Or people could accept that if they select a certain ship that has certain overall stats that it is meant to be played a different way...and if one is looking to do something else, they should look at a different ship to do it.
What?
They selected a certain ship, and are playing it according to the existing mechanics. Said mechanics include Aux2Bat and Technician DOffs, which are existing parts of the game.
Why should they be forced to play a different way, just because other people want them to?
Or people could accept that if they select a certain ship that has certain overall stats that it is meant to be played a different way...and if one is looking to do something else, they should look at a different ship to do it.
name one thing an eng heavy cruiser (LTC eng) can do better then a sci heavy cruiser. they suck, they are good for nothing, any cruiser with more then 6 eng powers is forgoing fundamentally needed high end tac or sci skills that make other cruisers good. at least an AtB build can give them a much larger tactical edge, make them the best they can be, at anything.
only if AtB is nerfed and ruined, will anyone have to accept anything. accept that there will only be a handful of competitive ships in the game, and a mountain of garbage, entire play styles destroyed, much of it fan favorites. GG AtB haters, GG
They selected a certain ship, and are playing it according to the existing mechanics. Said mechanics include Aux2Bat and Technician DOffs, which are existing parts of the game.
AtB has been changed several times. Don't act like it's the same way it was when first introduced - that it's some inviolate ability since the dawn of the game. It's changed before - it can change again. Simple as that.
name one thing an eng heavy cruiser (TLC eng) can do better then a sci heavy cruiser. they suck, they are good for nothing, any cruiser with more then 6 eng powers is forgoing fundamentally needed high end tac or sci skills that make other cruisers good. at least an AtB build can give them a much larger tactical edge, make them the best they can be, at anything.
That's not an argument for AtB...that's an argument for additional Eng BOFF abilities which would bring a variety of builds to those ships.
only if AtB is nerfed and ruined, will anyone have to accept anything. accept that there will only be a handful of competitive ships in the game, and a mountain of garbage, much of it fan favorites. GG AtB haters, GG
Yeah, you like a certain ship...Cryptic didn't do the ship the way you would have liked it.
AtB's the lazy way out for Cryptic to handle the lack of competitiveness that Eng heavy Cruisers have in many folks eyes.
There are 14 Eng BOFF abilities. There are 18 Sci and 16 Tac.
There are 4 EPtX abilities that trigger a CD.
There are 3 AtX abilities that trigger a CD.
There are only 5 Ensign ranked choices, 4 of them are EPtX abilities.
Force Cryptic to do something about the sorry state of Eng BOFF abilities...
...why support the laziness of the "Oh, they can AtB and muddle through so we don't have to fix anything" mentality?
4 of the 5 Ensign abilities trigger a CD on each other.
4 of the 5 Ensign abilities trigger a CD on 4 of the 12 Lieutenant abilities.
4 of the 5 Ensign abilities trigger a CD on 4 of the 14 Lieutenant Commander abilities.
9 of the 12 Lieutenant abilities trigger a CD on each other.
9 of the 12 Lieutenant abilities trigger a CD on 9 of the 14 Lieutenant Commander abilities.
4 of the 12 Lieutenant abilities trigger a CD on 4 of the 5 Ensign abilities.
9 of the 14 Lieutenant Commander abilities trigger a CD on 9 of the 12 Lieutenant abilities.
4 of the 14 Lieutenant Commander abilities trigger a CD on 4 of the 5 Ensign abilities.
Then you get into some of the CDs for some of those Eng abilities...
...and the whole thing is a mess.
Drop some of the higher ranked stuff down and add a bunch of stuff...Cruisers are generally iconic of Star Trek...make them awesome and fun ships to fly...don't just make them jury-rigged Escorts.
AtB has been changed several times. Don't act like it's the same way it was when first introduced - that it's some inviolate ability since the dawn of the game. It's changed before - it can change again. Simple as that.
a single change, that moved it to a different system cooldown tree, and changed everything. no tweaks since
That's not an argument for AtB...that's an argument for additional Eng BOFF abilities which would bring a variety of builds to those ships.
which is in no way a replacement for all the benefits AtB builds provide them, AND effects every other ship with eng station powers. you are cutting the AtB ship off at the knees, wile giving it a stick in exchange to help drag itself along, wile giving everything that doesn't use AtB a new trick. you have to be truly mental not to see that as a bigger threat to balance then what we have now, which is wide spread balance, build viability, and inclusion for all ships to do something at least pretty well. why do so many want to destroy the best balance era the game has ever had?
Yeah, you like a certain ship...Cryptic didn't do the ship the way you would have liked it.
Boo 'effin' hoo.
oh please, this has nothing to do with the galaxy R sucking the most of all, thats far from the only ship this refers too. the entire tac cruiser play style is at risk of being flushed, its not just the LTC eng cruisers that need it.
remember escorts online? you been around long enough to remember it. sure, it was actually sci ship online, it always has been, but it was called escorts online because nothing else could walk and chew gum at the same time. nothing else could DPS and live. AtB let cruisers do both, like escorts. but not have 1 replace the other. they are different but equal options, and the game is better for it, because nothing is as star trek as a tac cruiser build.
how would you like it if your play style was threaten with extinction? seems like you want all the ships that rely on AtB builds for viability to be rendered worse with its lose then a galaxy R with an AtB build, cause that will be what happens if they lost tech doffs. that would be a crying shame.
AtB's the lazy way out for Cryptic to handle the lack of competitiveness that Eng heavy Cruisers have in many folks eyes.
There are 14 Eng BOFF abilities. There are 18 Sci and 16 Tac.
There are 4 EPtX abilities that trigger a CD.
There are 3 AtX abilities that trigger a CD.
There are only 5 Ensign ranked choices, 4 of them are EPtX abilities.
Force Cryptic to do something about the sorry state of Eng BOFF abilities...
...why support the laziness of the "Oh, they can AtB and muddle through so we don't have to fix anything" mentality?
speaking of the galaxy R, we have been over this there 100 times in that thread. you cant just change eng powers in a vacuum, it effects every ship with eng skills. i could have just stopped that sentence, and left it at EVERY SHIP.
unclenching system cool downs in the eng tree has no parity what so ever with what AtB builds provide ships. it is seriously disappointing that this still needs to be spelled out every time someone ingeniously says oh just buff eng skills! problem solved! this laziness BS argument is so played out. AtB is genius, it a buff that targets the inferior UP tac cruisers and UP non bug escorts. its not also usable on sci ships and heal boats, doesnt buff them at all. the 2 strongest build types in the game, far better at what they do then anything AtB is run on. nothing could so eloquently target the underpowered.
approximated full up time on tac skills they could not have other wise, wile having full up time on some or all of the following: EPtS, EPtW/E, ET, ST, HE, DEM, and RSP. cruisers can run 2 copies of all these too, but not with out steep opportunity cost and sacrificing some for others. only the LTC+ENS tac cruisers have the bare amount needed of tac without the help of AtB.
knee jerk is, oh! thats OP, getting all that! oh wait its not, these ships are the real glass cannons in the game, they need like twice as many station powers as leaner and meaner tac ships because they cant simply chose to not be shot, or not to be in an opponent's fireing arc like the bug or AtD optimal escorts can. they can only out heal incoming damage. and they cant deal sufficient DPS, AND have sufficient HPS at the same time without an AtB build. you know, be BALANCED? to not be a feeder?
not to be disrespectful to you max DEEPS pve guys or anything, but your non AtB MAX DPS ships wouldn't last 5 seconds in pvp. and no non AtB pvp tac cruiser build is going to out attrition an AtB tac cruiser. every time i see one, it quickly shows how helpless it is after its initial self heal spike. without the AtB uptime on heals its only a mater of time before it goes down, without healer support. and wile you suck up all the team heals, the escorts get sniped, because you aren't in a self sufficient AtB tac cruiser, and tac cruisers are only a value to a team if they are mostly self sufficient. so please, spare me PVE logic about tac cruisers in this case.
Then you get into some of the CDs for some of those Eng abilities...
...and the whole thing is a mess.
Drop some of the higher ranked stuff down and add a bunch of stuff...Cruisers are generally iconic of Star Trek...make them awesome and fun ships to fly...don't just make them jury-rigged Escorts.
eng skills do need work. but NOT as some replacement for AtB, thats not the right reasons. if you try to fill the void with buffed enough to do it eng skills (impossible, im just speaking hypothetically), just think of how buffed everything thats balanced or OP already would be too.
eng skills do need work. but NOT as some replacement for AtB, thats not the right reasons. if you try to fill the void with buffed enough to do it eng skills (impossible, im just speaking hypothetically), just think of how buffed everything thats balanced or OP already would be too.
Just looking at the lock box ships going back to the triggered CD change made for AtB (Oct 2012 - btw, that wasn't the only change if one includes the Tech DOFFs. DOFFs didn't exist prior to S5 (so that would be an AtB change) and the Tech DOFFs themselves were changed about a month after the F2P conversion no longer to be a proc (so that would be an AtB change))...
Narcine
X, X, X, X
X X, X X, X X, X, X
Contortix
X, X, X, X
X X, X, X X, X X, X
Nicor
X, X, X, X X, X X, X, X X, X, X
Dromias - Cruiser
X, X X, X, X, X X, X, X X, X, X
Hunter
X, X, X, X X, X, X X, X X, X
X
Apex - Battle Cruiser
X, X, X X, X, X, X X, X X, X
X
Palisade
X, X, X X, X, X, X X, X, X
X, X
Bastion - Flight-Deck Cruiser
X, X X, X, X, X X, X, X X, X
X
Bulwark - Dreadnought Cruiser
X, X X, X, X, X X, X X, X, X
X
S'golth
X, X, X, X X X, X, X X, X
X, X
Monbosh - Battle Cruiser
X, X, X X, X, X, X X X, X
X, X
Adapted Destroyer
X, X, X, X
X X, X, X X, X
X, X
Adapted Battle Cruiser - Battle Cruiser
X, X X, X X, X, X X, X, X, X
X
Jem'Hadar Dreadnought Carrier
X, X, X, X
X, X X, X, X X X, X
Jem'Hadar Heavy Escort Carreir
X, X, X, X X, X, X
X, X X X, X
How about Zen ships? (I'm asleep at this point, so no layouts.)
Tempest?
Avenger/Mogh?
How about those Scimitars, eh? A few Warbirds, eh?
So just how much has AtB actually helped some of those older Eng heavy ships by comparison?
How do the Gal-R/Negh'Var compare with all the AtB goodness available to them to ships dropped out after Oct 2012?
Even though multiple devs have acknowledged there's an issue with it, they're not going to touch it with a ten foot pole...this is a casual game and the spacebar warrior way of AtB is great for sales allowing those casual players to have a blast - it's a moneymaker and they know it. That's why I generally avoid these threads like the plague outside of requesting that the aux drain be consistent amongst players...
...but honestly, I want a damn fix for Eng heavy boats - changes to Eng BOFFs - some movement and additions. Cause there's a big difference between what that would bring to the Cmdr/LCdr and what it would bring to the LCdr/Lt...cause they'd still be looking at running other Eng BOFF abilities and be concerned about giving up the CD reduction elsewhere.
Doesn't mean I still don't grumble about off to the side without posting - and - maybe grumbling less silently from time to time like I have here.
Was it Husanak that posted out just how many DOFFs AtB replaced? It's kind of sickening...
The devs have said they're going to try to avoid the mess made with Tech DOFFs...maybe that's the wrong attitude...maybe they need to repeat that mess with a variety of DOFFs - create Eng, Tac, and Sci DOFFs that do the same thing based on other abilities. Get some CD reduction for everything from dropping out EPtX abilities - dropping out Beam abilities - dropping out HE...
Cause the system as it stands right now is just a complete pile of garbage...
Did you literally not read the post you're responding to?
Aux2Bat isn't optimal for most ships, but brings certain weaker ships up.
It doesn't need to be nerfed because the top ships in PvE and PvP don't use it.
It shouldn't be nerfed because weaker ships, specifically Eng-heavy cruisers with very few Tactical abilities, need it to bring them up to par.
This of course, depends on your definition of what it up to par. Some of us prefer teammates with more than 2k DPS.
2k is dismal for a cruiser, you do not need aux2batt to surpass the 2k mark, what you need is a well thought out build.
Eng heavy cruisers, are not designed to be a high dps ship, they are meant to provide a hull shield.
They can accomplish this, and still perform adequately in pve missions, instead you want them to be a dps machine, on top of a possible tank in one, and that is the issue.
You also have escort class vessels, getting away with using this skill also, making them going outside of the normal boundaries of skill timers.
They can devise some other means, to bring some extra oomph to ships, it's just it shouldn't come from 1 skill alone, and this skill should not provide this much cd power across the board.
That is supposed to be what doffs are for, but aux2batt is like having the equivalent of 3 doffs for every skill, all wrapped up into 1 skill effected by only 3 doffs, in other words it almost like having over 30 doffs providing a 100% chance for a 30% cd to X skill.
AtB has been changed several times. Don't act like it's the same way it was when first introduced - that it's some inviolate ability since the dawn of the game. It's changed before - it can change again. Simple as that.
It went from "nobody uses" to "used". Sure it can change - like they were going to change EPtX abilities, which led to such an outcry because it was used that they backed off.
Changing an ability nobody uses because it was worthless is minor. Changing an ability that's a cornerstone of how people plays is major - especially if there's on reason to change it in the first place.
I don't use Aux2Bat, and I actively avoid it because I like to keep my Aux.
Given that it's not unbalanced - the best performing ships are weakened by it and weaker ships are brought up to par (but don't outperform the best ships) - the entitlement appears to be on the side of people whining it's overpowered.
Force Cryptic to do something about the sorry state of Eng BOFF abilities...
...why support the laziness of the "Oh, they can AtB and muddle through so we don't have to fix anything" mentality?
They absolutely do need to fix the balance of abilities. That's not what these threads ever propose, however. The people who create whiny threads like this about Aux2Bat don't go "oh, cruiser abilities are horribly unbalanced and need to be buffed so that Aux2Bat is no longer necessary". They go "waaaah, my ship sucks but it's not my problem, it's those people I think are using Aux2Bat that outdo me, and Aux2Bat needs to be removed!" They of course are ignorant of the fact that the majority of people in high performance builds don't even use Aux2Bat, and are almost uniformly advised against it. Of course it's not them that sucks, it's other people relying on a gimmick!
The response to a thread saying what you're saying, that Eng abilities need to be made competitive to remove reliance on Aux2Bat on otherwise below-par ships, is going to be very different from the response to someone whining that they suck so somebody else should get nerfed - which is rightfully "Boo 'effin' hoo."
Just looking at the lock box ships going back to the triggered CD change made for AtB
To my knowledge, none of the ships you linked perform better with Aux2Bat than without.
They all have sufficient Tactical abilities - and heck, some are carriers and science ships.
2k is dismal for a cruiser, you do not need aux2batt to surpass the 2k mark, what you need is a well thought out build.
No kidding?
Take away the Fleet goodies you were whining about on my FACR and it'll still easily do over 10k. You have yet to even say how well you perform, other than a rather pointless example of being able to tank a tac cube. Something my Engineering captain could successfully do in a Vesta half the time, and a Chimera 100% of the time - and no, I hadn't even heard of Aux2Bat when I was tanking in my Chimera.
They can accomplish this, and still perform adequately in pve missions, instead you want them to be a dps machine, on top of a possible tank in one, and that is the issue.
Oh wow! PvE missions! Yeah, that's the key measure of what ships need to be doing, because that's clearly what you spend the majority of your time doing in STO! :rolleyes:
So escorts are supposed to be both DPS machines and tanks, while cruisers are only supposed to tank. Of course, threat is determined by damage done, and if you don't hold aggro you're not a tank, so the escorts are both DPS and tanks while cruisers just look pretty.
(If you don't think escorts can tank, then you don't have a clue. Tanking means holding aggro and surviving it - no more, no less. Being invulnerable doesn't make you a tank, it just makes you invulnerable. An invulnerable ship that doesn't do enough damage to hold aggro isn't a tank, it's a flying brick.)
You also have escort class vessels, getting away with using this skill also, making them going outside of the normal boundaries of skill timers.
Which is supposed to do what? So they have redundant and excessive Tac abilities? So they have extra science abilities that they just self-nerfed? At the cost of being unable to use the best reputation traits in the game, weakening the standard recovery abilities, and losing one [Amp] mod? Is this supposed to be overpowered?
Sure, Tech DOffs can replace other DOffs. But actually using those other DOffs results in higher performance.
They can devise some other means, to bring some extra oomph to ships, it's just it shouldn't come from 1 skill alone, and this skill should not provide this much cd power across the board.
Yes, they should. It should also be done before they ever touch Aux2Bat builds, because removing a crutch before giving them a leg to stand on is utterly moronic. Not even Cryptic can do something that stupid, which is why they haven't touched Tech DOffs in spite of people whining when they get outperformed by builds that they think rely on this crutch.
It went from "nobody uses" to "used". Sure it can change - like they were going to change EPtX abilities, which led to such an outcry because it was used that they backed off.
Changing an ability nobody uses because it was worthless is minor. Changing an ability that's a cornerstone of how people plays is major - especially if there's on reason to change it in the first place.
I don't use Aux2Bat, and I actively avoid it because I like to keep my Aux.
Given that it's not unbalanced - the best performing ships are weakened by it and weaker ships are brought up to par (but don't outperform the best ships) - the entitlement appears to be on the side of people whining it's overpowered.
Then they need to introduce options before removing the only strong option for those ships.
They absolutely do need to fix the balance of abilities. That's not what these threads ever propose, however. The people who create whiny threads like this about Aux2Bat don't go "oh, cruiser abilities are horribly unbalanced and need to be buffed so that Aux2Bat is no longer necessary". They go "waaaah, my ship sucks but it's not my problem, it's those people I think are using Aux2Bat that outdo me, and Aux2Bat needs to be removed!" They of course are ignorant of the fact that the majority of people in high performance builds don't even use Aux2Bat, and are almost uniformly advised against it. Of course it's not them that sucks, it's other people relying on a gimmick!
The response to a thread saying what you're saying, that Eng abilities need to be made competitive to remove reliance on Aux2Bat on otherwise below-par ships, is going to be very different from the response to someone whining that they suck so somebody else should get nerfed - which is rightfully "Boo 'effin' hoo."
To my knowledge, none of the ships you linked perform better with Aux2Bat than without.
They all have sufficient Tactical abilities - and heck, some are carriers and science ships.
No kidding?
Take away the Fleet goodies you were whining about on my FACR and it'll still easily do over 10k. You have yet to even say how well you perform, other than a rather pointless example of being able to tank a tac cube. Something my Engineering captain could successfully do in a Vesta half the time, and a Chimera 100% of the time - and no, I hadn't even heard of Aux2Bat when I was tanking in my Chimera.
Oh, so they're not meant to be useful, they're meant to do something worthless. Gotcha.
Oh wow! PvE missions! Yeah, that's the key measure of what ships need to be doing, because that's clearly what you spend the majority of your time doing in STO! :rolleyes:
So escorts are supposed to be both DPS machines and tanks, while cruisers are only supposed to tank. Of course, threat is determined by damage done, and if you don't hold aggro you're not a tank, so the escorts are both DPS and tanks while cruisers just look pretty.
(If you don't think escorts can tank, then you don't have a clue. Tanking means holding aggro and surviving it - no more, no less. Being invulnerable doesn't make you a tank, it just makes you invulnerable. An invulnerable ship that doesn't do enough damage to hold aggro isn't a tank, it's a flying brick.)
Which is supposed to do what? So they have redundant and excessive Tac abilities? So they have extra science abilities that they just self-nerfed? At the cost of being unable to use the best reputation traits in the game, weakening the standard recovery abilities, and losing one [Amp] mod? Is this supposed to be overpowered?
Sure, Tech DOffs can replace other DOffs. But actually using those other DOffs results in higher performance.
Yes, they should. It should also be done before they ever touch Aux2Bat builds, because removing a crutch before giving them a leg to stand on is utterly moronic. Not even Cryptic can do something that stupid, which is why they haven't touched Tech DOffs in spite of people whining when they get outperformed by builds that they think rely on this crutch.
Out of all posts I read till now, this one outperfoms the rest (e.g. is the best). Without A2B
Regards,
someone who doesnt fly A2B, Darkjeff already mentioned the reason.
I'd be curious to see a non-AtB build of an AtB capable ship with the reasons why the non-AtB build is superior...I have the feeling that it's more related to the specific content being played than the underlying mechanics of the ship. Something where the benefits of AtB wouldn't have time to come into play or the use of AtB would upset the timings for a particular strategy sort of thing.
Hey, I could be totally wrong - wouldn't be the first time - and I don't have any hang ups about being wrong (yeah, yeah - the whole spiel about as long as the right info is out there - blah, blah, blah)...
But there's a lot of folks tossing out the variety of reasons why they believe AtB lacks balance, is overpowered, etc, etc, etc - and - they're pretty detailed about it. The folks saying it's not...are not so detailed. They're offering more of an appeal to authority, I rock without it, sort of thing.
So rather than create thread #9001 on the matter, figured I'd just go ahead and ask here...
Maybe if folks could get the pros & cons thing going, then askray could sticky a thread of those and FCT the topic.
I'd be curious to see a non-AtB build of an AtB capable ship with the reasons why the non-AtB build is superior...I have the feeling that it's more related to the specific content being played than the underlying mechanics of the ship. Something where the benefits of AtB wouldn't have time to come into play or the use of AtB would upset the timings for a particular strategy sort of thing.
Hey, I could be totally wrong - wouldn't be the first time - and I don't have any hang ups about being wrong (yeah, yeah - the whole spiel about as long as the right info is out there - blah, blah, blah)...
But there's a lot of folks tossing out the variety of reasons why they believe AtB lacks balance, is overpowered, etc, etc, etc - and - they're pretty detailed about it. The folks saying it's not...are not so detailed. They're offering more of an appeal to authority, I rock without it, sort of thing.
So rather than create thread #9001 on the matter, figured I'd just go ahead and ask here...
Maybe if folks could get the pros & cons thing going, then askray could sticky a thread of those and FCT the topic.
Well, having (high) Aux sums it up: +Dmg via Nukara T5,+Dmg due to 4 AMP, +Heal (due to Aux), because normally you have enough Weapon- and Shieldpower, getting 75 in engines are "easy" too, even though we talk plasmonic leech here, but if we talk about better or not, that is already included.
Out of experience my Monbosh got more dmg and tankiness after switching, same as the scimi.
And most ppl from dps-chans will give you the same reply from experience, they simply went up.
Unfortunately I dont have number or extensive documented tests for it, as I simply tried it and saw it was better.
I have run several ships, both with and without A2B. Some ships work better with A2B and others were better without A2B. Just like some ships are better with beam arrays and others are better with dual heavy cannons.
At first glance, A2B is a seriously easy way to get good performance for ships with minimal tactical abilities, at the cost of other, aux based abilities. When engineering team, science team and tactical team all started cooldowns on each other, it wasn't likely folks used ET or ST much on high DPS builds, since tac team adds damage and re-orients shields too. Since the "teams" no longer share cool downs, they are used more often and make needing aux powered heals less necessary anymore, making A2B more attractive.
With the tier 4 nukara rep abilities, you can get extra offensive or defensive performance for actually having good aux power. Many players who have invested heavily in the game have reportedly stopped using A2B because it actually lowers DPS potential in several builds. This echos my very first comment above.
As it currently stands, tactical team does not run at minimum with A2B. A2B removes around 10 seconds from the 15 seconds necessary to reach the minimum possible of 15 seconds. So, a single conn officer is needed to make up the difference. That's 4 out of 6 possible active duty space roster slots used. Yes, it's better than 2 conn officers to reduce tactical team cooldowns, 2 energy weapon officers to reduce cooldowns on beams or cannons, 3 damage control engineers to reduce EPTx abilities....you need a lot of DOFFs to equal what A2B can do, especially on tac deprived ships.
The nukara tier 4 rep thing was a good step toward giving people a reason to go away from A2B. The un hinging of the "team" cooldowns was a step backwwards in respect to A2B overuse, but it made sense for other reasons.
With the slow increase in damage potential from romulan operative, tactical vulnerability consoles and some 2 to 3 piece set bonuses, maybe some boosts to aux powered abilities could help too. There are several aux powered abilities that are generally not very useful, and boosting them could be worth looking at. Things like tachyon beam, scramble sensors, aceton beam, and more could possibly be worth using if high aux power made them useful enough.
I'd be curious to see a non-AtB build of an AtB capable ship with the reasons why the non-AtB build is superior..
I have run a scimitar, engineering toon, in both A2B and non-A2B builds with same equipment. Both builds achieve nearly identical DPS, the difference is the non-A2B build is able to take more damage and aggro everything with more ability to withstand the return fire than the A2B build can. I switched from non-A2B to A2B last month to see if anything changed, and I still get the same results. Maybe it's just my build or my playstyle that makes it work that way, but that's what I got.
I tried a D'Deridex with A2B and found it ran as a stronger tank and got better DPS without A2B. Granted, that was before the unhinging of the team abilities.
I also ran a tac bortas and tac oddyssey in both configs and found the non-A2B builds to be the better tank builds, which suited my play style at the time.
Before you think Non-A2B makes a better tank....
Fleet Galaxy and Galaxy Dreanought both panned out with better DPS and tanking in A2B builds for me.
I have got my highest DPS in a Mogh using A2B, but it's not a great tank. Without A2B, it had half the DPS and better tanking.
So, it's maybe the ship, the build, and/ or the player that makes A2B better than non-A2B, or Non-A2B better than A2B.
I'd be curious to see a non-AtB build of an AtB capable ship with the reasons why the non-AtB build is superior...I have the feeling that it's more related to the specific content being played than the underlying mechanics of the ship. Something where the benefits of AtB wouldn't have time to come into play or the use of AtB would upset the timings for a particular strategy sort of thing.
The problem here is that you are doing the same over-generalization as the others complaining about AtB. It depends on the specific ship. Or to be more precise, if the ship can support 5-6 Tactical abilities, then AtB will be inferior.
The FACR and Avenger are "AtB capable" ships that are obvious candidates for AtB builds, but actually perform better without it - though of course you need other resources. I already linked my FACR.
Your search result is actually evidence of this point that we keep making, and which is either ignored, dismissed, or twisted - it brings up some ships, but is inferior on others.
The Star Cruiser only has 2 tactical slots, so AtB is necessary to bring it up to par. The Sci Oddy is AtB capable, but Jena (the one in your link) built a 30k Sci Oddy without it - because it can have 6 Tactical abilities.
So not every "AtB capable" ship does better with a non-AtB build. It's AtB capable ships with 5-6 tactical abilities do better without AtB. If you already have sufficient Tactical slots, going AtB means you're not benefiting from the whole point of AtB (which is to get those necessary Tactical abilities) while suffering from the downsides, which myself and others have already listed.
This is why, in spite of not using AtB, I heartily oppose this sort of whining to nerf AtB. Ships that can stand on their own feet don't need this crutch. Kicking this crutch out from under gimpy ships is just mean and unnecessary. Anyone who's whining about being outdone by a gimp with a crutch needs to take a good honest look at what they're doing.
I do heartily support revising abilities so that AtB is not the only way to bring these weaker ships to par, though much like a nerf of AtB such a buff wouldn't actually affect me. Alternatively, revising content so that par isn't defined by DPS. Without hard control abilities, even tanking is a DPS thing. Vel'gon can hold aggro while teamed with +30k ships, but that tank is still doing over 10k DPS.
Heh, you really asked the wrong person to do a search on the forums.
That was a modification of the build from the "The Green Knight, Odyssey Science Cruiser 30k+ DPS" thread, which was linked in the thread you pointed out. Did you notice that the Aux2Batt build you linked actually parses lower (though I'm not certain if it's "because of" or "in spite of" using Aux2Batt) than the non-Aux2Batt original (which is Aux2Batt-capable) she was modifying for use on the Mirror Star Cruiser? Actually, I know you did... you spent your time discussing mechanics in both threads while I was chuckling over Jena's clarification on the origin of Inoue Orihime/Loituma Girl. And reading you two discussing the underlying mechanics. :P
Would you be willing to use boff space on Aux2Batt if Technicians didn't work anymore? Why? Why not?
...earlier. I'm not a fan of Aux2Batt in the first place, I find it to be more of a liability than a beneficial boff ability; what I was hoping for was for someone to help me see why Aux2Batt itself is useful aside from pairing it with Technicians. Honestly, even with the Technicians I haven't found it as useful as simply grabbing a better ship with a better boff layout...
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.
I'm not a fan of Aux2Batt in the first place, I find it to be more of a liability than a beneficial boff ability; what I was hoping for was for someone to help me see why Aux2Batt itself is useful aside from pairing it with Technicians.
From what I can tell, Aux2Bat without Technicians is worthless.
Aux2Damp is better for Engines, and most will have EPtS and EPtW with or without Aux2Bat, so boosting those at the expense of Aux is rather meh.
The problem here is that you are doing the same over-generalization as the others complaining about AtB. It depends on the specific ship. Or to be more precise, if the ship can support 5-6 Tactical abilities, then AtB will be inferior.
But in asking for particular ships for particular content...how was I over-generalizing? The point of what I asked in the way I asked, was to move away from that sort of generalization coming from both sides of the discussion.
Tom: AtB's the best.
Jerry: non-AtB's the best.
Tom: AtB's the best.
Jerry: non-AtB's the best.
Tom: AtB's the best.
Jerry: non-AtB's the best.
Tom: AtB's the best.
Jerry: non-AtB's the best.
Virus: It depends...
I mean, c'mon...lol...with the number of times I've replied to things with "...it depends..." - I should put it in my signature.
Sure, perhaps the AtB's the best crowd is doing the blanket generalization - but without folks on the non-AtB's the best side giving something more specific; it's just coming off as a generalization as well.
It's almost like a discussion that gets derailed because of definition of terms.
Tom: X is whatever.
Jerry: X is not whatever.
Thing is, they're not really both discussing X...X means something different for Tom and for Jerry - so they'll keep arguing, where if they were to have discussed what X meant to each, oddly enough you tend to find they agree...cause they were never actually arguing over what they were talking about...they were just arguing over how they were talking about it and the confusion that arose from that.
So when somebody says AtB's the best and they're picturing ShipX and coming off as talking about all ships is arguing with somebody that says AtB's not the best and they're picturing ShipY and coming off as talking about all ships...
...they might actually agree on both ShipX and ShipY, but since none of it ever got mentioned - they're left arguing about the apparent generalizations that neither may be intending to make.
That's why I asked the way I did - maybe I could have been clearer; but I figured saying that I had a feeling that it would be related to content and what was going on would prompt any replies to include such information.
what I was hoping for was for someone to help me see why Aux2Batt itself is useful aside from pairing it with Technicians.
Every 2-4 month, it's less and less useful.
@130 Aux, AtB1 provides 54 Weapon, 54 Shield, 54 Engine Power...for 10s with a 40s individual CD.
There's only a 10s triggered CD on the ability, but without the CD reduction - you're going to have a gap between the 2nd and 3rd activations.
And well, there's going to be a gap between the 1st and 2nd activations - where you're going to be waiting on your EPS to fill in your Aux again.
Somebody dropping 130 Aux down to 5, giving up 125 Aux...with say an 11/s EPS...is looking at 11-12s between the first activation and the second if they want the second to be as powerful as the first.
So somebody running it in that manner, they're using it every 20s or so...
Course, that's somebody at 130 doing that...lol.
@57 Aux, AtB1 provides 22.5 to each...and you're only looking at less than 5s to get that back.
It's a concurrent CD and triggered CD. The 10s that AtB is running, is 10s off its own CD and the 10s of the triggered CD. There's a mix of CDs out there that are either concurrent or take place after the ability has expired...it's not consistent. This is a concurrent CD.
So if you were running two at 57 (I'm too lazy to change the toon's power again, lol - it's 57/30)...the following would be rough (I'm ignoring the 0.5s activation delay, not saying it should be ignored - but I hate getting involved in AtB threads)...
00 AtB1(1) starts - AtB1(1) 40s CD starts - AtB1(2) 10s TCD starts
10 AtB1(1) ends - AtB1(2) 10s TCD ends
15 Aux refilled - AtB1(2) starts - AtB1(2) 40s CD starts - AtB1(1) 10s TCD starts
25 AtB1(2) ends - AtB1(1) 10s TCD ends
30 Aux refilled
40 AtB1(1) 40s CD ends - AtB1(1) starts - AtB1(1) 40s CD starts - AtB1(2) 10s TCD starts
50 AtB1(1) ends - AtB1(2) 10s TCD ends
55 Aux refilled - AtB1(2) 40s CD ends - AtB1(2) starts - AtB1(2) 40s CD starts - AtB1(1) 10s TCD starts
65 AtB1(2) ends - AtB1(1) 10s TCD ends
70 Aux refilled
80 ...and the 40s bit cycles on and on.
That's not a suggested cycle...not in the least - just a rough idea of what one might be looking at with an example cycle if one was attempting to chain with the max Aux and two copies. 10s up, 5s down, 10s up, 15s down, etc, etc, etc...there's all sorts of cycles for it where somebody could even work in AtS and AtD.
If one were just running the one copy, then it's just the 10s up, 30s down. Would be something you mixed in perhaps with an AtS or AtD...
...2-3 years ago?
Cause we're just completely oozing power these days...we're saturated...and with the various changes to EPtX abilities, DOFFs, and all the rest...we're just oozing power. Hard to believe they once nerfed the Eng consoles because they were worried they gave too much power...lol.
So yeah, it's one of those things in all the nerf AtB threads that comes about after being overlooked. They really want to nerf the Technicians...not AtB, cause AtB itself is woefully in need of a buff.
I have build high DPS builds, using both A2B, and non-A2B on the same ships. I used my Scimitar on my Romulan, and the Breen Raider (from the winter event).
Non-A2B builds are able to do more DPS than A2B, and also can help to kill the enemy much faster. Therefore, the only time you will see a difference is the possibility to tank better.
With my Breen Raider, and Scimitar I was able to heal more with A2B, but only because it doubled my heals because I had the doffs. It had nothing to do with the power levels in my subsystems. With weapons, shields, and engines maxed out, then I was not able to survive as long. Honestly, the only time it has helped to have the increased power levels is when I ran a single copy of A2B on my Defiant.
I did that to see what it would do. The increased power levels to the subsystems on an escort does help with maneuverability. But, its damage output is better without it. It can do more damage with other skills that increased DPS.
The important thing to keep in mind is that some ships that can use A2B have limited engineering stations. Therefore, running with A2B on some ships can not only limit DPS, but even survivability.
I do admit to using it on builds I use a lot. The reason is because I am disabled, and cannot use a keyboard. Therefore, I can keybind the double A2B to a single button on my controller, and just hit it when one is ready.
Leader of Elite Guardian Academy.Would you like to learn how to run a fleet? Would you like to know how to do ship builds (true budget as well as high end)?The join the Academy today!
It went from "nobody uses" to "used". Sure it can change - like they were going to change EPtX abilities, which led to such an outcry because it was used that they backed off.
Changing an ability nobody uses because it was worthless is minor. Changing an ability that's a cornerstone of how people plays is major - especially if there's on reason to change it in the first place.
I don't use Aux2Bat, and I actively avoid it because I like to keep my Aux.
Given that it's not unbalanced - the best performing ships are weakened by it and weaker ships are brought up to par (but don't outperform the best ships) - the entitlement appears to be on the side of people whining it's overpowered.
Then they need to introduce options before removing the only strong option for those ships.
They absolutely do need to fix the balance of abilities. That's not what these threads ever propose, however. The people who create whiny threads like this about Aux2Bat don't go "oh, cruiser abilities are horribly unbalanced and need to be buffed so that Aux2Bat is no longer necessary". They go "waaaah, my ship sucks but it's not my problem, it's those people I think are using Aux2Bat that outdo me, and Aux2Bat needs to be removed!" They of course are ignorant of the fact that the majority of people in high performance builds don't even use Aux2Bat, and are almost uniformly advised against it. Of course it's not them that sucks, it's other people relying on a gimmick!
The response to a thread saying what you're saying, that Eng abilities need to be made competitive to remove reliance on Aux2Bat on otherwise below-par ships, is going to be very different from the response to someone whining that they suck so somebody else should get nerfed - which is rightfully "Boo 'effin' hoo."
To my knowledge, none of the ships you linked perform better with Aux2Bat than without.
They all have sufficient Tactical abilities - and heck, some are carriers and science ships.
No kidding?
Take away the Fleet goodies you were whining about on my FACR and it'll still easily do over 10k. You have yet to even say how well you perform, other than a rather pointless example of being able to tank a tac cube. Something my Engineering captain could successfully do in a Vesta half the time, and a Chimera 100% of the time - and no, I hadn't even heard of Aux2Bat when I was tanking in my Chimera.
Oh, so they're not meant to be useful, they're meant to do something worthless. Gotcha.
Oh wow! PvE missions! Yeah, that's the key measure of what ships need to be doing, because that's clearly what you spend the majority of your time doing in STO! :rolleyes:
So escorts are supposed to be both DPS machines and tanks, while cruisers are only supposed to tank. Of course, threat is determined by damage done, and if you don't hold aggro you're not a tank, so the escorts are both DPS and tanks while cruisers just look pretty.
(If you don't think escorts can tank, then you don't have a clue. Tanking means holding aggro and surviving it - no more, no less. Being invulnerable doesn't make you a tank, it just makes you invulnerable. An invulnerable ship that doesn't do enough damage to hold aggro isn't a tank, it's a flying brick.)
Which is supposed to do what? So they have redundant and excessive Tac abilities? So they have extra science abilities that they just self-nerfed? At the cost of being unable to use the best reputation traits in the game, weakening the standard recovery abilities, and losing one [Amp] mod? Is this supposed to be overpowered?
Sure, Tech DOffs can replace other DOffs. But actually using those other DOffs results in higher performance.
Yes, they should. It should also be done before they ever touch Aux2Bat builds, because removing a crutch before giving them a leg to stand on is utterly moronic. Not even Cryptic can do something that stupid, which is why they haven't touched Tech DOffs in spite of people whining when they get outperformed by builds that they think rely on this crutch.
You make absolutely no good points with this post, none what so ever.
No ship requires aux2batt to do it's intended job, none, as in 0.
You just try to defend this skill, because you think that a ship meant for fewer tac abilities, need to have the dps of 1-3 escorts.
Well guess what it doesn't, what it needs is for people to stop thinking in this manner, and provide an alternative, instead of a quick exploitable skill to solve all of your woes.
I have made suggestions for improving, as you would call them gimped tac vessels, you have provided none.
But in asking for particular ships for particular content...how was I over-generalizing?
Sorry, it's the phrase "AtB capable ship" that I felt was missing the critical difference. The actual difference between AtB better/worse is the number of Tactical abilities, so an "AtB capable ship" can have AtB be the better or worse build depending on the number of Tactical slots it has.
No ship requires aux2batt to do it's intended job, none, as in 0.
You just try to defend this skill, because you think that a ship meant for fewer tac abilities, need to have the dps of 1-3 escorts.
Well guess what it doesn't, what it needs is for people to stop thinking in this manner, and provide an alternative, instead of a quick exploitable skill to solve all of your woes.
This is laughable.
"Intended job"? What intended job? To be a healboat, unnecessary and therefore worthless? (I don't PvP, but my understanding is that it's basically all vapers now.) To be indestructible, to fail to tank because it can't hold aggro? The supposed job you're defining as "intended" is basically to be good at nothing, given how the game is structured where the only thing that matters is killing the enemy without dying.
You still have yet to provide any sort of information as to what your performance is, which is rather essential in determining what "acceptable" is in the discussion.
Further, the credibility of anyone critiquing game mechanics is heavily dependant on their knowledge of game mechanics. Your using of apparently low DPS escorts (and they're definitely not the top tier escorts if an AtB cruiser can deal 3 times as much damage as them) as a standard to judge these Aux2Bat builds rather hurt your credibility in that regard.
Escorts have not been the standard for DPS for quite some time. There is only one data set available to us regarding DPS from the player base, and that's the one maintained by the DPS channels. The top performing ships are all (from what I can tell) universally cruisers using beams and not Aux2Bat.
Further, the current arithmetic mode for DPS is actually around 10k, according to the only data set we have access to as players. Given that the only thing that matters in endgame content is DPS, that means par is 10k.
Your refusal to use actual numbers, only extremely subjective standards of measurement, really makes me feel you have no idea what you're talking about. Given the standard of 10k, any cruiser that needs A2B (one with less than 5 tac slots) is not going to reach 3 times that amount. Jena is a DPS expert, and they only got 22k out of an A2B build.
I have made suggestions for improving, as you would call them gimped tac vessels, you have provided none.
Why do I need to make suggestions? I am not the one proposing a change, the onus is not on me to provide a solution to a problem created by the proposed change.
If you're arguing that they should ban tires, the guy arguing that you shouldn't ban tires is not the one that needs to solve the problem of cars no longer having tires.
Likewise, the onus is not on me to provide footing, when I'm simply arguing the crutch shouldn't be removed because of people ignorantly attributing their comparative weakness to perceived use of gimmicks by others.
People who aren't having their pride threatened because they are in denial about their own builds and piloting abilities don't make threads like this, they make posts like virusdancer talking about the imbalance between Eng and Tac slots. It's no coincidence that VD's considered very credible when talking about game mechanics - they test, they post results, they draw conclusions.
The major flaw in your mindset appears to be utter ignorance of what it means to tank. You seem to think a tank merely needs to be "invulnerable", and that's the job of cruisers. This is wrong in every MMO. If you can't hold aggro (which in STO requires DPS because there is no other way to affect Threat) you're not tanking, you're just an under-performing DPS person. Survivability is fine and all, except that in STO you survive better with higher DPS simply because you don't end up having 25 things shooting at you you actually kill them so you only end up being shot at by 3 things at a time.
Since the only job in STO (aside from Science abilities) is DPS, a cruiser should be expected to "have the dps" of 1 escort, with any higher damage being a result of piloting ability.
Sorry, it's the phrase "AtB capable ship" that I felt was missing the critical difference. The actual difference between AtB better/worse is the number of Tactical abilities, so an "AtB capable ship" can have AtB be the better or worse build depending on the number of Tactical slots it has.
This is laughable.
"Intended job"? What intended job? To be a healboat, unnecessary and therefore worthless? (I don't PvP, but my understanding is that it's basically all vapers now.) To be indestructible, to fail to tank because it can't hold aggro? The supposed job you're defining as "intended" is basically to be good at nothing, given how the game is structured where the only thing that matters is killing the enemy without dying.
You still have yet to provide any sort of information as to what your performance is, which is rather essential in determining what "acceptable" is in the discussion.
Further, the credibility of anyone critiquing game mechanics is heavily dependant on their knowledge of game mechanics. Your using of apparently low DPS escorts (and they're definitely not the top tier escorts if an AtB cruiser can deal 3 times as much damage as them) as a standard to judge these Aux2Bat builds rather hurt your credibility in that regard.
Escorts have not been the standard for DPS for quite some time. There is only one data set available to us regarding DPS from the player base, and that's the one maintained by the DPS channels. The top performing ships are all (from what I can tell) universally cruisers using beams and not Aux2Bat.
Further, the current arithmetic mode for DPS is actually around 10k, according to the only data set we have access to as players. Given that the only thing that matters in endgame content is DPS, that means par is 10k.
Your refusal to use actual numbers, only extremely subjective standards of measurement, really makes me feel you have no idea what you're talking about. Given the standard of 10k, any cruiser that needs A2B (one with less than 5 tac slots) is not going to reach 3 times that amount. Jena is a DPS expert, and they only got 22k out of an A2B build.
Why do I need to make suggestions? I am not the one proposing a change, the onus is not on me to provide a solution to a problem created by the proposed change.
If you're arguing that they should ban tires, the guy arguing that you shouldn't ban tires is not the one that needs to solve the problem of cars no longer having tires.
Likewise, the onus is not on me to provide footing, when I'm simply arguing the crutch shouldn't be removed because of people ignorantly attributing their comparative weakness to perceived use of gimmicks by others.
People who aren't having their pride threatened because they are in denial about their own builds and piloting abilities don't make threads like this, they make posts like virusdancer talking about the imbalance between Eng and Tac slots. It's no coincidence that VD's considered very credible when talking about game mechanics - they test, they post results, they draw conclusions.
The major flaw in your mindset appears to be utter ignorance of what it means to tank. You seem to think a tank merely needs to be "invulnerable", and that's the job of cruisers. This is wrong in every MMO. If you can't hold aggro (which in STO requires DPS because there is no other way to affect Threat) you're not tanking, you're just an under-performing DPS person. Survivability is fine and all, except that in STO you survive better with higher DPS simply because you don't end up having 25 things shooting at you you actually kill them so you only end up being shot at by 3 things at a time.
Since the only job in STO (aside from Science abilities) is DPS, a cruiser should be expected to "have the dps" of 1 escort, with any higher damage being a result of piloting ability.
Here you go spouting off TRIBBLE again, who in the right mind made any of these people the decider of useful, or not for a ship, who decided a ship requires aux2batt to do anything?
When did 10k dps become necessary to achieve a pve goal?
You provide utter loads of TRIBBLE.
And, I do not need show anything in regards, to your statements as follows:
1) How I build a ship
2) My understanding of game mechanics
3) My dps accomplishments
4) Your complete, and utter TRIBBLE saying a so called gimp ship must have aux2batt, to do a job of any sort
5) Tanks/healers are a necessity in pvp, but you wouldn't know that
6) A cruiser required to dps like again 1-3 escorts worth
7) That a cruiser meant for tank role, cannot provide some usefulness to a team (pve/pvp wise)
8) Why would you need a cruiser to hold agro in the first place, when escorts as you mentioned can tank as well?
Comments
What?
They selected a certain ship, and are playing it according to the existing mechanics. Said mechanics include Aux2Bat and Technician DOffs, which are existing parts of the game.
Why should they be forced to play a different way, just because other people want them to?
name one thing an eng heavy cruiser (LTC eng) can do better then a sci heavy cruiser. they suck, they are good for nothing, any cruiser with more then 6 eng powers is forgoing fundamentally needed high end tac or sci skills that make other cruisers good. at least an AtB build can give them a much larger tactical edge, make them the best they can be, at anything.
only if AtB is nerfed and ruined, will anyone have to accept anything. accept that there will only be a handful of competitive ships in the game, and a mountain of garbage, entire play styles destroyed, much of it fan favorites. GG AtB haters, GG
AtB has been changed several times. Don't act like it's the same way it was when first introduced - that it's some inviolate ability since the dawn of the game. It's changed before - it can change again. Simple as that.
Balance vs. Entitlement...
That's not an argument for AtB...that's an argument for additional Eng BOFF abilities which would bring a variety of builds to those ships.
Yeah, you like a certain ship...Cryptic didn't do the ship the way you would have liked it.
Boo 'effin' hoo.
There are 14 Eng BOFF abilities. There are 18 Sci and 16 Tac.
There are 4 EPtX abilities that trigger a CD.
There are 3 AtX abilities that trigger a CD.
There are only 5 Ensign ranked choices, 4 of them are EPtX abilities.
Force Cryptic to do something about the sorry state of Eng BOFF abilities...
...why support the laziness of the "Oh, they can AtB and muddle through so we don't have to fix anything" mentality?
TRIBBLEB
TRIBBLEB
TRIBBLEB
TRIBBLEB
TRIBBLEB
BXXB
BXXB
BTRIBBLE
BTRIBBLE
BTRIBBLE
BTRIBBLE
BTRIBBLE
BBXX
BBXX
4 of the 5 Ensign abilities trigger a CD on each other.
4 of the 5 Ensign abilities trigger a CD on 4 of the 12 Lieutenant abilities.
4 of the 5 Ensign abilities trigger a CD on 4 of the 14 Lieutenant Commander abilities.
9 of the 12 Lieutenant abilities trigger a CD on each other.
9 of the 12 Lieutenant abilities trigger a CD on 9 of the 14 Lieutenant Commander abilities.
4 of the 12 Lieutenant abilities trigger a CD on 4 of the 5 Ensign abilities.
9 of the 14 Lieutenant Commander abilities trigger a CD on 9 of the 12 Lieutenant abilities.
4 of the 14 Lieutenant Commander abilities trigger a CD on 4 of the 5 Ensign abilities.
Then you get into some of the CDs for some of those Eng abilities...
...and the whole thing is a mess.
Drop some of the higher ranked stuff down and add a bunch of stuff...Cruisers are generally iconic of Star Trek...make them awesome and fun ships to fly...don't just make them jury-rigged Escorts.
a single change, that moved it to a different system cooldown tree, and changed everything. no tweaks since
which is in no way a replacement for all the benefits AtB builds provide them, AND effects every other ship with eng station powers. you are cutting the AtB ship off at the knees, wile giving it a stick in exchange to help drag itself along, wile giving everything that doesn't use AtB a new trick. you have to be truly mental not to see that as a bigger threat to balance then what we have now, which is wide spread balance, build viability, and inclusion for all ships to do something at least pretty well. why do so many want to destroy the best balance era the game has ever had?
oh please, this has nothing to do with the galaxy R sucking the most of all, thats far from the only ship this refers too. the entire tac cruiser play style is at risk of being flushed, its not just the LTC eng cruisers that need it.
remember escorts online? you been around long enough to remember it. sure, it was actually sci ship online, it always has been, but it was called escorts online because nothing else could walk and chew gum at the same time. nothing else could DPS and live. AtB let cruisers do both, like escorts. but not have 1 replace the other. they are different but equal options, and the game is better for it, because nothing is as star trek as a tac cruiser build.
how would you like it if your play style was threaten with extinction? seems like you want all the ships that rely on AtB builds for viability to be rendered worse with its lose then a galaxy R with an AtB build, cause that will be what happens if they lost tech doffs. that would be a crying shame.
speaking of the galaxy R, we have been over this there 100 times in that thread. you cant just change eng powers in a vacuum, it effects every ship with eng skills. i could have just stopped that sentence, and left it at EVERY SHIP.
unclenching system cool downs in the eng tree has no parity what so ever with what AtB builds provide ships. it is seriously disappointing that this still needs to be spelled out every time someone ingeniously says oh just buff eng skills! problem solved! this laziness BS argument is so played out. AtB is genius, it a buff that targets the inferior UP tac cruisers and UP non bug escorts. its not also usable on sci ships and heal boats, doesnt buff them at all. the 2 strongest build types in the game, far better at what they do then anything AtB is run on. nothing could so eloquently target the underpowered.
approximated full up time on tac skills they could not have other wise, wile having full up time on some or all of the following: EPtS, EPtW/E, ET, ST, HE, DEM, and RSP. cruisers can run 2 copies of all these too, but not with out steep opportunity cost and sacrificing some for others. only the LTC+ENS tac cruisers have the bare amount needed of tac without the help of AtB.
knee jerk is, oh! thats OP, getting all that! oh wait its not, these ships are the real glass cannons in the game, they need like twice as many station powers as leaner and meaner tac ships because they cant simply chose to not be shot, or not to be in an opponent's fireing arc like the bug or AtD optimal escorts can. they can only out heal incoming damage. and they cant deal sufficient DPS, AND have sufficient HPS at the same time without an AtB build. you know, be BALANCED? to not be a feeder?
not to be disrespectful to you max DEEPS pve guys or anything, but your non AtB MAX DPS ships wouldn't last 5 seconds in pvp. and no non AtB pvp tac cruiser build is going to out attrition an AtB tac cruiser. every time i see one, it quickly shows how helpless it is after its initial self heal spike. without the AtB uptime on heals its only a mater of time before it goes down, without healer support. and wile you suck up all the team heals, the escorts get sniped, because you aren't in a self sufficient AtB tac cruiser, and tac cruisers are only a value to a team if they are mostly self sufficient. so please, spare me PVE logic about tac cruisers in this case.
eng skills do need work. but NOT as some replacement for AtB, thats not the right reasons. if you try to fill the void with buffed enough to do it eng skills (impossible, im just speaking hypothetically), just think of how buffed everything thats balanced or OP already would be too.
Just looking at the lock box ships going back to the triggered CD change made for AtB (Oct 2012 - btw, that wasn't the only change if one includes the Tech DOFFs. DOFFs didn't exist prior to S5 (so that would be an AtB change) and the Tech DOFFs themselves were changed about a month after the F2P conversion no longer to be a proc (so that would be an AtB change))...
Narcine
X, X, X, X
X
X, X
X, X
X, X, X
Contortix
X, X, X, X
X
X, X, X
X, X
X, X
Nicor
X, X, X, X
X, X
X, X, X
X, X, X
Dromias - Cruiser
X, X
X, X, X, X
X, X, X
X, X, X
Hunter
X, X, X, X
X, X, X
X, X
X, X
X
Apex - Battle Cruiser
X, X, X
X, X, X, X
X, X
X, X
X
Palisade
X, X, X
X, X, X, X
X, X, X
X, X
Bastion - Flight-Deck Cruiser
X, X
X, X, X, X
X, X, X
X, X
X
Bulwark - Dreadnought Cruiser
X, X
X, X, X, X
X, X
X, X, X
X
S'golth
X, X, X, X
X
X, X, X
X, X
X, X
Monbosh - Battle Cruiser
X, X, X
X, X, X, X
X
X, X
X, X
Adapted Destroyer
X, X, X, X
X
X, X, X
X, X
X, X
Adapted Battle Cruiser - Battle Cruiser
X, X
X, X
X, X, X
X, X, X, X
X
Jem'Hadar Dreadnought Carrier
X, X, X, X
X, X
X, X, X
X
X, X
Jem'Hadar Heavy Escort Carreir
X, X, X, X
X, X, X
X, X
X
X, X
How about Zen ships? (I'm asleep at this point, so no layouts.)
Tempest?
Avenger/Mogh?
How about those Scimitars, eh? A few Warbirds, eh?
So just how much has AtB actually helped some of those older Eng heavy ships by comparison?
How do the Gal-R/Negh'Var compare with all the AtB goodness available to them to ships dropped out after Oct 2012?
Even though multiple devs have acknowledged there's an issue with it, they're not going to touch it with a ten foot pole...this is a casual game and the spacebar warrior way of AtB is great for sales allowing those casual players to have a blast - it's a moneymaker and they know it. That's why I generally avoid these threads like the plague outside of requesting that the aux drain be consistent amongst players...
...but honestly, I want a damn fix for Eng heavy boats - changes to Eng BOFFs - some movement and additions. Cause there's a big difference between what that would bring to the Cmdr/LCdr and what it would bring to the LCdr/Lt...cause they'd still be looking at running other Eng BOFF abilities and be concerned about giving up the CD reduction elsewhere.
Doesn't mean I still don't grumble about off to the side without posting - and - maybe grumbling less silently from time to time like I have here.
Was it Husanak that posted out just how many DOFFs AtB replaced? It's kind of sickening...
The devs have said they're going to try to avoid the mess made with Tech DOFFs...maybe that's the wrong attitude...maybe they need to repeat that mess with a variety of DOFFs - create Eng, Tac, and Sci DOFFs that do the same thing based on other abilities. Get some CD reduction for everything from dropping out EPtX abilities - dropping out Beam abilities - dropping out HE...
Cause the system as it stands right now is just a complete pile of garbage...
2k is dismal for a cruiser, you do not need aux2batt to surpass the 2k mark, what you need is a well thought out build.
Eng heavy cruisers, are not designed to be a high dps ship, they are meant to provide a hull shield.
They can accomplish this, and still perform adequately in pve missions, instead you want them to be a dps machine, on top of a possible tank in one, and that is the issue.
You also have escort class vessels, getting away with using this skill also, making them going outside of the normal boundaries of skill timers.
They can devise some other means, to bring some extra oomph to ships, it's just it shouldn't come from 1 skill alone, and this skill should not provide this much cd power across the board.
That is supposed to be what doffs are for, but aux2batt is like having the equivalent of 3 doffs for every skill, all wrapped up into 1 skill effected by only 3 doffs, in other words it almost like having over 30 doffs providing a 100% chance for a 30% cd to X skill.
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
Changing an ability nobody uses because it was worthless is minor. Changing an ability that's a cornerstone of how people plays is major - especially if there's on reason to change it in the first place.
I don't use Aux2Bat, and I actively avoid it because I like to keep my Aux.
Given that it's not unbalanced - the best performing ships are weakened by it and weaker ships are brought up to par (but don't outperform the best ships) - the entitlement appears to be on the side of people whining it's overpowered.
Then they need to introduce options before removing the only strong option for those ships.
They absolutely do need to fix the balance of abilities. That's not what these threads ever propose, however. The people who create whiny threads like this about Aux2Bat don't go "oh, cruiser abilities are horribly unbalanced and need to be buffed so that Aux2Bat is no longer necessary". They go "waaaah, my ship sucks but it's not my problem, it's those people I think are using Aux2Bat that outdo me, and Aux2Bat needs to be removed!" They of course are ignorant of the fact that the majority of people in high performance builds don't even use Aux2Bat, and are almost uniformly advised against it. Of course it's not them that sucks, it's other people relying on a gimmick!
The response to a thread saying what you're saying, that Eng abilities need to be made competitive to remove reliance on Aux2Bat on otherwise below-par ships, is going to be very different from the response to someone whining that they suck so somebody else should get nerfed - which is rightfully "Boo 'effin' hoo."
To my knowledge, none of the ships you linked perform better with Aux2Bat than without.
They all have sufficient Tactical abilities - and heck, some are carriers and science ships.
No kidding?
Take away the Fleet goodies you were whining about on my FACR and it'll still easily do over 10k. You have yet to even say how well you perform, other than a rather pointless example of being able to tank a tac cube. Something my Engineering captain could successfully do in a Vesta half the time, and a Chimera 100% of the time - and no, I hadn't even heard of Aux2Bat when I was tanking in my Chimera.
Oh, so they're not meant to be useful, they're meant to do something worthless. Gotcha.
Oh wow! PvE missions! Yeah, that's the key measure of what ships need to be doing, because that's clearly what you spend the majority of your time doing in STO! :rolleyes:
So escorts are supposed to be both DPS machines and tanks, while cruisers are only supposed to tank. Of course, threat is determined by damage done, and if you don't hold aggro you're not a tank, so the escorts are both DPS and tanks while cruisers just look pretty.
(If you don't think escorts can tank, then you don't have a clue. Tanking means holding aggro and surviving it - no more, no less. Being invulnerable doesn't make you a tank, it just makes you invulnerable. An invulnerable ship that doesn't do enough damage to hold aggro isn't a tank, it's a flying brick.)
Which is supposed to do what? So they have redundant and excessive Tac abilities? So they have extra science abilities that they just self-nerfed? At the cost of being unable to use the best reputation traits in the game, weakening the standard recovery abilities, and losing one [Amp] mod? Is this supposed to be overpowered?
Sure, Tech DOffs can replace other DOffs. But actually using those other DOffs results in higher performance.
Yes, they should. It should also be done before they ever touch Aux2Bat builds, because removing a crutch before giving them a leg to stand on is utterly moronic. Not even Cryptic can do something that stupid, which is why they haven't touched Tech DOffs in spite of people whining when they get outperformed by builds that they think rely on this crutch.
Out of all posts I read till now, this one outperfoms the rest (e.g. is the best). Without A2B
Regards,
someone who doesnt fly A2B, Darkjeff already mentioned the reason.
We have a few people saying
1. I don't use A2B
2. I don't want other people using A2B
3. I want A2B to be nerfed it's OP
Well well if A2B is so great and OP why are they not using it.
So people are really saying something is so great but they will don't use it.
Well if they don't use it then they are either jealous or admit its not all that good.
PVE vs PVP
A2B in PVE who cares let people have their fun, it's not up to anyone to tell others how to play.
PVP needs its own separate rules from PVE and it's own skill tree.
Until it does we are just going to deal more money is in PVE.
Cryptic would be silly to take a money maker out if the game.
To many people buy ZEN, keys for EC to get Tech Doffs.
Yes they do buy them even though you can them for free at the B'Tran cluster.
Hey, I could be totally wrong - wouldn't be the first time - and I don't have any hang ups about being wrong (yeah, yeah - the whole spiel about as long as the right info is out there - blah, blah, blah)...
But there's a lot of folks tossing out the variety of reasons why they believe AtB lacks balance, is overpowered, etc, etc, etc - and - they're pretty detailed about it. The folks saying it's not...are not so detailed. They're offering more of an appeal to authority, I rock without it, sort of thing.
So rather than create thread #9001 on the matter, figured I'd just go ahead and ask here...
Maybe if folks could get the pros & cons thing going, then askray could sticky a thread of those and FCT the topic.
They are about finding something to ruin another players fun.
After this whats next.
If you want an example the JHAS does well without A2B.
Please do a search for 20k and 30k builds hmm no A2B on them.
Well, having (high) Aux sums it up: +Dmg via Nukara T5,+Dmg due to 4 AMP, +Heal (due to Aux), because normally you have enough Weapon- and Shieldpower, getting 75 in engines are "easy" too, even though we talk plasmonic leech here, but if we talk about better or not, that is already included.
Out of experience my Monbosh got more dmg and tankiness after switching, same as the scimi.
And most ppl from dps-chans will give you the same reply from experience, they simply went up.
Unfortunately I dont have number or extensive documented tests for it, as I simply tried it and saw it was better.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=1155351
Heh, you really asked the wrong person to do a search on the forums.
At first glance, A2B is a seriously easy way to get good performance for ships with minimal tactical abilities, at the cost of other, aux based abilities. When engineering team, science team and tactical team all started cooldowns on each other, it wasn't likely folks used ET or ST much on high DPS builds, since tac team adds damage and re-orients shields too. Since the "teams" no longer share cool downs, they are used more often and make needing aux powered heals less necessary anymore, making A2B more attractive.
With the tier 4 nukara rep abilities, you can get extra offensive or defensive performance for actually having good aux power. Many players who have invested heavily in the game have reportedly stopped using A2B because it actually lowers DPS potential in several builds. This echos my very first comment above.
As it currently stands, tactical team does not run at minimum with A2B. A2B removes around 10 seconds from the 15 seconds necessary to reach the minimum possible of 15 seconds. So, a single conn officer is needed to make up the difference. That's 4 out of 6 possible active duty space roster slots used. Yes, it's better than 2 conn officers to reduce tactical team cooldowns, 2 energy weapon officers to reduce cooldowns on beams or cannons, 3 damage control engineers to reduce EPTx abilities....you need a lot of DOFFs to equal what A2B can do, especially on tac deprived ships.
The nukara tier 4 rep thing was a good step toward giving people a reason to go away from A2B. The un hinging of the "team" cooldowns was a step backwwards in respect to A2B overuse, but it made sense for other reasons.
With the slow increase in damage potential from romulan operative, tactical vulnerability consoles and some 2 to 3 piece set bonuses, maybe some boosts to aux powered abilities could help too. There are several aux powered abilities that are generally not very useful, and boosting them could be worth looking at. Things like tachyon beam, scramble sensors, aceton beam, and more could possibly be worth using if high aux power made them useful enough.
I tried a D'Deridex with A2B and found it ran as a stronger tank and got better DPS without A2B. Granted, that was before the unhinging of the team abilities.
I also ran a tac bortas and tac oddyssey in both configs and found the non-A2B builds to be the better tank builds, which suited my play style at the time.
Before you think Non-A2B makes a better tank....
Fleet Galaxy and Galaxy Dreanought both panned out with better DPS and tanking in A2B builds for me.
I have got my highest DPS in a Mogh using A2B, but it's not a great tank. Without A2B, it had half the DPS and better tanking.
So, it's maybe the ship, the build, and/ or the player that makes A2B better than non-A2B, or Non-A2B better than A2B.
I'm sure that didn't clear up a thing......
Are you saying you can't get a2b over 30k?
My PvE/PvP hybrid skill tree
The problem here is that you are doing the same over-generalization as the others complaining about AtB. It depends on the specific ship. Or to be more precise, if the ship can support 5-6 Tactical abilities, then AtB will be inferior.
The FACR and Avenger are "AtB capable" ships that are obvious candidates for AtB builds, but actually perform better without it - though of course you need other resources. I already linked my FACR.
Your search result is actually evidence of this point that we keep making, and which is either ignored, dismissed, or twisted - it brings up some ships, but is inferior on others.
The Star Cruiser only has 2 tactical slots, so AtB is necessary to bring it up to par. The Sci Oddy is AtB capable, but Jena (the one in your link) built a 30k Sci Oddy without it - because it can have 6 Tactical abilities.
So not every "AtB capable" ship does better with a non-AtB build. It's AtB capable ships with 5-6 tactical abilities do better without AtB. If you already have sufficient Tactical slots, going AtB means you're not benefiting from the whole point of AtB (which is to get those necessary Tactical abilities) while suffering from the downsides, which myself and others have already listed.
This is why, in spite of not using AtB, I heartily oppose this sort of whining to nerf AtB. Ships that can stand on their own feet don't need this crutch. Kicking this crutch out from under gimpy ships is just mean and unnecessary. Anyone who's whining about being outdone by a gimp with a crutch needs to take a good honest look at what they're doing.
I do heartily support revising abilities so that AtB is not the only way to bring these weaker ships to par, though much like a nerf of AtB such a buff wouldn't actually affect me. Alternatively, revising content so that par isn't defined by DPS. Without hard control abilities, even tanking is a DPS thing. Vel'gon can hold aggro while teamed with +30k ships, but that tank is still doing over 10k DPS.
That was a modification of the build from the "The Green Knight, Odyssey Science Cruiser 30k+ DPS" thread, which was linked in the thread you pointed out. Did you notice that the Aux2Batt build you linked actually parses lower (though I'm not certain if it's "because of" or "in spite of" using Aux2Batt) than the non-Aux2Batt original (which is Aux2Batt-capable) she was modifying for use on the Mirror Star Cruiser? Actually, I know you did... you spent your time discussing mechanics in both threads while I was chuckling over Jena's clarification on the origin of Inoue Orihime/Loituma Girl. And reading you two discussing the underlying mechanics. :P
That's part of why I asked... ...earlier. I'm not a fan of Aux2Batt in the first place, I find it to be more of a liability than a beneficial boff ability; what I was hoping for was for someone to help me see why Aux2Batt itself is useful aside from pairing it with Technicians. Honestly, even with the Technicians I haven't found it as useful as simply grabbing a better ship with a better boff layout...
From what I can tell, Aux2Bat without Technicians is worthless.
Aux2Damp is better for Engines, and most will have EPtS and EPtW with or without Aux2Bat, so boosting those at the expense of Aux is rather meh.
But in asking for particular ships for particular content...how was I over-generalizing? The point of what I asked in the way I asked, was to move away from that sort of generalization coming from both sides of the discussion.
Tom: AtB's the best.
Jerry: non-AtB's the best.
Tom: AtB's the best.
Jerry: non-AtB's the best.
Tom: AtB's the best.
Jerry: non-AtB's the best.
Tom: AtB's the best.
Jerry: non-AtB's the best.
Virus: It depends...
I mean, c'mon...lol...with the number of times I've replied to things with "...it depends..." - I should put it in my signature.
Sure, perhaps the AtB's the best crowd is doing the blanket generalization - but without folks on the non-AtB's the best side giving something more specific; it's just coming off as a generalization as well.
It's almost like a discussion that gets derailed because of definition of terms.
Tom: X is whatever.
Jerry: X is not whatever.
Thing is, they're not really both discussing X...X means something different for Tom and for Jerry - so they'll keep arguing, where if they were to have discussed what X meant to each, oddly enough you tend to find they agree...cause they were never actually arguing over what they were talking about...they were just arguing over how they were talking about it and the confusion that arose from that.
So when somebody says AtB's the best and they're picturing ShipX and coming off as talking about all ships is arguing with somebody that says AtB's not the best and they're picturing ShipY and coming off as talking about all ships...
...they might actually agree on both ShipX and ShipY, but since none of it ever got mentioned - they're left arguing about the apparent generalizations that neither may be intending to make.
That's why I asked the way I did - maybe I could have been clearer; but I figured saying that I had a feeling that it would be related to content and what was going on would prompt any replies to include such information.
Every 2-4 month, it's less and less useful.
@130 Aux, AtB1 provides 54 Weapon, 54 Shield, 54 Engine Power...for 10s with a 40s individual CD.
There's only a 10s triggered CD on the ability, but without the CD reduction - you're going to have a gap between the 2nd and 3rd activations.
And well, there's going to be a gap between the 1st and 2nd activations - where you're going to be waiting on your EPS to fill in your Aux again.
Somebody dropping 130 Aux down to 5, giving up 125 Aux...with say an 11/s EPS...is looking at 11-12s between the first activation and the second if they want the second to be as powerful as the first.
So somebody running it in that manner, they're using it every 20s or so...
Course, that's somebody at 130 doing that...lol.
@57 Aux, AtB1 provides 22.5 to each...and you're only looking at less than 5s to get that back.
It's a concurrent CD and triggered CD. The 10s that AtB is running, is 10s off its own CD and the 10s of the triggered CD. There's a mix of CDs out there that are either concurrent or take place after the ability has expired...it's not consistent. This is a concurrent CD.
So if you were running two at 57 (I'm too lazy to change the toon's power again, lol - it's 57/30)...the following would be rough (I'm ignoring the 0.5s activation delay, not saying it should be ignored - but I hate getting involved in AtB threads)...
00 AtB1(1) starts - AtB1(1) 40s CD starts - AtB1(2) 10s TCD starts
10 AtB1(1) ends - AtB1(2) 10s TCD ends
15 Aux refilled - AtB1(2) starts - AtB1(2) 40s CD starts - AtB1(1) 10s TCD starts
25 AtB1(2) ends - AtB1(1) 10s TCD ends
30 Aux refilled
40 AtB1(1) 40s CD ends - AtB1(1) starts - AtB1(1) 40s CD starts - AtB1(2) 10s TCD starts
50 AtB1(1) ends - AtB1(2) 10s TCD ends
55 Aux refilled - AtB1(2) 40s CD ends - AtB1(2) starts - AtB1(2) 40s CD starts - AtB1(1) 10s TCD starts
65 AtB1(2) ends - AtB1(1) 10s TCD ends
70 Aux refilled
80 ...and the 40s bit cycles on and on.
That's not a suggested cycle...not in the least - just a rough idea of what one might be looking at with an example cycle if one was attempting to chain with the max Aux and two copies. 10s up, 5s down, 10s up, 15s down, etc, etc, etc...there's all sorts of cycles for it where somebody could even work in AtS and AtD.
If one were just running the one copy, then it's just the 10s up, 30s down. Would be something you mixed in perhaps with an AtS or AtD...
...2-3 years ago?
Cause we're just completely oozing power these days...we're saturated...and with the various changes to EPtX abilities, DOFFs, and all the rest...we're just oozing power. Hard to believe they once nerfed the Eng consoles because they were worried they gave too much power...lol.
So yeah, it's one of those things in all the nerf AtB threads that comes about after being overlooked. They really want to nerf the Technicians...not AtB, cause AtB itself is woefully in need of a buff.
Non-A2B builds are able to do more DPS than A2B, and also can help to kill the enemy much faster. Therefore, the only time you will see a difference is the possibility to tank better.
With my Breen Raider, and Scimitar I was able to heal more with A2B, but only because it doubled my heals because I had the doffs. It had nothing to do with the power levels in my subsystems. With weapons, shields, and engines maxed out, then I was not able to survive as long. Honestly, the only time it has helped to have the increased power levels is when I ran a single copy of A2B on my Defiant.
I did that to see what it would do. The increased power levels to the subsystems on an escort does help with maneuverability. But, its damage output is better without it. It can do more damage with other skills that increased DPS.
The important thing to keep in mind is that some ships that can use A2B have limited engineering stations. Therefore, running with A2B on some ships can not only limit DPS, but even survivability.
I do admit to using it on builds I use a lot. The reason is because I am disabled, and cannot use a keyboard. Therefore, I can keybind the double A2B to a single button on my controller, and just hit it when one is ready.
You make absolutely no good points with this post, none what so ever.
No ship requires aux2batt to do it's intended job, none, as in 0.
You just try to defend this skill, because you think that a ship meant for fewer tac abilities, need to have the dps of 1-3 escorts.
Well guess what it doesn't, what it needs is for people to stop thinking in this manner, and provide an alternative, instead of a quick exploitable skill to solve all of your woes.
I have made suggestions for improving, as you would call them gimped tac vessels, you have provided none.
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
This is laughable.
"Intended job"? What intended job? To be a healboat, unnecessary and therefore worthless? (I don't PvP, but my understanding is that it's basically all vapers now.) To be indestructible, to fail to tank because it can't hold aggro? The supposed job you're defining as "intended" is basically to be good at nothing, given how the game is structured where the only thing that matters is killing the enemy without dying.
You still have yet to provide any sort of information as to what your performance is, which is rather essential in determining what "acceptable" is in the discussion.
Further, the credibility of anyone critiquing game mechanics is heavily dependant on their knowledge of game mechanics. Your using of apparently low DPS escorts (and they're definitely not the top tier escorts if an AtB cruiser can deal 3 times as much damage as them) as a standard to judge these Aux2Bat builds rather hurt your credibility in that regard.
Escorts have not been the standard for DPS for quite some time. There is only one data set available to us regarding DPS from the player base, and that's the one maintained by the DPS channels. The top performing ships are all (from what I can tell) universally cruisers using beams and not Aux2Bat.
Further, the current arithmetic mode for DPS is actually around 10k, according to the only data set we have access to as players. Given that the only thing that matters in endgame content is DPS, that means par is 10k.
Your refusal to use actual numbers, only extremely subjective standards of measurement, really makes me feel you have no idea what you're talking about. Given the standard of 10k, any cruiser that needs A2B (one with less than 5 tac slots) is not going to reach 3 times that amount. Jena is a DPS expert, and they only got 22k out of an A2B build.
Why do I need to make suggestions? I am not the one proposing a change, the onus is not on me to provide a solution to a problem created by the proposed change.
If you're arguing that they should ban tires, the guy arguing that you shouldn't ban tires is not the one that needs to solve the problem of cars no longer having tires.
Likewise, the onus is not on me to provide footing, when I'm simply arguing the crutch shouldn't be removed because of people ignorantly attributing their comparative weakness to perceived use of gimmicks by others.
People who aren't having their pride threatened because they are in denial about their own builds and piloting abilities don't make threads like this, they make posts like virusdancer talking about the imbalance between Eng and Tac slots. It's no coincidence that VD's considered very credible when talking about game mechanics - they test, they post results, they draw conclusions.
The major flaw in your mindset appears to be utter ignorance of what it means to tank. You seem to think a tank merely needs to be "invulnerable", and that's the job of cruisers. This is wrong in every MMO. If you can't hold aggro (which in STO requires DPS because there is no other way to affect Threat) you're not tanking, you're just an under-performing DPS person. Survivability is fine and all, except that in STO you survive better with higher DPS simply because you don't end up having 25 things shooting at you you actually kill them so you only end up being shot at by 3 things at a time.
Since the only job in STO (aside from Science abilities) is DPS, a cruiser should be expected to "have the dps" of 1 escort, with any higher damage being a result of piloting ability.
Here you go spouting off TRIBBLE again, who in the right mind made any of these people the decider of useful, or not for a ship, who decided a ship requires aux2batt to do anything?
When did 10k dps become necessary to achieve a pve goal?
You provide utter loads of TRIBBLE.
And, I do not need show anything in regards, to your statements as follows:
1) How I build a ship
2) My understanding of game mechanics
3) My dps accomplishments
4) Your complete, and utter TRIBBLE saying a so called gimp ship must have aux2batt, to do a job of any sort
5) Tanks/healers are a necessity in pvp, but you wouldn't know that
6) A cruiser required to dps like again 1-3 escorts worth
7) That a cruiser meant for tank role, cannot provide some usefulness to a team (pve/pvp wise)
8) Why would you need a cruiser to hold agro in the first place, when escorts as you mentioned can tank as well?
My list can go on, and on, and on, and on.....
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
a scimitar with A2B is
Atm, the only thing it really hurts is pet spawns and offensive sci powers (that I can think of).
Yeah, HE heals less but show me some one not using it purely for the cleanse and I'll show you space-flotsam.
doffed a2b may or may not be super op, but its the only boff power I know of with absolutely zero downside to using it.