that on Holo to make the changes on Tribble more acceptable...will have to see how that plays out, bah.
But yeah, since I was looking to go go Sci-Rom and be a little more team friendly - that's something regarding the different uses that I'll need to keep in mind...get away from that bias and look at that larger picture. Something to consider with building that Sci-Rom...hrmm, thanks.