test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
limiting the number of dublicate consoles
baudl
Member Posts: 4,060 Arc User
i was wondering what the general opinion is about restricting the number of the same consoles (same type, independent of rarity and mark) on a ship.
example: each ship has a cap of let's say 3 consoles of the same type. doesn't matter if you have a rare, a very rare or a green version fitted together on one ship, all 3 count as the same console, so you can't add a 4th.
i was thinking about this, because in my opinion it seems a little silly and unimaginative that the most effective combination on a ship is to stack as much of one console on it.
with the abundance of "worthless" consoles (especially tac)...and the imminent buff that will come to ships with "a lot" of tac console slots, i'd like to know if anybody else thinks that a limitation to the number of identical tac consoles is necessary.
I think, that limiting each ship to only 2 or 3 consoles of the same name (and the same stats) would greatly benefit overall gameplay and diversity of builds and ships in STO.
What do you think, and elaboraty "why and how"? (Writing only "no" is not enough, i'd say)
*edit: seems duplicate is written wrong in the headline
example: each ship has a cap of let's say 3 consoles of the same type. doesn't matter if you have a rare, a very rare or a green version fitted together on one ship, all 3 count as the same console, so you can't add a 4th.
i was thinking about this, because in my opinion it seems a little silly and unimaginative that the most effective combination on a ship is to stack as much of one console on it.
with the abundance of "worthless" consoles (especially tac)...and the imminent buff that will come to ships with "a lot" of tac console slots, i'd like to know if anybody else thinks that a limitation to the number of identical tac consoles is necessary.
I think, that limiting each ship to only 2 or 3 consoles of the same name (and the same stats) would greatly benefit overall gameplay and diversity of builds and ships in STO.
What do you think, and elaboraty "why and how"? (Writing only "no" is not enough, i'd say)
*edit: seems duplicate is written wrong in the headline
Go pro or go home
Post edited by baudl on
0
Comments
I find it hard to find willpower to try something else, than what i already know works well.
Of course, if i choose 1 kind of colour on my beams/skittles, i will still have the opportunity to play with optional weaponry, or using a slot or two for some fancy unisoles.
I like the idea.
You can still use 1 energy damage type and have consoles boost it as well as then using beams / cannons at the same time.
A 5 tac console setup would be along the lines of;
energy dmg type console, beam damage console, cannon console, projectile type console, general projectile console.
Bridge officers would be a lot more interesting in peoples configs.
Same goes for sci and eni consoles. the mix up would make some great configs and consoles that are ignored would start to be used
No, that is not what i was proposing. has nothing to do how skills stack...what i proposed was a limitation of how much of the same consoles you can carry on a single ship...this is already in the code btw. Each console would be "unique equipped" (if you limit to 1). This exists already in the game and requires NO redesign of skills or diminishing returns.
example: if you wanted to achieve the same armor resi as 3xneutronium consoles, you'd need to get a kinetic resi, resA and resB console...still the same outcome (actually more) but with 3 different consoles and not 3xthe same neutronium.
"advantage" would be that the now "TRIBBLE" armor consoles would be actually valued too, without making neutroniums obsolete.
supper = evening meal http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=supper
bosted = broken http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bosted
broken meals at night?
On a more serious note, I don't think limiting the amount of console of one type is necessarily the best way to make players use a wider variety. Perhaps making all the 'worthless' consoles less worthless would be a start.
yes there is, however the current systems devalues most of the consoles in the game in favour of a small number of "superior" consoles to have an effective build. This thread is about thiat gap and general "console favouritism" that comes naturaly if you are able to stack consoles of the same type.
same is with boffs and their traits...people stack romulan operatives (including me), because they can, and ignore other boffs with "inferior" traits.
Ithink that is a dumb mechanic and kills diversity, both with traits and consoles.
Which is a problem with the skill system, and secondarily with content mechanics, not the console system. All you're going to do is swap one group of "lesser" consoles for another, and increase the amount of usage that passive universal consoles get.
i can agree that the skill system is a problem in itself, however it has nothing to do with stacking or not stacking IDENTICAL consoles on your ship.
i can't imagine how this would impact your choice of skills, when instead of 4 disruptor induction coils, you are forced to have 1 disruptor induction coil; 1 locator console (the new ones from the spire); 1 vulnerability exploiter console and maybe one of the dyson sphere rep. tac consoles or a plasma projectile console, because you happen to use a plasma torp. It has no impact.
Or instead of 2 fleet embassy sci consoles with flow cap, you need to switch one of them for a dyson flow cap sci console.
content mechanics? that is not even a term that makes sense, honestly. is that a group of people that fix broken PVE content?
What i propose wouldn't swap one group of consoles with another...it brings those "lesser" consoles back into builds, but that isn't what i was aiming at. Much better would be if T5 ship consoles would become a more effective choice for your ship. As a fact most of those T5 and lower tier consoles from c-store ships are pretty nice, but are mostly a wasted console slot, since stacking 4 identical console yields more permanent advantage.
It is a shame for those consoles to rott in my inventory, while i have 4 or 5 identical consoles in my tac slots.
Now you could say: "well, it is my decision to prefer those tac consoles", and you'd be perfectly right, but i just find it a poor design when using 5 identical items becomes "the way to do it", when there clearly is an easy fix. And yes it is an easy fix, since the code to make consoles unique equipped is already there.
and any change to the "content mechanics" or whatever isn't necessary.
increase the amount of passive universal consoles? you mean like plasmonic leech,assimilated, zero poin, tachyokinetic, valdore schield heal console, ...? guess what, that value can't be increased much, everybody uses them already!
Content mechanics = mechanics in content. Or to put it in simple enough terms for you: the way missions work. You know, those pesky bits that dictate failure or success in STFs or queued missions? Those are mechanics. In content.
Translation: I want to take the lazy way out and trade one set of problems for another instead of actually taking the time to fix the root causes of said initial problems.
Arbitrarily limiting console stacking isn't going to make sub-par consoles suck less.
Rule 42, Nukara Particle Converter, Bio-Neural Circuitry, Dyson console...
Yeah nobody's ever going to use those over existing consoles...
and what you describe is called game(play) mechanics, gz...you invented a new term for a word that already existed, but you didn't knew it.
and the root problem with consoles IS in fact that nobody uses the ****ty consoles because they can stack the good ones.
There is nothing wrong with a photon projectile console...only that having 3 additional disruptor consoles adds more overall dmg to my build.
don't know about you, but nukara particle converter is actually a "must have" on beam boats and Bio-Neural Circuitry is also a console i would consider if i was restricted to only 1 console of each type...after all they are universal, and part of a set that i may wanna use if i wasn't so confined with my console choices in the current system.
i'm not even sure why you made this point, it just supports what i want. Sure those are better than the normal drop consoles...and people should buy them and add to their build...that is exactly my point.
*edit: i didn't even start to talk about the ships and how it would impact on increase the value of those "less desireable" ships
From the sound of things on this thread it sounds like what you want is..."Cryptic please do something because people aren't equipping their ships the way I think they should".
yes you could think that, but the real reason is, that having to stack 4-5 identical consoles for an effective build is just bad design.
and the counter arguments presented, like "needs an overhaul of the whole skillsystem" is just not true, and the that "passive universal consoles would be the new top consoles" is also not an counter argument, because that's what they are supposed to be (and are right now) anyway. After all they cost "real money" or serious time grinding.
the stacking problem is not only with consoles but certain boff traits too, which shouldn't stack, but do.
further, the new tac consoles from the spire will increase the performance gap (which is 99% dealing dmg in PVE) between ships, making tac ships even more desireable than they already are...which can also be summed up into poor game design. the whole array of new consoles provided by the dyson reputation is worthless, and frankly i must question the reason why they were implemented in the first place.
also, if you look at how it is now...people are more or less forced to stack identical consoles anyway...while consoles you paid maybe money for rott in your inventory.
but i will saying not played really since LOR came out so this may have change by now
system Lord Baal is dead
its lame that i get three neutroniums that are all + 21, with my resists being 10% pre those consoles and only end up with 40%.
I could understand a cap at then, i would gladly accept a cap then, but as it stands the mechanics that do the math in this game are all knackered*. Streamline it first and then fiddle.
cause in no math i was ever taught does 30% of a hundred equal 10....
*Knackered means broken...:P
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Not so much broken, as stupidly convoluted and opaque. Once the equations are figured out, everything actually works within those rules.
Recent example: Cruiser weapon efficiency aura. It's labeled as a 25% drain resist. Common sense would dictate that you just knock 25% off the drain total and call it a day. Of course, that's not how Cryptic math works.
As to neutroniums, you are aware that resist rating and resist percentages are two very different things right?
the diminishing return on armor consoles, and armor points in general exist for a good reason. Even with each console beeing unique (since there are a lot already around that have some sort of armor value on them plus something else), you could reach 100% resistance (invulnerability) without a diminishing return.
So you can't get rid of it
Wouldnt we end up with weaker Escorts and the same strong healing Cruisers and Science ships?
R.I.P
not necessarily: 5 tac console ships will be harder to fill effectively than 4 tac console ships.
example:locator console, exploiter console, tac dyson reputation console, normal energy type tac console...and for the fifth a connon or beam console, or a console to buff a secodary weapon like a torp, or even a universal console
so that is about 20% less base dmg buff for your energy weapons compared to current tac console setup for a 5 tac console ship and only around 10% for 4 tac console ship.
science consoles would suffer a similar loss, but since there is also already a broad variaty of science console to buff the same skills (dyson, embassy, normal, certain universal consoles)
engi consoles have the broadest variaty and suffer the least, pepole with 4 embassey turnrate consoles on their cruisers would suffer most.
whats the point? iahve a friend wjo hovers at 95% resists with two armors, constantly popping AP:D and PH. So thats ok but just getting it from consoles would be game breaking, now do you get a picture of why this sytem is obnoxious and knackered?
so i hit him with 1200 damage, his shields block let through 120 of it, and his hull takes.....12 of it after resists, roughly the same if i obliterate his shield. So diminishing returns on consoles is fine so you cant be unkillable but boff powers, well thats fine those can make you a juggernaught for all anyone cares.
I get buff blocked on a console but can surpass it with a few boffs..... brilliant.
Console hard cap should be 50%, with a Boff able to bring that cap to a total of 65 - 70%.
Forget diminshing returns. Boff skills dont get them. I dont see romulan boffs getting diminished returns on their bonus crit do you?
Having caps instead of diminishing returns prevents what people do anyways, find a way around it.
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
boff abilities like PH suffer the same diminishing return as consoles, skills,... since they add only damage resistance magnitude and not damage resi directly.
according to this reaching 95% damage resistance would mean he literaly had millions of damage resi magnitude.
the highest you can go, with all buffs and abilitys at work is maybe 500 damage resi magnitude possibly more with aux2damp doff synergy, which is around 70% resi...considering 75% means 1500 dmg resi magnitude.
was he using the ablative hull from the c-store voyager? only explanation i have for reaching 95% dmg reduction.
yes, they had a trait redesign...wow, what a fail that was. Completely ignored boff traits, the single most important thing about boffs. considering space combat is 90% the reason why people play sto, having only 5 space traits for boffs and 10 times as much for ground really raises my eyebrow each time i think about it.
I seriously doubt that. They can already limit consoles to "limit one per ship" when necessary. I don't see why they couldn't just have the computer do a quick calculation to see how many of the current type you have. It wouldn't take more than a few lines of code, unless there's something really weird about the engine and/or game-specific code (which is entirely possible, admittedly).
Whether or not this is a good idea is another question entirely, but I don't think it would be difficult to implement it on a technical level.