Remove Armor Consoles from Engineering

daedalus304

I propose we remove the armor consoles from engineering and give them their own slot, with a second ring set behind shields, a fore aft port starboard armor setting to absorb damage.

where they'd be repaired by engineering skills but not self regenerating like shields.

anyone else think this is a good idea?

annemarie30

No
More
Power
Creep

grazyc2

I support your Idea of separate armor plating I think most players would support this, it would seem more real to people also, BUT I don't think it will happen any time soon.... I don't think the Devs see the need as much as you and I do !!!

And no place the armor kits part from engineering there will be hardly any power creep at all if you do the math on it !!!

stumpfgobs

Without armor consoles there is nothing left to put into engineering slots. I propose renaming them into "universal slots" that henceforth only accept universal consoles.

opo98

daedalus304 wrote: »

I propose we remove the armor consoles from engineering and give them their own slot, with a second ring set behind shields, a fore aft port starboard armor setting to absorb damage.

where they'd be repaired by engineering skills but not self regenerating like shields.

anyone else think this is a good idea?

Erm, it's a bit power creepy to add armor slots. Not a great idea in my book. I'd much rather have them boost every Eng console besides RCS and Armor, since those are the only 2 eng consoles most people ever equip.

No from me to armor slot.

Yes to buffing the bad eng consoles.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

daedalus304

skollulfr wrote: »

if you are going to add more slots like this, then the idea of uni consoles must be removed. otherwise its just going to be another set of slots for uni consoles.


in this format, maybe. but that would also be a hit to dedicated tanks(i dunno why they exist either, but they do)

the armor slots would just be for armor.

like how warp cores have their own slots.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

pompouluss

sopwithsnipe wrote: »

Actually I think a single slot for Armour under Shields wouldn't be that big an impact on power creep.

But that's just an opinion.

No one thing is.

That is why it is called 'creep'.

lunasto

Why would you want to weaken your ship, I'm not sure I'm understanding the disadvantage to having stronger armor. I use a carrier, it's slow and turns like a brick in the mud. So I try to armor it up the best I can. My Orion Slavers don't last long enough to provide me that much cover ether, but a drop every so often by my little pick pockets, is satisfying even with its slim drop rates.

centersolace

What would engineering consoles be good for then hmmm?

vivenneanthony

skollulfr wrote: »

if you are going to add more slots like this, then the idea of uni consoles must be removed. otherwise its just going to be another set of slots for uni consoles.


in this format, maybe. but that would also be a hit to dedicated tanks(i dunno why they exist either, but they do)

a lot of the universal consoles can be either weapons or engineering consoles. the set consoles like the borg universal can be engineering.

as for armour slots it can be based on ship class. additionally they can affect ship skins.

as far power creep. add maximum caps for s ystems failures so someone can max what they. good examples. if they add 5 tactical consoles for damage you can gurantee systems wide eps conduit failure with a 2 minute time to recover.

im all for this type of mechanic.

jarfaru

daedalus304 wrote: »

I propose we remove the armor consoles from engineering and give them their own slot, with a second ring set behind shields, a fore aft port starboard armor setting to absorb damage.

where they'd be repaired by engineering skills but not self regenerating like shields.

anyone else think this is a good idea?

I was thinking this for over a yaer. It just makes sense to me. It just another thing never looked into. Armor plating with its own slots. Its would be almost like what they have in Eve online.

lunasto

I think I understand now, it's what we used to call, "trendy hobbing." This was how our school lost it's soda machines, and forced a stricter dress code. I needed my Mountain Dew rush to stay awake during study hall!!!

"Trendy Hobbing" also attributes to hazing other students about how they dressed, and what brand of school supplies they used. I am always getting a laugh at what people come up with next on the forums, some of you tickle my funny bone! XD It's what keeps me coming back to the forums.

Edited> OMG, I'm analyzing forum subjects, time to go outside. lolz

grayfoxjames

I'm still slightly confused would my Oddy then have 4 engineering slots and then 4 armor slots or what? Cause if not, no thanks I like my Armors it can tank/heal much better with all those resists.

My current Engi slots are 3 Armors and a universal console. I still fail to see how many armor slots you would give ships then if they were to have their own dedicated space...

medtac124

Do not want. -1

a3001

daedalus304 wrote: »

I propose we remove...

Uh huh, as if removal of exploration clusters wasn't getting the community in an uproar already...

originalspock

Power Creep : Power creep is the gradual unbalancing of a game due to successive releases of new content

How does a game get unbalanced from a feature being added to everyone's ship?

Some people have the logic that more features = power creep. I don't get it.



These guys are not in charge of balance.

These guys are.

Contrary to popular belief, balance takes math, and has nothing to do with new slots, new consoles, or a flying spaghetti monster. If you do not trust Cryptic to make balanced content, just say so, stop shooting down everyone's ideas because you are afraid that it will unbalance your game. Unless you can mathematically prove that adding armor slots into the game as being unfeasible or game breaking, there is no logical ground to stand on, and its all baseless theory and hearsay.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

baudl

I'd rather have some extra console slots dedicated for consoles that came from other ships.

in other words, giving consoles from T1-T4 z-store ships a new classification, like "custom console", and give:

T1 ships 1 custom console slot
T2 ships 2 custom console slots
.
.
T5 ships 3 custom console slots
T5.5 ships 4 custom console slots

simply to be able to incorporate more of the consoles that actually come with the ship. As it is, most of them are underperfoming to put it mildly.

To counter the potential "power creep" i'd remove 2 Weapon slots from each ship (one fron and one rear)...possibly add a torp launcher slot only for torps instead.
Even give Sci vessels an extra aft mine launcher slot, and change the subsystem targeting to dispersal patterns.
Having 8 weapons fire simultaniously from fewer weapon hardpoints doesn't look very much Trek anyway.

coupaholic

This could be part of a bigger engineering console revamp, since most of them are pretty useless.

I would support a dedicated armour slot, but only under these conditions.

Amour works like an alternative for shields. So consoles would increase the base hull points of a ship and mods would add resistances to kinetic and energy damage. The base consoles are the same, but the higher the grade the higher the amount of extra hull points.

To maintain balance cruisers would opt for armour over shields. So would have higher rates of amour repair (due to either engineering skills, crew repair rate or combination of both). Perhaps science would be the other way around, preferring shields to amour - and tac vessels could go either way but of course with severely reduced capability.

So that's the amour. Other consoles need a look as well so players would have reason to use the slots rather than just fill them with those awful uni consoles.

warmaker001b

Hooray for moar Min/Max without the Min!

originalspock

skollulfr wrote: »

clearly.

powercreep is the gradual addition of power available to the player.
you choose for your own reasons to confuse that with pay2win advantages, that is your problem.

it causes unbalence between the players and the content, if the content is designed for players with 450 to 500 hp who hit between 300 to 350 dps, then suddenly give everyone armour that makes their effective hp 550 to 600, you just antiquated content. which the devs then need to re-engineer.

so yes, more feaqtures may verywell = more power creep.
unless its something like the rep traits revamp that puts a hard limit on active powers.

hence why i say any addition of new console slots would need countered by removal of universal consoles.

Firstly, where does this concept of Pay2win come from? It sounds made up. Last I checked I could get everything in the game for free.

Second, This might seem like a silly question but can you show me where the OP said anything about buffing the armor?

Finally, revamp is realistically just a re-balance of the numbers to sway it towards a statistical slant which benefits most players, if your numbers are 1,000 minus 500 and your calculations arrive at 500 is just as efficient as 500 minus 250 calculating to 250. Numbers are, and forever will be irrelevant as long as they are calculated correctly. Greater number fears is a myth.

ursusmorologus

I'd like to see dedicated slots for primary and secondary hull plating. We have a lot of armor types that are never used for anything, because Neutronium. Maybe primary plating is your main structure, and secondary provides the resistances, or something like that. Also changes in hull plating affect mass which affects inertia.

However I dont think its possible in this game as it is currently setup. This game's idea of space ships is more armor means turning faster.

woodwhity

So you want to take the only useful engineering-console and move them? And yes, I even consider RCS (semi useful depending on build) as armor thanks to Fleet ones.

originalspock

ursusmorologus wrote: »

I'd like to see dedicated slots for primary and secondary hull plating. We have a lot of armor types that are never used for anything, because Neutronium. Maybe primary plating is your main structure, and secondary provides the resistances, or something like that. Also changes in hull plating affect mass which affects inertia.

However I dont think its possible in this game as it is currently setup. This game's idea of space ships is more armor means turning faster.

Yeah, I would like to see more dedicated slots across the board tbh, just anything that allows me to use the cool universal abilities on my unique ships.

vetteguy904

sopwithsnipe wrote: »

Actually I think a single slot for Armour under Shields wouldn't be that big an impact on power creep.

But that's just an opinion.

really? let's get rid of that neutronium armor and put it in it's own slot, freeing up a space for another overpowered universal console isn't power creep?

I will tentatively say yes to the armor slot(s) PROVIDING a corresponding console slot be removed

originalspock

vetteguy904 wrote: »

really? let's get rid of that neutronium armor and put it in it's own slot, freeing up a space for another overpowered universal console isn't power creep?

I will tentatively say yes to the armor slot(s) PROVIDING a corresponding console slot be removed

You mentioned "another overpowered universal console", does that mean you think all universal consoles are over powered, or do you think that specific universal consoles need to be balanced, and if so, shouldn't you take your argument up with the console itself, and not lump all consoles in the same category. Personally, I think very few universal console abilities are overpowered, as given evidence the same builds containing specific consoles that are not universal, namely tactical, and to some degree engineering. Personally, I really want to use Ablative Armor on my Intrepid, but I find despite only allowed to use it for that ship type, that it is a significant sacrifice 30 seconds of heavy defense with beams disabled and a 3 minute cool down is in my opinion underpowered, I have a similar ability on my romulan ship which is ship specific again 3 minute cool down. There are plenty of consoles that temporarily make ships faster, temporarily add more defense, temporarily transport, but anything minus that there are only a handful of consoles that give passive abilities that I would consider overpowered if stacked with other passive consoles, I think maybe something could be done to add diminished returns or functionality in relation to functionality across the board.

vetteguy904

originalspock wrote: »

You mentioned "another overpowered universal console", does that mean you think all universal consoles are over powered, or do you think that specific universal consoles need to be balanced, and if so, shouldn't you take your argument up with the console itself, and not lump all consoles in the same category. Personally, I think very few universal console abilities are overpowered, as given evidence the same builds containing specific consoles that are not universal, namely tactical, and to some degree engineering. Personally, I really want to use Ablative Armor on my Intrepid, but I find despite only allowed to use it for that ship type, that it is a significant sacrifice 30 seconds of heavy defense with beams disabled and a 3 minute cool down is in my opinion underpowered, I have a similar ability on my romulan ship which is ship specific again 3 minute cool down. There are plenty of consoles that temporarily make ships faster, temporarily add more defense, temporarily transport, but anything minus that there are only a handful of consoles that give passive abilities that I would consider overpowered if stacked with other passive consoles, I think maybe something could be done to add diminished returns or functionality in relation to functionality across the board.

no, although I do have issues with some consoles that are unbalanced, I find the transparent "I want more power creep" in this thread rather sad.

M very large percentage of players JOINED to fly the Galaxy, the defiant and the Intrepid.. how many of those ships do you see in game? i see far more Scimitars, Dreadnoughts and Undine.

why? POWER creep. and adding more slots so more universals is nothing more than power creep and MinMax without the Min.

zipagat

vetteguy904 wrote: »

no, although I do have issues with some consoles that are unbalanced, I find the transparent "I want more power creep" in this thread rather sad.

M very large percentage of players JOINED to fly the Galaxy, the defiant and the Intrepid.. how many of those ships do you see in game? i see far more Scimitars, Dreadnoughts and Undine.

why? POWER creep. and adding more slots so more universals is nothing more than power creep and MinMax without the Min.

There is never a shortage of Galaxies (normal or Dreadnought) around any of the social hubs.

duncanidaho11

zipagat wrote: »

There is never a shortage of Galaxies (normal or Dreadnought) around any of the social hubs.

Or Sovereign classes. There are plenty of people who prioritize aesthetics over stats. The fact that some people don't is just a reflection that as a video game there are other aspects to STO than RP'ing.