You are comparing apples to oranges, honestly. Consider that Sci and Eng consoles have many different potential functions (skill boosts for Science, ship stat boosts for Eng), as well as the fact that many of those console types were seen as underperforming. The trend Cryptic was looking at was one where people used their Sci/Eng slots for universal consoles, and then maxed out on Tac damage type consoles for DPS. Thus, the fleet Sci/Eng consoles had to compete not just with existing consoles of their types, but with things like the Borg Assimilated Console, etc.
The result was that they buffed the consoles in their primary job AND gave them a secondary buff as well. By making the consoles more versatile, they made them good enough to consider slotting in place of a lockbox or rep console. The fact that they made "normal" Sci and Eng consoles obsolete was largely irrelevant, since many people already sacrificed many of those slots for universals anyway.
Then we get to Tac consoles. For starters, virtually nobody slots universals in their Tac slots, so you don't have to worry about competing with those. Instead, you just have to compete with the current offerings. Now, that sounds easy, but unlike the other console types, Tac consoles don't have any versatility at all. They only increase damage, which makes them a no-brainer for players. Just slot the best possible damage increase, and you're done. You don't have to wonder if your ship would perform better with another Neutronium, or if you need better turn, or if you should keep your Universal in there, etc. It's just slot the biggest number, profit. This is bad for gameplay because it is boring, and bad for design because it means there aren't many avenues for improvement that don't just straight obsolete everything else.
So we end up with the current crop of consoles, which I think are simply fascinating. What they have done is basically boosted damage for people who understand how to maximize their benefits. In essence, the new consoles are a reward for people who have sufficient system mastery to make them work, which is an interesting bit of Dev psychology. The consoles might even be intended as a subtle kind of teaching tool - a way to prod more causal players into understanding the mechanics of damage better, instead of simply tossing on a bigger number and calling it a day. We'll see how successful it is - I'm hopeful that it works out, as I think it's actually a pretty solid design scheme. To paraphrase the old saying, though, you can lead a player to knowledge, but you can't make him think.
Thank you!!! finally someone who understands instead of just complains.
Has anyone seen the numbers for the Dyson Rep Auto Targeting Module Tac Consoles compared to the Fleet Tac Consoles? I now know that they only have half the damage buff of regular consoles, but also buff accuracy and add Proton damage.
I figure that half of a ultra rare console is 15%, I have two tac slots, so that 30 percent, vs. 51% for two fleet tacs consoles, but if you add in the Proton Damage, and the special console that buffs Proton damage by 13% it might be a fair trade, it depends on the size of the accuracy bonus.
You are comparing apples to oranges, honestly. Consider that Sci and Eng consoles have many different potential functions (skill boosts for Science, ship stat boosts for Eng), as well as the fact that many of those console types were seen as underperforming. The trend Cryptic was looking at was one where people used their Sci/Eng slots for universal consoles, and then maxed out on Tac damage type consoles for DPS. Thus, the fleet Sci/Eng consoles had to compete not just with existing consoles of their types, but with things like the Borg Assimilated Console, etc.
The result was that they buffed the consoles in their primary job AND gave them a secondary buff as well. By making the consoles more versatile, they made them good enough to consider slotting in place of a lockbox or rep console. The fact that they made "normal" Sci and Eng consoles obsolete was largely irrelevant, since many people already sacrificed many of those slots for universals anyway.
Then we get to Tac consoles. For starters, virtually nobody slots universals in their Tac slots, so you don't have to worry about competing with those. Instead, you just have to compete with the current offerings. Now, that sounds easy, but unlike the other console types, Tac consoles don't have any versatility at all. They only increase damage, which makes them a no-brainer for players. Just slot the best possible damage increase, and you're done. You don't have to wonder if your ship would perform better with another Neutronium, or if you need better turn, or if you should keep your Universal in there, etc. It's just slot the biggest number, profit. This is bad for gameplay because it is boring, and bad for design because it means there aren't many avenues for improvement that don't just straight obsolete everything else.
So we end up with the current crop of consoles, which I think are simply fascinating. What they have done is basically boosted damage for people who understand how to maximize their benefits. In essence, the new consoles are a reward for people who have sufficient system mastery to make them work, which is an interesting bit of Dev psychology. The consoles might even be intended as a subtle kind of teaching tool - a way to prod more causal players into understanding the mechanics of damage better, instead of simply tossing on a bigger number and calling it a day. We'll see how successful it is - I'm hopeful that it works out, as I think it's actually a pretty solid design scheme. To paraphrase the old saying, though, you can lead a player to knowledge, but you can't make him think.
Has anyone seen the numbers for the Dyson Rep Auto Targeting Module Tac Consoles compared to the Fleet Tac Consoles? I now know that they only have half the damage buff of regular consoles, but also buff accuracy and add Proton damage.
I figure that half of a ultra rare console is 15%, I have two tac slots, so that 30 percent, vs. 51% for two fleet tacs consoles, but if you add in the Proton Damage, and the special console that buffs Proton damage by 13% it might be a fair trade, it depends on the size of the accuracy bonus.
a fleet member got one, i think he said it was 2.5% accuracy.
Has anyone seen the numbers for the Dyson Rep Auto Targeting Module Tac Consoles compared to the Fleet Tac Consoles? I now know that they only have half the damage buff of regular consoles, but also buff accuracy and add Proton damage.
Purple XII version T5 store:
2.5% Accuracy 15 Proton Damage and then a choice of +15 specific energy type or specific kinetic type or +10 "beams" "cannons" etc.
Comments
Thank you!!! finally someone who understands instead of just complains.
I figure that half of a ultra rare console is 15%, I have two tac slots, so that 30 percent, vs. 51% for two fleet tacs consoles, but if you add in the Proton Damage, and the special console that buffs Proton damage by 13% it might be a fair trade, it depends on the size of the accuracy bonus.
Well said... Bravo!
a fleet member got one, i think he said it was 2.5% accuracy.
Purple XII version T5 store:
2.5% Accuracy 15 Proton Damage and then a choice of +15 specific energy type or specific kinetic type or +10 "beams" "cannons" etc.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=879541