please please stop ALL of the doff powers, they are just so OP and unfair!!! and while your at it get rid of all the trait powers, they too are grossly unfair!!
Traits should do no more than change the look of your ship....and THEN only under certain circumstances!!! and pulllleeze set powers??? this aint wizards and warlocks!!! its a space flight game for cryin out loud! everything that isnt presently answered by existing sound science should be nerfed to total uselesness!! and personally to stop this POWER CREEP (whoever that is) all levels need to be taken back to 40 and no ship should be above a tier 3!! lets get real here folks!
:P
[SIGPIC]tritrophic mutualism: we get a viable game experience, and perfect worlds new ai "ARC" dines on our zen[/SIGPIC]
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.....
This post is rather incoherent, and you contradict yourself at times. Perhaps you should take a moment and come up with a coherent argument instead of flustered blustering?
Once again, you continue to insist that you don't need to establish your credibility by demonstrating your expertise or provide any evidence to support your assertions, which are based upon suppositions that are contrary to commonly accepted knowledge.
Clearly just saying "Your [sic] TRIBBLE!" without being able to provide any actual supported counter-arguments means you win. Congratulations.
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.
Ummm... Aux2Batt is one of only a few boff powers that do have a downside. You give up your Aux power to boost your other subsystems for a smaller net gain than an equivalent seat EP2x, which could actually be accomplished by slotting an EP2x (with its secondary bonuses as well) and making use of the Save capability in your power presets. Otherwise, the only other powers I can think of that have built in detriments are Beam: Fire at Will (uninterruptible and random, which is kind of the point), Boarding Party (crew loss if they can't return), and Subsystem Targeting (reduced base damage).
Doffed it's nice, but the power itself is... not wonderful.
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.
Ummm... Aux2Batt is one of only a few boff powers that do have a downside. You give up your Aux power to boost your other subsystems for a smaller net gain than an equivalent seat EP2x, which could actually be accomplished by slotting an EP2x (with its secondary bonuses as well) and making use of the Save capability in your power presets. Otherwise, the only other powers I can think of that have built in detriments are Beam: Fire at Will (uninterruptible and random, which is kind of the point), Boarding Party (crew loss if they can't return), and Subsystem Targeting (reduced base damage).
Doffed it's nice, but the power itself is... not wonderful.
currently, if you're using two copies of A2B and have skill points setup a certain way, you actually get to keep your aux power. That's why I'm for capping aux at 5 for the duration of aux to batt. DDIS has another idea of instantly regaining the aux power. Either one might work, IDK, but right now it is wonkey and there is no down side.
currently, if you're using two copies of A2B and have skill points setup a certain way, you actually get to keep your aux power. That's why I'm for capping aux at 5 for the duration of aux to batt. DDIS has another idea of instantly regaining the aux power. Either one might work, IDK, but right now it is wonkey and there is no down side.
+1 to this.
If Aux was capped at 5 for the duration of Aux2bat (this is outside of using EPtA, Plasmonic leech, or Energy Siphon), it would go a long way towards fixing dual aux2bat setups.
If Aux was capped at 5 for the duration of Aux2bat (this is outside of using EPtA, Plasmonic leech, or Energy Siphon), it would go a long way towards fixing dual aux2bat setups.
I would say cap it...period. AtB active...then your Aux is 5 max, nothing will take it above that.
currently, if you're using two copies of A2B and have skill points setup a certain way, you actually get to keep your aux power. That's why I'm for capping aux at 5 for the duration of aux to batt. DDIS has another idea of instantly regaining the aux power. Either one might work, IDK, but right now it is wonkey and there is no down side.
The wonky power thing with Aux2Batt definitely is a bug. My guess is that it stems from the way the power was implemented, calculating Aux drain and power bonuses at the time of activation. The idea DDIS suggested is one solution, and probably the easiest since it's already an instant drain. Setting the ability to a persistent power transfer and bonus while it is active might also work, and enforce more thought when throwing Aux heals/powers between activations of Aux2Batt. An artificial power cap would actually cause Aux2Batt to drain more net power than it returns (when cycled), which would make the already bad base ability even worse...
I'm all for making things work as advertised (i.e. fixing the wonky Aux power), as well as introducing alternatives and disincentives (other useful cooldown/duration doffs, T4 Nukara Rep), but I'm not generally a fan of nerfing things so that they don't have a purpose. Aux2Batt already serves little to no purpose without Technicians; thus my argument against a direct nerf to either Aux2Batt or Technicians. They already nerfed the availability of Technicians with the Cluster map removal and longer reset timers for the Cluster interacts (specifically B'Tran as far as Technicians).
Maybe an increase in the availability of useful alternatives would help. I'd suggest adding more options as far as doffs from CXP rewards... and maybe *cough* adding a Counselor or two the KDF list while they're at it*. This would allow players more options to obtain Team, Attack Pattern, Aux2Damp, etc. doffs while adding additional places for players to spend dilithium... a win-win. Improving other cooldown doffs to actually work, rather than possibly work, would also help provide competitors to the Aux2Batt Technicians.
*(Yes, KDF Counselor doffs do exist in-game, they are just incredibly hard to find. Klingon Warriors seem to benefit from having a socially acceptable outlet for their violent urges.)
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.
That awkward moment when you reply then reread and realise you missed the point?
:cool:
Not really.
It is just a game, one of many, the more complex a game is, the more "bugs" come up. If it is a worthwhile game, it all gets adjusted in the long run.
I did not want to get into a long crypticaly (no pun intended) complicated discusion replete with advanced statistical math, charts, interrim discussions, elite lexiconic depredations upon others' seeming lack of skill in discussions, and honest but split-haired inquiries and complaints.
I said what I did in perhaps a silly way to illustrate how easily we can get carried away in all of this.
in the end, amidst unintended consequences of overlapping complexity in coding, players and developers misconceptions and those of us burdened with more than our normal share of OCD...
It is just a game. One of many, have fun!
[SIGPIC]tritrophic mutualism: we get a viable game experience, and perfect worlds new ai "ARC" dines on our zen[/SIGPIC]
This post is rather incoherent, and you contradict yourself at times. Perhaps you should take a moment and come up with a coherent argument instead of flustered blustering?
Once again, you continue to insist that you don't need to establish your credibility by demonstrating your expertise or provide any evidence to support your assertions, which are based upon suppositions that are contrary to commonly accepted knowledge.
Clearly just saying "Your [sic] TRIBBLE!" without being able to provide any actual supported counter-arguments means you win. Congratulations.
You yourself, constantly have contradicted anything you say as well, so touch
First off, sorry if a lot of these viewpoints have been expressed in replies to the numerous "OMG NERFFFFF A2B" threads, but I felt it was a requirement to post at least one decent counter thread to all the madness.
Here are some reasons why the A2B skill and doff is a vital part of the game in PvP. Please note that everytime I refer to A2B, I am talking about both the skill and the doff.
As for PvE, you are all fighting against the same weak NPCs that take 2 seconds to kill, so why does it matter anyways? In PvE, if you think A2B is overpowered, isn't that a good thing because with that same logic won't you get your grind done faster? On a side note, for PvE, the highest DPS and tankiest builds are NOT A2B anyways, so I am failing to see the problem here...
Below are various reasons why the A2B skill and doff should not be nerfed. Please note that these are not listed in any particular order except the order in which I thought of them.
1. A2B Provides More Playstyle Options for a Ship
Being able to make a very tanky ship put out more DPS is one of the best features of A2B. Before A2B, if a ship had limited tactical slots, forget about doing any kind of good damage whatsoever. Limted tactical slots mean't that you had room for Tactical Team, (a requirement in PvP) and maybe 1 or 2 other tactical abilities. Due to the lack of tactical slots on MANY ships, you are unable to slot duplicate copies of most tactical abilities making A2B the only viable solution. Anyone who has played PvP knows that a beam cruiser that isn't doing enough damage or putting out enough heals is pretty much useless. So my question to all the naysayers is this. Do you want to return to the era of escorts online where only pure escorts and healers are viable?
2. A2B is an easy to use cost effective alternative to more expensive builds
Last I checked on the exchange, A2B doffs were around 10 million EC. While expensive for a casual player to begin PvP, this is much better than having to buy Attack Pattern Doffs which cost a fortune, or have the best possible gear to be even remotely competitive. Less experienced players may also have difficulty creating more advanced builds due to lack of game knowledge. Since A2B is well advertised (Thanks Haters!) and is viable (not optimal) on many ships, new PvPers can at least stand a chance in a good A2B build at either surviving or doing enough DPS to be competitive against a seasoned veteran. Don't we want more people to PvP and not get scared by that first game where they die 15 times in 16 seconds?
3. Why stop at nerfing A2B? EVERYTHING MUST BE NERFED!!!
What is so special about A2B? How about all the other overpowered doffs like the A2D one, EPTX cooldown doff, anything that reduces cooldown, the shield penetration doff, etc, etc. If we nerf A2B, these doffs should be nerfed as well. Ultimately if you have a problem with something, learn to beat it or accept that perhaps it is a counter to your build. For example, I hate FBP, but I recognize that it is a wonderful counter to high damage builds.
How about all those wonderful boff powers? Go Down Fighting, Attack Pattern Alpha/Omega, RSP, Science Team, etc etc. Should we nerf those too? Hell, while we are at it, lets nerf the whole game until everything is "balanced" (sarcasm intended).
4. If you are having trouble fighting against A2B, you are doing it wrong...
There are tons of ways to counter A2B builds. One of the most notable methods is by using Subnuke. Subnuke while effective on everything is more effective on A2B builds since it stops the activation of A2B and and requires the A2B user to use the minimal boff skills that remain.
A2B also has plenty of weaknesses. One of the most notable is Tac Team (in 99% of A2B builds) not being up all the time meaning that you are very weak for a few seconds. Most of the time, even when you are running aux batteries with the Quartermaster Batter doff (let's nerf this one too guys trollface) you have low auxiliary meaning crappy heals and science powers. Also, if you run A2B in an escort, you are weak to A2D escorts due to your lack of turn. I could go on and on here, but I think everyone gets the point that A2B has its weaknesses and is counterable.
To summarize, is the A2B doff great? Of course! Is it the only "overpowered" doff in the game? Of course not! Is it an I win button? Of course not! Should it be nerfed? Unless you want to nerf every other doff in the game to be fair, no.
Thanks for reading. Feel free to spew your hate at me repeatedly
This is to clear up the misinformation from the truth about a2b and why it is a bane to the game itself and should be nerfed.
First:
To clear things up, this post is about the DOFF for auxiliary to battery, not the actual skill itself. The skill by itself is fine if you want to make that kind of trade-off (all your aux power for boosts in the other 3 power levels)
Second:
The doff itself gives a reduced cooldown to ALL bridge officer abilities. There are some powers and items that give reduced cooldowns to SOME boff abilities (like sci deflectors for sci abilities) or some doffs that speed up a particular ability. This doff does them all. There are some skills that had long cooldowns designed in there for a reason. Every build I have seen for a2b abuses these long cooldown abilities (including RSP, DEM, FAW, APO) and essentially sets them on cooldown (whatever the minimum time the devs have set for each of those respective abilities to restart) and in the process have broken the reason for the long cooldown. Abilities like RSP were originally designed as a measure of last resort. Now they are used as a mainstream defense. Cruisers that were originally designed for tanking have abused the DEM 3 cooldown time in combination with FAW to make them DPS hungry cruisers that can survive even the strongest push of damage without having to choose what path to take.
This ultimately leads to the final point:
Ships that aren't even in the normal pattern of a2b are using this one ability to speed up vapes, escape patterns, and even abusing spam like EWP to create an environment that REQUIRES it in order to compete with these kinds of ships.
The moment the doff went from a nice to have to a need is the moment to sit back and look if the doff is broken. I for one say it is and deserves a nerf. The easiest nerf I can think off that would at least make people think twice about the doff is to only allow 1 copy of it per ship. This way, they still get their cooldown reduction (though not as much) and they don't reset to global cooldown. At that point, they would either have to run 2 or even 3 copies of the ability to get some of the same results (removing the tank which would be the tradeoff) or run the one copy and slightly speed up all those abilities and retain their original roles without breaking too much of the game.
On another note:
It should be mentioned that some people don't understand that some of the things described with global cooldowns would also be possible with running multiple copies of those abilities themselves. For example, you can run 2 RSPs and achieve the same thing. The fact is, if someone did this, they would be losing out on something else that 1 copy of a2b would grant to them and more on top of this ability. This is ultimately why the mechanic is broken and should be nerfed.
...covering opposing viewpoints in their respective original posts, but a similar line of discussion otherwise. If you're on the fence, look through these as well, since there are valid arguments for both positions. I'll keep my discussion here since this thread popped up first :P
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.
That's the rub. There are extremely good arguments both for and against changing Tech doff behavior.
The developers do have to worry about gameplay balance- but there are other builds that match the practical effects of A2B by duplicating tac powers through other means. Those builds have a higher cost- both in the raw expense of the doffs required, and in the cost of using more than three active doff slots on them. But those builds exist, and create the same balance issues.
So an A2B nerf might reduce the average damage of the average player (though I'm not sure it would even do that), but the high DPS cat is out of the bag.
The "I know you are but what am I" style of debate? :rolleyes:
If you think I've contradicted myself, then you don't comprehend what I've said. Do feel free to point out contradictions, while I point out yours:
Perhaps you're not intentionally contradicting yourself? To be frank, your English appears to have degenerated since your original posts, and I'm having a very hard time understanding what you're saying.
It literally gives me a minor headache trying to parse your run-on sentence. Seriously - stop with the flustered blustering, take time to compose a paragraph, proof read, and then post. You were perfectly understandable before, but now that you're getting worked up, it's really difficult.
In any case, you're implicitly claiming that cruisers are designed to be tanks, not damage dealers.
Tanks have to hold aggro and survive it. That is not debatable, and is the definition of tanking. If the "tank" is not a threat, nobody shoots them, and they're not tanking.
So who is telling who is wrong? I am telling you you're wrong, because you appear completely oblivious to the required part of the role you claim they're designed to do.
I have provided a build as a sample of my proficiency and knowledge of the system. The statistics for DPS are available to everyone who uses the parser. If you're not parsing data, then you're not working with any objective data. If you're basing claims on subjective data, then the credibility of that data depends on demonstrating your proficiency and knowledge.
Once again, I am not required or obligated to provide any suggestions for an alternative. If you claim the moon is made of blue cheese, I am not the one required to prove that it is not.
The one saying "I WANT IT MY WAY" is you, the one demanding a change without providing any sort of evidence that such a change is necessary, only that you want it changed. On the other hand, given that the top DPS builds are not Aux2Batt, the preponderance of evidence is that such a change is not necessary. It is evident that Aux2Batt improves some ships and are detrimental to others - we have had numerous testimonies in this very thread to that account.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have made claims while providing no evidence.
In fact, all you've provided are anecdotal evidence (unless I'm confusing posters) of events that you claim are impressive, but are actually extremely unimpressive to the rest of us. That only serves as evidence that what you consider above and below par is extremely suspect. Seriously, you claim that being able to tank a Tac Cube and burn it through attrition is evidence Aux2Batt is OP, but I was doing that in a Dragon-build Sci Oddy while still using Retrofit Phasers from the Connie.
First off, my English is perfectly fine.
We both want it our way, however yours does not need to be kept as is.
3rd, your notion of a tank needing to hold agro, is utter bs, and not necessary.
You forget, that a tank can simply refer to one who can outlast incoming damage, so just because a tank built cruiser cannot keep agro, does not mean it is useless, nor not providing any help albeit even if the dps, is slightly lower than normal.
I never said all cruisers are tank role only, there are tac capable cruisers, it's just you assume all are weak tac capable vessels.
The afore mentioned oddy, sitting there tanking a tac cube, was a eng heavy build, with 1 copy of of bfaw + apb + TT, all else was 2 copies aux2batt, 1ep2s, 1et, 1st, 1he, 1rsp, 1dem(pvp) 1ep2w(pve).
That was all that was needed to net an easy 10k+ dps, tank the cube, and not die once, all while using no armor consoles, nor using any fleet related gear.
I found this build to be a cheap, exploitable, and vastly OP.
You should not, even be able to do all of those things, that often, it should have more limits, but not with aux2batt!
Again it needs a fix, and you trying to say it doesn't, isn't going to change the fact it does.
You haven't shown, good enough reason for it to stay put.
Aux2Bat isn't optimal for most ships, but brings certain weaker ships up. The guy right above yours just pointed out Aux2Bat isn't good for PvP either.
So why nerf what doesn't need nerfing?
Contradiction #1
You yourself state aux2batt on certain ships, helps bring them up to par.
Yet here you state it hurts escorts, and sci ships, yet people have proven it can, and does work!
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?
Contradiction #2
Here you state why should they be forced to play a different way, yet by your own definition throughout this thread, you have stated they require aux2batt, to be useful.
So by your own definition, they must play this way, and this way only!
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.
Thought I would highlight the red areas, so you can get a feel, for how dumb these words mean.
Red#1 So what you are trying to say, is there does not need be any balance in this game, and that no1 posts about the need for it?
Red#2 You state that without aux2batt, they are meant to be useless, yet this is only your own opinion, and not actual fact, that they can provide some form of assistance to a team.
Red#3 You state pve is not a measure of dps performance, yet to counter argue that weaker ships need aux2batt to perform here, and cannot perform in pvp with it, so which is it?
Red#4 You state a tank must be able to hold agro, to be well a tank.
Yet you never mention here that a tank can in fact, be called a tank by simply outhealing incoming dps.
And than you state they would be good for nothing, besides looking pretty, hmm even a 1k dps ship is still offering up 1k dps to the team's goal.
So I wouldn't call them useless, nor having to sit there looking pretty, but again this is your own opinion as to the value, of someone looking to run a non-aux2batt vessel such as the ones you describe.
Red#5 You know as well as I do, this is utter redundancy, because the loss of auxpwr can be re-obtained quickly, even on its own with 2 copies of aux2batt.
We both want it our way, however yours does not need to be kept as is.
It may not need to be kept as is, but it need not be changed either. Any alteration to the game requires dev time and introduces the potential for additional bugs or further imbalances (intended or otherwise) to the game, even if successfully implemented. You both want it your way, but yours is the one that alters the gameplay mechanics from their current state, so leaving it as is would be the most probable outcome.
3rd, your notion of a tank needing to hold agro, is utter bs, and not necessary.
You forget, that a tank can simply refer to one who can outlast incoming damage, so just because a tank built cruiser cannot keep agro, does not mean it is useless, nor not providing any help albeit even if the dps, is slightly lower than normal.
The common definition of a Tank (gaming) does actually require holding aggro. If you can outlast incoming damage, but are not holding enough aggro to actually be targeted for incoming damage, you are not tanking.
"Tanking" occurs when the unit is intended to be the one taking damage (typically by being dangerous or detrimental, or using a game mechanic that forces it to be targeted), and secondly, to ensure that they can survive this damage through sheer health points or mitigation.
I never said all cruisers are tank role only, there are tac capable cruisers, it's just you assume all are weak tac capable vessels.
True, they can also fill a DPS or healer role depending on build and individual vessel. Aux2Batt w/Technicians actually provides additional options for the DPS role, and in some cases the tank role... it should be avoided at all costs for a dedicated healer or support role.
The afore mentioned oddy, sitting there tanking a tac cube, was a eng heavy build, with 1 copy of of bfaw + apb + TT, all else was 2 copies aux2batt, 1ep2s, 1et, 1st, 1he, 1rsp, 1dem(pvp) 1ep2w(pve).
That was all that was needed to net an easy 10k+ dps, tank the cube, and not die once, all while using no armor consoles, nor using any fleet related gear.
I found this build to be a cheap, exploitable, and vastly OP.
You should not, even be able to do all of those things, that often, it should have more limits, but not with aux2batt!
If it really was the old Dragon build, it wasn't Aux2Batt w/Technicians.
Again it needs a fix, and you trying to say it doesn't, isn't going to change the fact it does.
You haven't shown, good enough reason for it to stay put.
And haven't offered any alternatives either.
Change without good reasons, while counter-arguments and alternate suggestions were offered, is why many are displeased with the current doffing UI and aspects of the crafting system.
Contradiction #1
You yourself state aux2batt on certain ships, helps bring them up to par.
Yet here you state it hurts escorts, and sci ships, yet people have proven it can, and does work!
Something that works does not necessarily work well, nor does that mean it works or does not work on everything in every role. That isn't really a contradiction.
Contradiction #2
Here you state why should they be forced to play a different way, yet by your own definition throughout this thread, you have stated they require aux2batt, to be useful.
So by your own definition, they must play this way, and this way only!
Someone's opinion of how useful something is or is not will not force someone else to take a given action. You can still use alternative builds that do not work as well for that given ship if you so choose, because Aux2Batt w/Technicians is an option. There is currently no ship that has Aux2Batt as a required boff ability, though there are ships that benefit from using Aux2Batt w/Technicians. There is a difference between an opinion and forcing a player to play in a certain manner. Like trying to force other players not to use Aux2Batt w/Technicians.
Thought I would highlight the red areas, so you can get a feel, for how dumb these words mean.
Red#1 So what you are trying to say, is there does not need be any balance in this game, and that no1 posts about the need for it?
That post (well, chunk thereof) did actually argue for balance. It merely argued against threads asking for things that work well to be nerfed because they work well, rather than asking for things that do not work well to be improved. It's like all those threads in the KDF Shipyards section that ask for more ships; they never ask for the removal of Federation ships from the game, even though the Federation has far more ship options than the KDF... they simply ask for more KDF ships. They are positive arguments, asking for something, rather than negative ones asking to take something away because someone else has it.
Red#2 You state that without aux2batt, they are meant to be useless, yet this is only your own opinion, and not actual fact, that they can provide some form of assistance to a team.
Red#3 You state pve is not a measure of dps performance, yet to counter argue that weaker ships need aux2batt to perform here, and cannot perform in pvp with it, so which is it?
That was just a snarky :rolleyes: comment on your playing habits. Responding to it gives it more credit than it was due.
Red#4 You state a tank must be able to hold agro, to be well a tank.
Yet you never mention here that a tank can in fact, be called a tank by simply outhealing incoming dps.
And than you state they would be good for nothing, besides looking pretty, hmm even a 1k dps ship is still offering up 1k dps to the team's goal.
So I wouldn't call them useless, nor having to sit there looking pretty, but again this is your own opinion as to the value, of someone looking to run a non-aux2batt vessel such as the ones you describe.
If the tank isn't holding aggro, it isn't receiving incoming DPS, therefore isn't tanking. See the above link to and quote of the common definition of tanking as it pertains to gaming. What you describe is a healer keeping themself alive until they can go back to supporting the team. Not useless, but not a tank.
Red#5 You know as well as I do, this is utter redundancy, because the loss of auxpwr can be re-obtained quickly, even on its own with 2 copies of aux2batt.
There is actually a problem with Aux2Batt. It isn't re-obtaining power that's the problem, though; recovery requires investment in EPS skill, an appropriate Core and possibly consoles, or even a consumable or ability. The issue with Aux2Batt is the wonky Aux power and bonuses, which should be fixed. DDIS, virusdancer, and I have all made differing suggestions of how this could be done; while I have concerns that the hard cap virusdancer suggested would further bug the performance of Aux2Batt, I do agree that a stable cost in Aux power and a stable bonus for the other subsystems should be applied.
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.
[EDIT] Sorry forum denizens, that turned out to be a wall-o-text...
It may not need to be kept as is, but it need not be changed either. Any alteration to the game requires dev time and introduces the potential for additional bugs or further imbalances (intended or otherwise) to the game even if successfully implemented. You both want it your way, but yours is the one that alters the gameplay mechanics from their current state, so leaving it as is would be the most probable outcome.
The common definition of a Tank (gaming) does actually require holding aggro. If you can outlast incoming damage, but are not holding enough aggro to actually be targeted for incoming damage, you are not tanking.
True, they can also fill a DPS or healer role depending on build and individual vessel. Aux2Batt w/Technicians actually provides additional options for the DPS role, and in some cases the tank role... it should be avoided at all costs for a dedicated healer or support role.
If it really was the old Dragon build, it wasn't Aux2Batt w/Technicians.
Change without good reasons, while counter-arguments and alternate suggestions were offered, is why many are displeased with the current doffing UI and aspects of the crafting system.
Something that works does not necessarily work well, nor does that mean it works or does not work on everything in every role. That isn't really a contradiction.
Someone's opinion of how useful something is or is not will not force someone else to take a given action. You can still use alternative builds that do not work as well for that given ship if you so choose, because Aux2Batt w/Technicians is an option. There is currently no ship that has Aux2Batt as a required boff ability, though there are ships that benefit from using Aux2Batt w/Technicians. There is a difference between an opinion and forcing a player to play in a certain manner. Like trying to force other players not to use Aux2Batt w/Technicians.
That post (well, chunk thereof) did actually argue for balance. It merely argued against threads asking for things that work well to be nerfed because they work well, rather than asking for things that do not work well to be improved. It's like all those threads in the KDF Shipyards section that ask for more ships; they never ask for the removal of Federation ships from the game, even though the Federation has far more ship options than the KDF... they simply ask for more KDF ships. They are positive arguments, asking for something, rather than negative ones asking to take something away because someone else has it.
I think that was sarcasm you were referring to.
That was just a snarky :rolleyes: comment on your playing habits. Responding to it gives it more credit than it was due.
If the tank isn't holding aggro, it isn't receiving incoming DPS, therefore isn't tanking. See the above link to and quote of the common definition of tanking as it pertains to gaming. What you describe is a healer keeping themself alive until they can go back to supporting the team. Not useless, but not a tank.
There is actually a problem with Aux2Batt. It isn't re-obtaining power that's the problem, though; recovery requires investment in EPS skill, an appropriate Core and possibly consoles, or even a consumable or ability. The issue with Aux2Batt is the wonky Aux power and bonuses, which should be fixed. DDIS, virusdancer, and I have all made differing suggestions of how this could be done; while I have concerns that the hard cap virusdancer suggested would further bug the performance of Aux2Batt, I do agree that a stable cost in Aux power and a stable bonus for the other subsystems should be applied.
In real-time strategy games the role of a tank unit is to provide a health buffer for weaker ranged classes. Frequently maneuvering or other tactics are used by the tank to make themselves the most tempting or highest-priority target of enemy attacks, thereby diverting enemy attacks away from allies
You forgot to include this info, as it can pertain to both pve, and pvp.
Holding agro, isn't the only way to tank.
And no that described build, isn't called by any name, it was a simple thrown together one, that I clearly stated.
Was IMO, and utter cheap exploit build, taking something that was never initially intended, and pushing it beyond the boundaries, of its original design.
Even the Dev's agree, aux2batt doffs are quite literally, a bad inception.
while I have concerns that the hard cap virusdancer suggested would further bug the performance of Aux2Batt,
The hard cap at 5 would prevent the rare 0 Aux issues, since you couldn't have buffed Aux expire at the wrong time during AtB cycles. I usually only see the 0 Aux, if I see it, when there's nothing left to shoot at...Leech expires...eat the 0 Aux for 10s. Might see it at the end of the left side of an ISE before heading right...might not.
As is, the 4/5 Aux tends to be 14/15 Aux because of EPS Manifold from EPtX activations. So it's almost never 4/5.
By capping it at 5, it would prevent there being any power benefit from the AtB itself for somebody spamming it. They'd have to wait those 3-5s or so between activations if they wanted that benefit. The instant return of power would just mean somebody had to wait a sec between activations, and then they could have the full benefit of both the Tech DOFFs and AtB.
In the end, it still kind of looks backward, eh? Well, imho, it kind of looks backward - when looking at Tech DOFFs and AtB.
Usually you have the BOFF ability itself which provides the main benefit and then the DOFF that adds a little pizazz to it.
It's almost like the Tech DOFFs should be the BOFF ability and the AtB ability should be what happens with the DOFFs...
Techician 1, Technician 2...drains Aux to 5 in order to reduce ability CD.
AtB DOFFs...on use of the Technician BOFF ability, provides a boost to Weapons, Shields, and Engine based on the amount of Aux drained by the Technician BOFF ability.
Course, much like folks would look at you funny if you suggested they use AtB without the Tech DOFFs...folks would probably look at you funny if you suggested using those imaginary AtB DOFFs with the imaginary Tech BOFF ability.
It's kind of where you start doing that comparison between the Photonic Officer BOFF ability with some Pho DOFFs to AtB and Tech DOFFs, eh?
The hard cap at 5 would prevent the rare 0 Aux issues, since you couldn't have buffed Aux expire at the wrong time during AtB cycles. I usually only see the 0 Aux, if I see it, when there's nothing left to shoot at...Leech expires...eat the 0 Aux for 10s. Might see it at the end of the left side of an ISE before heading right...might not.
As is, the 4/5 Aux tends to be 14/15 Aux because of EPS Manifold from EPtX activations. So it's almost never 4/5.
By capping it at 5, it would prevent there being any power benefit from the AtB itself for somebody spamming it. They'd have to wait those 3-5s or so between activations if they wanted that benefit. The instant return of power would just mean somebody had to wait a sec between activations, and then they could have the full benefit of both the Tech DOFFs and AtB.
In the end, it still kind of looks backward, eh? Well, imho, it kind of looks backward - when looking at Tech DOFFs and AtB.
Usually you have the BOFF ability itself which provides the main benefit and then the DOFF that adds a little pizazz to it.
It's almost like the Tech DOFFs should be the BOFF ability and the AtB ability should be what happens with the DOFFs...
Techician 1, Technician 2...drains Aux to 5 in order to reduce ability CD.
AtB DOFFs...on use of the Technician BOFF ability, provides a boost to Weapons, Shields, and Engine based on the amount of Aux drained by the Technician BOFF ability.
Course, much like folks would look at you funny if you suggested they use AtB without the Tech DOFFs...folks would probably look at you funny if you suggested using those imaginary AtB DOFFs with the imaginary Tech BOFF ability.
It's kind of where you start doing that comparison between the Photonic Officer BOFF ability with some Pho DOFFs to AtB and Tech DOFFs, eh?
Not to throw this off subject virus, but IMO the whole name aux2batt, smells like it should have provided a power boost, like it does currently, but the tech doffs cd reduction should effect battery timers, and not boff skills.
In real-time strategy games the role of a tank unit is to provide a health buffer for weaker ranged classes. Frequently maneuvering or other tactics are used by the tank to make themselves the most tempting or highest-priority target of enemy attacks, thereby diverting enemy attacks away from allies
You forgot to include this info, as it can pertain to both pve, and pvp.
Holding agro, isn't the only way to tank.
As you highlighted, though, it is the "most tempting or highest-priority target" in an RTS as much as an MMO. Sadly, STO doesn't have the variable range or intricate AI to allow for positional tanking, which is why I ignored it; with normalized weapons ranges of 10 km in space combat, it ends up being a matter of who the NPC "chooses" to shoot, especially without major "taunt" abilities that force aggro. This is why aggro management is necessary for tanking in STO. Now in PvP... tanking requires "aggro" of a different sort. Since these are actual human beings, a "taunt" is available via chat trolling, and DPS becomes less important than spike, control, or support capabilities.
All in all, though, if you aren't being shot at in place of your squishier allies, you are not tanking.
And no that described build, isn't called by any name, it was a simple thrown together one, that I clearly stated.
Was IMO, and utter cheap exploit build, taking something that was never initially intended, and pushing it beyond the boundaries, of its original design.
Sorry, I misinterpreted your response about the build being a response to this...
In fact, all you've provided are anecdotal evidence (unless I'm confusing posters) of events that you claim are impressive, but are actually extremely unimpressive to the rest of us. That only serves as evidence that what you consider above and below par is extremely suspect. Seriously, you claim that being able to tank a Tac Cube and burn it through attrition is evidence Aux2Batt is OP, but I was doing that in a Dragon-build Sci Oddy while still using Retrofit Phasers from the Connie.
Even the Dev's agree, aux2batt doffs are quite literally, a bad inception.
Fair enough, but as the devs have also said it's a "third-rail" subject. This means that is shouldn't be addressed without careful consideration and a far more delicate touch than they are generally inclined to. This is probably due to a combination of 1) not aggravating players that bought doff packs or ground for Technicians, and 2) not overcorrecting and creating a sudden and unintended balance shift. If they continue to implement alternatives like the Team, Attack Pattern, and Aux2Damp doffs and add more disincentives like the T4 Nukara Rep bonuses and Fleet Warp Core power levels, they can maintain the delicate fixes that diminish the value of Aux2Batt w/Technicians indirectly over time.
The wonky power levels, though... that needs a fix.
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 haven't read the whole tread, so sorry if this has been mentioned before.
I think A2Bat "haters" forget one thing, not all missions in STO are done with a team.
Sometimes you are on your own, without A2Bat some ships are simply lame. (couldn't find another word, sry)
Why nerf other ppls ships in the first place?
If you don't like A2B then please don't use it, but don't ruin other ppls game just because you are jealous because they can reach higher DPS numbers than you.
I understand the point that A2B can be OP, that's not the question.
The energy bonus should be eliminated IMO. But the CD reduction is what makes some ships work.
Sure in a Stone/Paper/Scissor -World there would be no need for A2B but STO is a Star Trek game and some ppl want to fly the ships they like they way they should be.
The (un)-holy trinity is dead, thankfully and there had to be some way to put cruisers out of the "teethless brick" corner. A2B is the best way to do that, or they could change some cruisers BHOFF layouts, but that would be much work IMO.
Personally i try to avoid AtB whenever possible, but to be blunt some ships are just unplayable without.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
...if the 11th does not perform as well as the other 10, then it is underpowered and needs a buff.
...if the 11th performs much better than the other 10, then it is overpowered and needs a nerf.
As you highlighted, though, it is the "most tempting or highest-priority target" in an RTS as much as an MMO. Sadly, STO doesn't have the variable range or intricate AI to allow for positional tanking, which is why I ignored it; with normalized weapons ranges of 10 km in space combat, it ends up being a matter of who the NPC "chooses" to shoot, especially without major "taunt" abilities that force aggro. This is why aggro management is necessary for tanking in STO. Now in PvP... tanking requires "aggro" of a different sort. Since these are actual human beings, a "taunt" is available via chat trolling, and DPS becomes less important than spike, control, or support capabilities.
All in all, though, if you aren't being shot at in place of your squishier allies, you are not tanking.
The problem with this notion, is in pve.
Highest dps, does not always retain agro either.
I have had agro the entire time simply by using cheese spam, or even using a moderate dps ship.
So in actuality, even a straight up eng heavy vessel, with little to no tac skills, can still obtain agro well.
Also it doesn't hurt for the other team mates, to actually back off from time to time, and not keep pounding away.
This is usually why I find Tac heavy player's, get vaped easily by the Borg.
I haven't read the whole tread, so sorry if this has been mentioned before.
I think A2Bat "haters" forget one thing, not all missions in STO are done with a team.
Sometimes you are on your own, without A2Bat some ships are simply lame. (couldn't find another word, sry)
Why nerf other ppls ships in the first place?
If you don't like A2B then please don't use it, but don't ruin other ppls game just because you are jealous because they can reach higher DPS numbers than you.
I understand the point that A2B can be OP, that's not the question.
The energy bonus should be eliminated IMO. But the CD reduction is what makes some ships work.
Sure in a Stone/Paper/Scissor -World there would be no need for A2B but STO is a Star Trek game and some ppl want to fly the ships they like they way they should be.
The (un)-holy trinity is dead, thankfully and there had to be some way to put cruisers out of the "teethless brick" corner. A2B is the best way to do that, or they could change some cruisers BHOFF layouts, but that would be much work IMO.
Personally i try to avoid AtB whenever possible, but to be blunt some ships are just unplayable without.
No, all ships with few tac slots, are not unplayable without aux2batt.
It is merely a choice that you, and other's have deemed them worthless, and not the choice of every player in this game.
This isn't just about cruisers either, as there are many ships that can use aux2batt, and they don't even require it either, but people still use it for 1 purpose, that is to reduce all boff skills cds.
The hard cap at 5 would prevent the rare 0 Aux issues, since you couldn't have buffed Aux expire at the wrong time during AtB cycles. I usually only see the 0 Aux, if I see it, when there's nothing left to shoot at...Leech expires...eat the 0 Aux for 10s. Might see it at the end of the left side of an ISE before heading right...might not.
As is, the 4/5 Aux tends to be 14/15 Aux because of EPS Manifold from EPtX activations. So it's almost never 4/5.
By capping it at 5, it would prevent there being any power benefit from the AtB itself for somebody spamming it. They'd have to wait those 3-5s or so between activations if they wanted that benefit. The instant return of power would just mean somebody had to wait a sec between activations, and then they could have the full benefit of both the Tech DOFFs and AtB.
In the end, it still kind of looks backward, eh? Well, imho, it kind of looks backward - when looking at Tech DOFFs and AtB.
Usually you have the BOFF ability itself which provides the main benefit and then the DOFF that adds a little pizazz to it.
It's almost like the Tech DOFFs should be the BOFF ability and the AtB ability should be what happens with the DOFFs...
Techician 1, Technician 2...drains Aux to 5 in order to reduce ability CD.
AtB DOFFs...on use of the Technician BOFF ability, provides a boost to Weapons, Shields, and Engine based on the amount of Aux drained by the Technician BOFF ability.
Course, much like folks would look at you funny if you suggested they use AtB without the Tech DOFFs...folks would probably look at you funny if you suggested using those imaginary AtB DOFFs with the imaginary Tech BOFF ability.
It's kind of where you start doing that comparison between the Photonic Officer BOFF ability with some Pho DOFFs to AtB and Tech DOFFs, eh?
Yeah, fair point. My concerns are mostly from the mechanics aspect of how Aux2Batt calculates; if the power has a hard cap of 5, then goes into recovery, current cooldown cycles would leave it calculating bonus power off of that 5 hard cap + your recovery rate*activation gap. You'd end up with a boff ability, that as designed, would actually have a negative effect on your ship power... your Aux power would cap at 5 no matter what, but the bonus and transferred amounts would be limited to what is available on activation. Thus my personal preference for a sustained transfer + bonus over either the hard cap you suggest or the instant recovery (soft cap mechanic) DDIS suggests; it would leave the recovery time in between activations in place without simply discarding ship power behind a hard cap. Of course, that's also probably harder to implement.
I do agree that it's kind of sad we end up spending so much time discussing Aux2Batt when it's the Technicians that introduce balancing issues. Really, it feels like Technicians work the way Photonic Officer should have: sort of an alternative version of Tactical Initiative. Then again, looking at the current state of things I almost have to wonder if the new traits, increased power levels, and alternative doffs have been added in as a fully intentional plan to gradually balance out Aux2Batt w/Technicians. If so, I'm impressed.
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.
...if the 11th does not perform as well as the other 10, then it is underpowered and needs a buff.
...if the 11th performs much better than the other 10, then it is overpowered and needs a nerf.
Cause, it's really that simple.
Yeah I wish it was that simple, but the Dev's like to put carrots out in front of us, simply so we will jump on it with $$$$.
Than nerf some things, with the intention of game balance, but leave other things to remain exploitable.
All while thinking, of how enraged player's will become, if they did nerf it.
What could they possibly fear from doing this?
It's not like they don't already go about doing so, heck they have pissed off many of player's, and so far the backlash hasn't done a damn thing.
With all of the new doff additions/changes they have done, they can easily negate the whole aux2batt/tech TRIBBLE, and find a better solution for this problem, while still allowing some wiggle room for doff cd capability.
3rd, your notion of a tank needing to hold agro, is utter bs, and not necessary.
You forget, that a tank can simply refer to one who can outlast incoming damage, so just because a tank built cruiser cannot keep agro, does not mean it is useless, nor not providing any help albeit even if the dps, is slightly lower than normal.
You have got to be kidding me. Are you serious?!
In the MMO Trinity, a tank that cannot hold aggro is known as a fail tank. As in they are failing to tank and keep threat off of DPS and healers. Are you new to MMOs or something? Is STO, a MMO where the Trinity doesn't properly apply, the only one you've played?
You're in the wrong genre, that definition doesn't apply.
The world cleavage has a number different definitions, and if you're talking about women the geological, embryology, or chemical definition is irrelevant.
If you fail to hold aggro in an MMO when you're supposed to be the tank, then you're a failure at tanking (and will probably suffer through some angry messages from the DPSers and healers in your team).
Even the Dev's agree, aux2batt doffs are quite literally, a bad inception.
As I have stated elsewhere (and I think in this thread as well?), regardless of if it was a good idea to introduce the build, it's now a cornerstone of many people's builds, introducing necessary options. Removing an option is always the very last thing that should be done, after introducing alternatives.
See, this is the sort of thing I have no issues with. It doesn't outright remove an option from the game, it's a power tweak.
I have no objections to that - my objection has always been to the people whining that it's OP (in spite of the most powerful builds not using it) and wanting it removed. I remember Escorts Online. I also remember thinking that it's not very Trek, but flew an escort anyway because I wanted to contribute my fair share to a team. (I'm currently not in an escort nor an Aux2Bat ship, my primary being a JHDC that does an average of 25k regardless of team composition.)
The problem with this notion, is in pve.
Highest dps, does not always retain agro either.
Highest Threat retains aggro. Threat is DPS * Threat Mod. I've inadvertently "tanked" almost an entire ISE more than once, eating 80% of the damage dealt. In spite of two -Threat consoles and no ranks in Threat Control.
No, all ships with few tac slots, are not unplayable without aux2batt.
It is merely a choice that you, and other's have deemed them worthless, and not the choice of every player in this game.
As I have said before, your standards are different. Again, the arithmetic mode for DPS (according to compiled statistics from submitted logs, the only data players actually have on performance) is 10k. You make the inference that we should not be able to "net an easy 10k+ dps, tank the cube, and not die once, all while using no armor consoles, nor using any fleet related gear" all at once, nor all that often. The thing is, you claim this is possible only through Aux2Bat when it's actually the standard we expect from a decent ship. Again, it is the arithmetic mode of performance.
Yeah, fair point. My concerns are mostly from the mechanics aspect of how Aux2Batt calculates; if the power has a hard cap of 5, then goes into recovery, current cooldown cycles would leave it calculating bonus power off of that 5 hard cap + your recovery rate*activation gap. You'd end up with a boff ability, that as designed, would actually have a negative effect on your ship power... your Aux power would cap at 5 no matter what, but the bonus and transferred amounts would be limited to what is available on activation. Thus my personal preference for a sustained transfer + bonus over either the hard cap you suggest or the instant recovery (soft cap mechanic) DDIS suggests; it would leave the recovery time in between activations in place without simply discarding ship power behind a hard cap. Of course, that's also probably harder to implement.
I do agree that it's kind of sad we end up spending so much time discussing Aux2Batt when it's the Technicians that introduce balancing issues. Really, it feels like Technicians work the way Photonic Officer should have: sort of an alternative version of Tactical Initiative. Then again, looking at the current state of things I almost have to wonder if the new traits, increased power levels, and alternative doffs have been added in as a fully intentional plan to gradually balance out Aux2Batt w/Technicians. If so, I'm impressed.
Yeah, I was thinking last night after my last post. If there is a hard cap at 5 ( I'm a fan of it btw) then power needs to be instantly recovered or there will be no power boost for the next iteration. That would, at least, make A2B consistent in how it works.
I really think this bug needs to be fixed first, then see what to do next, if anything needs to be done.
Your English in this post is perfect. Your sentence structure and composition in the preceding two posts were horrible and barely comprehensible.
You have got to be kidding me. Are you serious?!
In the MMO Trinity, a tank that cannot hold aggro is known as a fail tank. As in they are failing to tank and keep threat off of DPS and healers. Are you new to MMOs or something? Is STO, a MMO where the Trinity doesn't properly apply, the only one you've played?
You, uh, pretty much said everything I would have said, and more.
You're in the wrong genre, that definition doesn't apply.
The world cleavage has a number different definitions, and if you're talking about women the geological, embryology, or chemical definition is irrelevant.
If you fail to hold aggro in an MMO when you're supposed to be the tank, then you're a failure at tanking (and will probably suffer through some angry messages from the DPSers and healers in your team).
Not in a game, where everyone has infinite lives per mission, while others may die, I can obtain constant pressure on said cube, and yes even my sub-par 10k dps is enough to retain agro.
As I have stated elsewhere (and I think in this thread as well?), regardless of if it was a good idea to introduce the build, it's now a cornerstone of many people's builds, introducing necessary options. Removing an option is always the very last thing that should be done, after introducing alternatives.
See, this is the sort of thing I have no issues with. It doesn't outright remove an option from the game, it's a power tweak.
I have no objections to that - my objection has always been to the people whining that it's OP (in spite of the most powerful builds not using it) and wanting it removed. I remember Escorts Online. I also remember thinking that it's not very Trek, but flew an escort anyway because I wanted to contribute my fair share to a team. (I'm currently not in an escort nor an Aux2Bat ship, my primary being a JHDC that does an average of 25k regardless of team composition.)
Highest Threat retains aggro. Threat is DPS * Threat Mod. I've inadvertently "tanked" almost an entire ISE more than once, eating 80% of the damage dealt. In spite of two -Threat consoles and no ranks in Threat Control.
Tell that to my lower than 10k build, which can hold agro at times, as much as 90%.
As I have said before, your standards are different. Again, the arithmetic mode for DPS (according to compiled statistics from submitted logs, the only data players actually have on performance) is 10k. You make the inference that we should not be able to "net an easy 10k+ dps, tank the cube, and not die once, all while using no armor consoles, nor using any fleet related gear" all at once, nor all that often. The thing is, you claim this is possible only through Aux2Bat when it's actually the standard we expect from a decent ship. Again, it is the arithmetic mode of performance.
Compiled statistics by whom?
Player's who assume this is the golden standard, and is required?
Not quite!!!
My claims of doing so with aux2batt, was to show how this vessel should in fact, never be able to achieve such a task, with use of single copy skills constantly being effected, by a 30% cd reduction from aux2batt, being doffed by techs.
It should suffer some means of performance degradation, in favor of boff slots needed to double up skills with reliance on doffs possibly to reduce those cds, and not as broad of capability such as aux2batt brings.
This is what the ship was designed to do, now with doffed aux2batt, I can go outside of the original design parameters, and truly have a mutli-purpose vessel with virtually no sacrifices.
How are you able to say that your ship does 10k DPS if you're not using a parser? If you're using a parser, how do you not know what statistics I'm talking about?
Comments
Dunno, I find a HE1 with 900-1k per Sec a very strong hull-heal, not to mention +resistence
Traits should do no more than change the look of your ship....and THEN only under certain circumstances!!! and pulllleeze set powers??? this aint wizards and warlocks!!! its a space flight game for cryin out loud! everything that isnt presently answered by existing sound science should be nerfed to total uselesness!! and personally to stop this POWER CREEP (whoever that is) all levels need to be taken back to 40 and no ship should be above a tier 3!! lets get real here folks!
:P
This post is rather incoherent, and you contradict yourself at times. Perhaps you should take a moment and come up with a coherent argument instead of flustered blustering?
Once again, you continue to insist that you don't need to establish your credibility by demonstrating your expertise or provide any evidence to support your assertions, which are based upon suppositions that are contrary to commonly accepted knowledge.
Clearly just saying "Your [sic] TRIBBLE!" without being able to provide any actual supported counter-arguments means you win. Congratulations.
Ummm... Aux2Batt is one of only a few boff powers that do have a downside. You give up your Aux power to boost your other subsystems for a smaller net gain than an equivalent seat EP2x, which could actually be accomplished by slotting an EP2x (with its secondary bonuses as well) and making use of the Save capability in your power presets. Otherwise, the only other powers I can think of that have built in detriments are Beam: Fire at Will (uninterruptible and random, which is kind of the point), Boarding Party (crew loss if they can't return), and Subsystem Targeting (reduced base damage).
Doffed it's nice, but the power itself is... not wonderful.
currently, if you're using two copies of A2B and have skill points setup a certain way, you actually get to keep your aux power. That's why I'm for capping aux at 5 for the duration of aux to batt. DDIS has another idea of instantly regaining the aux power. Either one might work, IDK, but right now it is wonkey and there is no down side.
+1 to this.
If Aux was capped at 5 for the duration of Aux2bat (this is outside of using EPtA, Plasmonic leech, or Energy Siphon), it would go a long way towards fixing dual aux2bat setups.
I would say cap it...period. AtB active...then your Aux is 5 max, nothing will take it above that.
The wonky power thing with Aux2Batt definitely is a bug. My guess is that it stems from the way the power was implemented, calculating Aux drain and power bonuses at the time of activation. The idea DDIS suggested is one solution, and probably the easiest since it's already an instant drain. Setting the ability to a persistent power transfer and bonus while it is active might also work, and enforce more thought when throwing Aux heals/powers between activations of Aux2Batt. An artificial power cap would actually cause Aux2Batt to drain more net power than it returns (when cycled), which would make the already bad base ability even worse...
I'm all for making things work as advertised (i.e. fixing the wonky Aux power), as well as introducing alternatives and disincentives (other useful cooldown/duration doffs, T4 Nukara Rep), but I'm not generally a fan of nerfing things so that they don't have a purpose. Aux2Batt already serves little to no purpose without Technicians; thus my argument against a direct nerf to either Aux2Batt or Technicians. They already nerfed the availability of Technicians with the Cluster map removal and longer reset timers for the Cluster interacts (specifically B'Tran as far as Technicians).
Maybe an increase in the availability of useful alternatives would help. I'd suggest adding more options as far as doffs from CXP rewards... and maybe *cough* adding a Counselor or two the KDF list while they're at it*. This would allow players more options to obtain Team, Attack Pattern, Aux2Damp, etc. doffs while adding additional places for players to spend dilithium... a win-win. Improving other cooldown doffs to actually work, rather than possibly work, would also help provide competitors to the Aux2Batt Technicians.
*(Yes, KDF Counselor doffs do exist in-game, they are just incredibly hard to find. Klingon Warriors seem to benefit from having a socially acceptable outlet for their violent urges.)
:cool:
Not really.
It is just a game, one of many, the more complex a game is, the more "bugs" come up. If it is a worthwhile game, it all gets adjusted in the long run.
I did not want to get into a long crypticaly (no pun intended) complicated discusion replete with advanced statistical math, charts, interrim discussions, elite lexiconic depredations upon others' seeming lack of skill in discussions, and honest but split-haired inquiries and complaints.
I said what I did in perhaps a silly way to illustrate how easily we can get carried away in all of this.
in the end, amidst unintended consequences of overlapping complexity in coding, players and developers misconceptions and those of us burdened with more than our normal share of OCD...
It is just a game. One of many, have fun!
You yourself, constantly have contradicted anything you say as well, so touch
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
The real reasons to keep a2b the way it is
...and...
The real reasons to nerf a2b
...covering opposing viewpoints in their respective original posts, but a similar line of discussion otherwise. If you're on the fence, look through these as well, since there are valid arguments for both positions. I'll keep my discussion here since this thread popped up first :P
The developers do have to worry about gameplay balance- but there are other builds that match the practical effects of A2B by duplicating tac powers through other means. Those builds have a higher cost- both in the raw expense of the doffs required, and in the cost of using more than three active doff slots on them. But those builds exist, and create the same balance issues.
So an A2B nerf might reduce the average damage of the average player (though I'm not sure it would even do that), but the high DPS cat is out of the bag.
First off, my English is perfectly fine.
We both want it our way, however yours does not need to be kept as is.
3rd, your notion of a tank needing to hold agro, is utter bs, and not necessary.
You forget, that a tank can simply refer to one who can outlast incoming damage, so just because a tank built cruiser cannot keep agro, does not mean it is useless, nor not providing any help albeit even if the dps, is slightly lower than normal.
I never said all cruisers are tank role only, there are tac capable cruisers, it's just you assume all are weak tac capable vessels.
The afore mentioned oddy, sitting there tanking a tac cube, was a eng heavy build, with 1 copy of of bfaw + apb + TT, all else was 2 copies aux2batt, 1ep2s, 1et, 1st, 1he, 1rsp, 1dem(pvp) 1ep2w(pve).
That was all that was needed to net an easy 10k+ dps, tank the cube, and not die once, all while using no armor consoles, nor using any fleet related gear.
I found this build to be a cheap, exploitable, and vastly OP.
You should not, even be able to do all of those things, that often, it should have more limits, but not with aux2batt!
Again it needs a fix, and you trying to say it doesn't, isn't going to change the fact it does.
You haven't shown, good enough reason for it to stay put.
And haven't offered any alternatives either.
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
Contradiction #1
You yourself state aux2batt on certain ships, helps bring them up to par.
Yet here you state it hurts escorts, and sci ships, yet people have proven it can, and does work!
Contradiction #2
Here you state why should they be forced to play a different way, yet by your own definition throughout this thread, you have stated they require aux2batt, to be useful.
So by your own definition, they must play this way, and this way only!
Thought I would highlight the red areas, so you can get a feel, for how dumb these words mean.
Red#1 So what you are trying to say, is there does not need be any balance in this game, and that no1 posts about the need for it?
Red#2 You state that without aux2batt, they are meant to be useless, yet this is only your own opinion, and not actual fact, that they can provide some form of assistance to a team.
Red#3 You state pve is not a measure of dps performance, yet to counter argue that weaker ships need aux2batt to perform here, and cannot perform in pvp with it, so which is it?
Red#4 You state a tank must be able to hold agro, to be well a tank.
Yet you never mention here that a tank can in fact, be called a tank by simply outhealing incoming dps.
And than you state they would be good for nothing, besides looking pretty, hmm even a 1k dps ship is still offering up 1k dps to the team's goal.
So I wouldn't call them useless, nor having to sit there looking pretty, but again this is your own opinion as to the value, of someone looking to run a non-aux2batt vessel such as the ones you describe.
Red#5 You know as well as I do, this is utter redundancy, because the loss of auxpwr can be re-obtained quickly, even on its own with 2 copies of aux2batt.
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
It may not need to be kept as is, but it need not be changed either. Any alteration to the game requires dev time and introduces the potential for additional bugs or further imbalances (intended or otherwise) to the game, even if successfully implemented. You both want it your way, but yours is the one that alters the gameplay mechanics from their current state, so leaving it as is would be the most probable outcome.
The common definition of a Tank (gaming) does actually require holding aggro. If you can outlast incoming damage, but are not holding enough aggro to actually be targeted for incoming damage, you are not tanking. True, they can also fill a DPS or healer role depending on build and individual vessel. Aux2Batt w/Technicians actually provides additional options for the DPS role, and in some cases the tank role... it should be avoided at all costs for a dedicated healer or support role.
If it really was the old Dragon build, it wasn't Aux2Batt w/Technicians.
Change without good reasons, while counter-arguments and alternate suggestions were offered, is why many are displeased with the current doffing UI and aspects of the crafting system.
Something that works does not necessarily work well, nor does that mean it works or does not work on everything in every role. That isn't really a contradiction.
Someone's opinion of how useful something is or is not will not force someone else to take a given action. You can still use alternative builds that do not work as well for that given ship if you so choose, because Aux2Batt w/Technicians is an option. There is currently no ship that has Aux2Batt as a required boff ability, though there are ships that benefit from using Aux2Batt w/Technicians. There is a difference between an opinion and forcing a player to play in a certain manner. Like trying to force other players not to use Aux2Batt w/Technicians.
That post (well, chunk thereof) did actually argue for balance. It merely argued against threads asking for things that work well to be nerfed because they work well, rather than asking for things that do not work well to be improved. It's like all those threads in the KDF Shipyards section that ask for more ships; they never ask for the removal of Federation ships from the game, even though the Federation has far more ship options than the KDF... they simply ask for more KDF ships. They are positive arguments, asking for something, rather than negative ones asking to take something away because someone else has it.
I think that was sarcasm you were referring to.
That was just a snarky :rolleyes: comment on your playing habits. Responding to it gives it more credit than it was due.
If the tank isn't holding aggro, it isn't receiving incoming DPS, therefore isn't tanking. See the above link to and quote of the common definition of tanking as it pertains to gaming. What you describe is a healer keeping themself alive until they can go back to supporting the team. Not useless, but not a tank.
There is actually a problem with Aux2Batt. It isn't re-obtaining power that's the problem, though; recovery requires investment in EPS skill, an appropriate Core and possibly consoles, or even a consumable or ability. The issue with Aux2Batt is the wonky Aux power and bonuses, which should be fixed. DDIS, virusdancer, and I have all made differing suggestions of how this could be done; while I have concerns that the hard cap virusdancer suggested would further bug the performance of Aux2Batt, I do agree that a stable cost in Aux power and a stable bonus for the other subsystems should be applied.
In real-time strategy games the role of a tank unit is to provide a health buffer for weaker ranged classes. Frequently maneuvering or other tactics are used by the tank to make themselves the most tempting or highest-priority target of enemy attacks, thereby diverting enemy attacks away from allies
You forgot to include this info, as it can pertain to both pve, and pvp.
Holding agro, isn't the only way to tank.
And no that described build, isn't called by any name, it was a simple thrown together one, that I clearly stated.
Was IMO, and utter cheap exploit build, taking something that was never initially intended, and pushing it beyond the boundaries, of its original design.
Even the Dev's agree, aux2batt doffs are quite literally, a bad inception.
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
The hard cap at 5 would prevent the rare 0 Aux issues, since you couldn't have buffed Aux expire at the wrong time during AtB cycles. I usually only see the 0 Aux, if I see it, when there's nothing left to shoot at...Leech expires...eat the 0 Aux for 10s. Might see it at the end of the left side of an ISE before heading right...might not.
As is, the 4/5 Aux tends to be 14/15 Aux because of EPS Manifold from EPtX activations. So it's almost never 4/5.
By capping it at 5, it would prevent there being any power benefit from the AtB itself for somebody spamming it. They'd have to wait those 3-5s or so between activations if they wanted that benefit. The instant return of power would just mean somebody had to wait a sec between activations, and then they could have the full benefit of both the Tech DOFFs and AtB.
In the end, it still kind of looks backward, eh? Well, imho, it kind of looks backward - when looking at Tech DOFFs and AtB.
Usually you have the BOFF ability itself which provides the main benefit and then the DOFF that adds a little pizazz to it.
It's almost like the Tech DOFFs should be the BOFF ability and the AtB ability should be what happens with the DOFFs...
Techician 1, Technician 2...drains Aux to 5 in order to reduce ability CD.
AtB DOFFs...on use of the Technician BOFF ability, provides a boost to Weapons, Shields, and Engine based on the amount of Aux drained by the Technician BOFF ability.
Course, much like folks would look at you funny if you suggested they use AtB without the Tech DOFFs...folks would probably look at you funny if you suggested using those imaginary AtB DOFFs with the imaginary Tech BOFF ability.
It's kind of where you start doing that comparison between the Photonic Officer BOFF ability with some Pho DOFFs to AtB and Tech DOFFs, eh?
Not to throw this off subject virus, but IMO the whole name aux2batt, smells like it should have provided a power boost, like it does currently, but the tech doffs cd reduction should effect battery timers, and not boff skills.
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
All in all, though, if you aren't being shot at in place of your squishier allies, you are not tanking.
Sorry, I misinterpreted your response about the build being a response to this... ...part of what was quoted.
Fair enough, but as the devs have also said it's a "third-rail" subject. This means that is shouldn't be addressed without careful consideration and a far more delicate touch than they are generally inclined to. This is probably due to a combination of 1) not aggravating players that bought doff packs or ground for Technicians, and 2) not overcorrecting and creating a sudden and unintended balance shift. If they continue to implement alternatives like the Team, Attack Pattern, and Aux2Damp doffs and add more disincentives like the T4 Nukara Rep bonuses and Fleet Warp Core power levels, they can maintain the delicate fixes that diminish the value of Aux2Batt w/Technicians indirectly over time.
The wonky power levels, though... that needs a fix.
I think A2Bat "haters" forget one thing, not all missions in STO are done with a team.
Sometimes you are on your own, without A2Bat some ships are simply lame. (couldn't find another word, sry)
Why nerf other ppls ships in the first place?
If you don't like A2B then please don't use it, but don't ruin other ppls game just because you are jealous because they can reach higher DPS numbers than you.
I understand the point that A2B can be OP, that's not the question.
The energy bonus should be eliminated IMO. But the CD reduction is what makes some ships work.
Sure in a Stone/Paper/Scissor -World there would be no need for A2B but STO is a Star Trek game and some ppl want to fly the ships they like they way they should be.
The (un)-holy trinity is dead, thankfully and there had to be some way to put cruisers out of the "teethless brick" corner. A2B is the best way to do that, or they could change some cruisers BHOFF layouts, but that would be much work IMO.
Personally i try to avoid AtB whenever possible, but to be blunt some ships are just unplayable without.
Why isn't it the simple...
If you've got ten things, and add an 11th...
...if the 11th does not perform as well as the other 10, then it is underpowered and needs a buff.
...if the 11th performs much better than the other 10, then it is overpowered and needs a nerf.
Cause, it's really that simple.
The problem with this notion, is in pve.
Highest dps, does not always retain agro either.
I have had agro the entire time simply by using cheese spam, or even using a moderate dps ship.
So in actuality, even a straight up eng heavy vessel, with little to no tac skills, can still obtain agro well.
Also it doesn't hurt for the other team mates, to actually back off from time to time, and not keep pounding away.
This is usually why I find Tac heavy player's, get vaped easily by the Borg.
No, all ships with few tac slots, are not unplayable without aux2batt.
It is merely a choice that you, and other's have deemed them worthless, and not the choice of every player in this game.
This isn't just about cruisers either, as there are many ships that can use aux2batt, and they don't even require it either, but people still use it for 1 purpose, that is to reduce all boff skills cds.
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
Yeah, fair point. My concerns are mostly from the mechanics aspect of how Aux2Batt calculates; if the power has a hard cap of 5, then goes into recovery, current cooldown cycles would leave it calculating bonus power off of that 5 hard cap + your recovery rate*activation gap. You'd end up with a boff ability, that as designed, would actually have a negative effect on your ship power... your Aux power would cap at 5 no matter what, but the bonus and transferred amounts would be limited to what is available on activation. Thus my personal preference for a sustained transfer + bonus over either the hard cap you suggest or the instant recovery (soft cap mechanic) DDIS suggests; it would leave the recovery time in between activations in place without simply discarding ship power behind a hard cap. Of course, that's also probably harder to implement.
I do agree that it's kind of sad we end up spending so much time discussing Aux2Batt when it's the Technicians that introduce balancing issues. Really, it feels like Technicians work the way Photonic Officer should have: sort of an alternative version of Tactical Initiative. Then again, looking at the current state of things I almost have to wonder if the new traits, increased power levels, and alternative doffs have been added in as a fully intentional plan to gradually balance out Aux2Batt w/Technicians. If so, I'm impressed.
Yeah I wish it was that simple, but the Dev's like to put carrots out in front of us, simply so we will jump on it with $$$$.
Than nerf some things, with the intention of game balance, but leave other things to remain exploitable.
All while thinking, of how enraged player's will become, if they did nerf it.
What could they possibly fear from doing this?
It's not like they don't already go about doing so, heck they have pissed off many of player's, and so far the backlash hasn't done a damn thing.
With all of the new doff additions/changes they have done, they can easily negate the whole aux2batt/tech TRIBBLE, and find a better solution for this problem, while still allowing some wiggle room for doff cd capability.
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
You have got to be kidding me. Are you serious?!
In the MMO Trinity, a tank that cannot hold aggro is known as a fail tank. As in they are failing to tank and keep threat off of DPS and healers. Are you new to MMOs or something? Is STO, a MMO where the Trinity doesn't properly apply, the only one you've played?
You, uh, pretty much said everything I would have said, and more.
You're in the wrong genre, that definition doesn't apply.
The world cleavage has a number different definitions, and if you're talking about women the geological, embryology, or chemical definition is irrelevant.
If you fail to hold aggro in an MMO when you're supposed to be the tank, then you're a failure at tanking (and will probably suffer through some angry messages from the DPSers and healers in your team).
As I have stated elsewhere (and I think in this thread as well?), regardless of if it was a good idea to introduce the build, it's now a cornerstone of many people's builds, introducing necessary options. Removing an option is always the very last thing that should be done, after introducing alternatives.
See, this is the sort of thing I have no issues with. It doesn't outright remove an option from the game, it's a power tweak.
I have no objections to that - my objection has always been to the people whining that it's OP (in spite of the most powerful builds not using it) and wanting it removed. I remember Escorts Online. I also remember thinking that it's not very Trek, but flew an escort anyway because I wanted to contribute my fair share to a team. (I'm currently not in an escort nor an Aux2Bat ship, my primary being a JHDC that does an average of 25k regardless of team composition.)
Highest Threat retains aggro. Threat is DPS * Threat Mod. I've inadvertently "tanked" almost an entire ISE more than once, eating 80% of the damage dealt. In spite of two -Threat consoles and no ranks in Threat Control.
As I have said before, your standards are different. Again, the arithmetic mode for DPS (according to compiled statistics from submitted logs, the only data players actually have on performance) is 10k. You make the inference that we should not be able to "net an easy 10k+ dps, tank the cube, and not die once, all while using no armor consoles, nor using any fleet related gear" all at once, nor all that often. The thing is, you claim this is possible only through Aux2Bat when it's actually the standard we expect from a decent ship. Again, it is the arithmetic mode of performance.
Yeah, I was thinking last night after my last post. If there is a hard cap at 5 ( I'm a fan of it btw) then power needs to be instantly recovered or there will be no power boost for the next iteration. That would, at least, make A2B consistent in how it works.
I really think this bug needs to be fixed first, then see what to do next, if anything needs to be done.
Compiled statistics by whom?
Player's who assume this is the golden standard, and is required?
Not quite!!!
My claims of doing so with aux2batt, was to show how this vessel should in fact, never be able to achieve such a task, with use of single copy skills constantly being effected, by a 30% cd reduction from aux2batt, being doffed by techs.
It should suffer some means of performance degradation, in favor of boff slots needed to double up skills with reliance on doffs possibly to reduce those cds, and not as broad of capability such as aux2batt brings.
This is what the ship was designed to do, now with doffed aux2batt, I can go outside of the original design parameters, and truly have a mutli-purpose vessel with virtually no sacrifices.
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
Again, different definitions of what is par.
How are you able to say that your ship does 10k DPS if you're not using a parser? If you're using a parser, how do you not know what statistics I'm talking about?