test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

So how badly does this nerf the Shotgun and TR-116?

Noted this in the patch notes:

•Ranged weapons that deal Physical Damage are no longer enhanced by the +% Physical Damage mod on the Counter-Command Exo-Armor, Solanae Sentinel Environmental Suit, and many other armors. ◦This mod only affects Melee weapons/attacks.

Just from that, it appears to time to switch back to energy weapons as the projectile ones were sort of marginal (but useable) except vs. Borg anyway. Is my impression correct?
«1

Comments

  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 37,284 Arc User
    it doesn't affect the TR at all because that deals kinetic damage, not physical​​
    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    #LegalizeAwoo

    A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
    An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
    A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
    A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"


    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
    "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.
  • ssbn655ssbn655 Member Posts: 1,894 Arc User
    edited December 2015
    Shouldn't affect the shotgun either as its kinetic as well. And I disagree with the shotgun being marginal except for borgs. Upgrade it and oh boy its very useful love that knockback that cant be countered.
  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 37,284 Arc User
    no, the shotgun is actually physical, as seen below

    Zefram_Cochrane_Shotgun_Info.png

    which is likely why they even bothered to make that change to the armor and EV suits in the first place​​
    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    #LegalizeAwoo

    A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
    An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
    A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
    A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"


    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
    "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.
  • scrooge69scrooge69 Member Posts: 1,108 Arc User
    well in fact the bonbuses that boosted energy weapons applyed to the TR aswell and thats fixed now

    BUT thats no nerv, it didnt work as intended b4
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • risian4risian4 Member Posts: 3,711 Arc User
    edited December 2015
    I hope it hits them hard. Hehehe.

    Seriously though, a single weapon shouldn't have only advantages and no disadvantages over all other weapons of it's type and render entire damage types and special weapons obsolete. When it does have these advantages it doesn't need to benefit from even more buffs.

    A few days ago I saw someone kill about a third of an Elite drone with that rifle in a single shot. I assume this person was using the armour buffs cause he was a Sci so there's not many other things that could have buffed his damage the way it did. Good that it's fixed.
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    I never even knew those boosted it. Who cares, game's easy.

    And they're still the best for Borg since no remodulator needed.
  • lianthelialianthelia Member Posts: 7,921 Arc User
    So...is this bug why people claim the shotgun is so good? I tried it out and it seemed lack luster...but then again I guess I wasn't exploiting a bug.
  • questeriusquesterius Member Posts: 8,708 Arc User
    edited December 2015
    lianthelia wrote: »
    So...is this bug why people claim the shotgun is so good? I tried it out and it seemed lack luster...but then again I guess I wasn't exploiting a bug.

    There were two reasons: 1 The shotgun deals shield penetrating damage 2. Till recently there was an unintended side effect from a trait that allowed physical damage from the shotgun to heal the player.

    Personally i only use the TR and shotgun against the Borg and Elachi. Against other type of opponents split beam rifles are usually more effective.

    Edit: 3 reasons. The Borg don't adapt to it.​​
    This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
  • This content has been removed.
  • drakethewhitedrakethewhite Member Posts: 1,240 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    Seriously people...since when are BUG FIXES nerfs? Do you all speak the same language as the rest of us? Because see, we, the normal sane people call things that aren't working right getting fixed a bug fix...not a nerf.

    You're view of how the language is used is incorrect.

    If you release software with a bug, acknowledge it when it's found, and fix it in a timely matter (days or weeks). It's a bug fix.

    If you don't acknowledge, allow it to exist for months or years and it becomes part of accepted game play- and then 'fixing it' and claiming it's a 'bug' means you're incompetent and/or a liar. Instead that's called a nerf.

    Cryptic has only itself to blame for how people perceive it. It they took bug fixes seriously, things like this wouldn't happen.
  • This content has been removed.
  • lianthelialianthelia Member Posts: 7,921 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    Seriously people...since when are BUG FIXES nerfs? Do you all speak the same language as the rest of us? Because see, we, the normal sane people call things that aren't working right getting fixed a bug fix...not a nerf.

    The entitlement is strong in this community!
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    Seriously people...since when are BUG FIXES nerfs? Do you all speak the same language as the rest of us? Because see, we, the normal sane people call things that aren't working right getting fixed a bug fix...not a nerf.

    You're view of how the language is used is incorrect.

    If you release software with a bug, acknowledge it when it's found, and fix it in a timely matter (days or weeks). It's a bug fix.

    If you don't acknowledge, allow it to exist for months or years and it becomes part of accepted game play- and then 'fixing it' and claiming it's a 'bug' means you're incompetent and/or a liar. Instead that's called a nerf.

    Cryptic has only itself to blame for how people perceive it. It they took bug fixes seriously, things like this wouldn't happen.

    Or it's a bug and you shouldn't exploit it? People are lucky they don't get banned for exploiting the bugs of this game...Cryptic does this all the time...there is a bug and if it takes a while to fix and more and more start to exploit it and it gets fixed.

    If *ANYONE* is to blame it's the people who exploit the bugs then call it a nerf when it is finally fixed...

    Here is a wild thought! Stop exploiting bugs that add broken power to your DPS...because you know one day they're likely to get fixed...if anyone is to blame it's exploiters...should get suspensions or bans but you're lucky you all get away scott free.
  • breadandcircusesbreadandcircuses Member Posts: 2,355 Arc User
    edited December 2015
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    Seriously people...since when are BUG FIXES nerfs? Do you all speak the same language as the rest of us? Because see, we, the normal sane people call things that aren't working right getting fixed a bug fix...not a nerf.

    You're view of how the language is used is incorrect.

    If you release software with a bug, acknowledge it when it's found, and fix it in a timely matter (days or weeks). It's a bug fix.

    If you don't acknowledge, allow it to exist for months or years and it becomes part of accepted game play- and then 'fixing it' and claiming it's a 'bug' means you're incompetent and/or a liar. Instead that's called a nerf.

    Cryptic has only itself to blame for how people perceive it. It they took bug fixes seriously, things like this wouldn't happen.

    Umm...no. If it isn't working as it should be, no matter WHEN they fix it, it's a bug fix. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that bug fixes can somehow happen magically overnight. There are MILLIONS...possibly BILLIONS of lines of code in a game like this. You think that something going wrong can be tracked down and fixed in DAYS with a dev crew of a couple dozen at best?!? You are lucky anything gets fixed at all with how much legacy code this game has (and in fact the string of them causing more bugs as they try and fix them a while back is proof how this works). Hell WoW with it's whole other stratosphere size of a dev team have bugs that last more then your maximiun define time frame of weeks. Hell, they have bugs that are YEARS old...just like this game. Cryptic has absolutely ZERO blame in this case. The blame is entirely on YOU because you are an unreasonable person who has zero concept of what programming is like. So yeah...learn the language of normal sane people...or you can spout off and just prove how much more crazy, insane and unreasonable you can be. Go ahead...I love it when people just string themselves up to be hanged by their own rope.

    It wasn't really a bug.
    • Item does x damage type.
    • Item boosts x damage type.
    • x damage type is boosted by boost to x damage type.
    • Bugged?

    Take the Nanopulse weapons available currently from the Winter Event. They do Plasma Damage, and are boosted by +% Plasma Damage from the approprtiate equipment, traits, bonuses, etc. They are unique weapons, with a damage type otherwise unavailable on that type of weapon, and receive bonuses appropriate to that damage type.

    Shotguns don't anymore. You could argue either way whether +% Physical Damage bonuses make sense (yes, being stronger means you can handle more recoil and therefore more forceful shots; no, being stronger doesn't make the gun shoot harder), but this was a nerf because recent +% Physical Damage additions (adding the Terran 2-piece to existing CC/Physical Augmentation Armor) made the Shotgun more powerful than intended. Nothing about the actual mechanics was working differently than designed (a bug), just intended (balance).

    At the very least they updated that appropriate tooltips so that they actually say +% Physical Damage (Melee Only), so that these items are doing what they say they are doing, though.
    Ym9x9Ji.png
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    I do not like Geko ether.
    iconians wrote: »
    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.​​
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    Seriously people...since when are BUG FIXES nerfs? Do you all speak the same language as the rest of us? Because see, we, the normal sane people call things that aren't working right getting fixed a bug fix...not a nerf.

    You're view of how the language is used is incorrect.

    If you release software with a bug, acknowledge it when it's found, and fix it in a timely matter (days or weeks). It's a bug fix.

    If you don't acknowledge, allow it to exist for months or years and it becomes part of accepted game play- and then 'fixing it' and claiming it's a 'bug' means you're incompetent and/or a liar. Instead that's called a nerf.

    Cryptic has only itself to blame for how people perceive it. It they took bug fixes seriously, things like this wouldn't happen.

    Umm...no. If it isn't working as it should be, no matter WHEN they fix it, it's a bug fix. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that bug fixes can somehow happen magically overnight. There are MILLIONS...possibly BILLIONS of lines of code in a game like this. You think that something going wrong can be tracked down and fixed in DAYS with a dev crew of a couple dozen at best?!? You are lucky anything gets fixed at all with how much legacy code this game has (and in fact the string of them causing more bugs as they try and fix them a while back is proof how this works). Hell WoW with it's whole other stratosphere size of a dev team have bugs that last more then your maximiun define time frame of weeks. Hell, they have bugs that are YEARS old...just like this game. Cryptic has absolutely ZERO blame in this case. The blame is entirely on YOU because you are an unreasonable person who has zero concept of what programming is like. So yeah...learn the language of normal sane people...or you can spout off and just prove how much more crazy, insane and unreasonable you can be. Go ahead...I love it when people just string themselves up to be hanged by their own rope.

    It wasn't really a bug.
    • Item does x damage type.
    • Item boosts x damage type.
    • x damage type is boosted by boost to x damage type.
    • Bugged?
    I think that's pretty much a bug, still. Most bugs are usually unintended side effects like this. They wanted the weapon to deal physical damage, they didn't want it to be buffed by stuff that was supposed to boost melee attacks, nor stuff to be triggered by it that was supposed to be triggered by melee attacks.
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • breadandcircusesbreadandcircuses Member Posts: 2,355 Arc User
    edited December 2015
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    Seriously people...since when are BUG FIXES nerfs? Do you all speak the same language as the rest of us? Because see, we, the normal sane people call things that aren't working right getting fixed a bug fix...not a nerf.

    You're view of how the language is used is incorrect.

    If you release software with a bug, acknowledge it when it's found, and fix it in a timely matter (days or weeks). It's a bug fix.

    If you don't acknowledge, allow it to exist for months or years and it becomes part of accepted game play- and then 'fixing it' and claiming it's a 'bug' means you're incompetent and/or a liar. Instead that's called a nerf.

    Cryptic has only itself to blame for how people perceive it. It they took bug fixes seriously, things like this wouldn't happen.

    Umm...no. If it isn't working as it should be, no matter WHEN they fix it, it's a bug fix. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that bug fixes can somehow happen magically overnight. There are MILLIONS...possibly BILLIONS of lines of code in a game like this. You think that something going wrong can be tracked down and fixed in DAYS with a dev crew of a couple dozen at best?!? You are lucky anything gets fixed at all with how much legacy code this game has (and in fact the string of them causing more bugs as they try and fix them a while back is proof how this works). Hell WoW with it's whole other stratosphere size of a dev team have bugs that last more then your maximiun define time frame of weeks. Hell, they have bugs that are YEARS old...just like this game. Cryptic has absolutely ZERO blame in this case. The blame is entirely on YOU because you are an unreasonable person who has zero concept of what programming is like. So yeah...learn the language of normal sane people...or you can spout off and just prove how much more crazy, insane and unreasonable you can be. Go ahead...I love it when people just string themselves up to be hanged by their own rope.

    It wasn't really a bug.
    • Item does x damage type.
    • Item boosts x damage type.
    • x damage type is boosted by boost to x damage type.
    • Bugged?
    I think that's pretty much a bug, still. Most bugs are usually unintended side effects like this. They wanted the weapon to deal physical damage, they didn't want it to be buffed by stuff that was supposed to boost melee attacks, nor stuff to be triggered by it that was supposed to be triggered by melee attacks.

    Eh, I've always interpreted the term "bug" as referring to things going wrong from an actual error in coding, in a functional manner rather than in judgement or foresight on the designer's part. This was always functioning as it was written and designed to, it merely worked better than intended in the long run and got a nerf to put it in check.

    So a bug can include telling the software to do something that it turns out you really didn't want it to do?
    Ym9x9Ji.png
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    I do not like Geko ether.
    iconians wrote: »
    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.​​
  • This content has been removed.
  • breadandcircusesbreadandcircuses Member Posts: 2,355 Arc User
    edited December 2015
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    So a bug can include telling the software to do something that it turns out you really didn't want it to do?

    Umm...yeah. Wow...people really don't know how programming works it seems. The +damage to physical mod was something that was in place before these two weapons. The fact that did not realize that this would interact with these new weapons is indeed an oversight on their part...but since that was not the intent of how these items were to work together, it is a bug.

    Apparently... yes.

    As you say, the +% Physical Damage existed before the Shotgun, so coding it as Physical Damage knowing that +% Physical Damage applies to the Physical Damage type qualifies as a bug if it turns out later that the devs didn't want the damage bonus to apply? Using that logic, the Finish Now button exists in the R&D system, so clicking that button knowing that it will Finish Now and cost dilithium qualifies as a bug if it turns out later that the player didn't want to spend the dilithium? Is the difference that one person is doing coding work and the other is an end-user?
    Ym9x9Ji.png
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    I do not like Geko ether.
    iconians wrote: »
    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.​​
  • This content has been removed.
  • breadandcircusesbreadandcircuses Member Posts: 2,355 Arc User
    edited December 2015
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    So a bug can include telling the software to do something that it turns out you really didn't want it to do?

    Umm...yeah. Wow...people really don't know how programming works it seems. The +damage to physical mod was something that was in place before these two weapons. The fact that did not realize that this would interact with these new weapons is indeed an oversight on their part...but since that was not the intent of how these items were to work together, it is a bug.

    Apparently... yes.

    As you say, the +% Physical Damage existed before the Shotgun, so coding it as Physical Damage knowing that +% Physical Damage applies to the Physical Damage type qualifies as a bug if it turns out later that the devs didn't want the damage bonus to apply? Using that logic, the Finish Now button exists in the R&D system, so clicking that button knowing that it will Finish Now and cost dilithium qualifies as a bug if it turns out later that the player didn't want to spend the dilithium? Is the difference that one person is doing coding work and the other is an end-user?

    Really?!? I'm not even gonna justify this stupidity with a real answer. You are just trying to rules lawyer your way out now. Sorry, but nobody likes a rules lawyer...even other other rules lawyer.

    Hey now, I really am looking for clarification, no need to get insulting. I've carefully avoided that in responding to your posts and I'd appreciate the same courtesy. It just seems that the terms "balance pass" or "nerf" more appropriately apply, but if the term "bug" applies to all errors in both code and judgement so long as it is on the part of a developer... then okay.
    Ym9x9Ji.png
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    I do not like Geko ether.
    iconians wrote: »
    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.​​
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    edited December 2015
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    Seriously people...since when are BUG FIXES nerfs? Do you all speak the same language as the rest of us? Because see, we, the normal sane people call things that aren't working right getting fixed a bug fix...not a nerf.

    You're view of how the language is used is incorrect.

    If you release software with a bug, acknowledge it when it's found, and fix it in a timely matter (days or weeks). It's a bug fix.

    If you don't acknowledge, allow it to exist for months or years and it becomes part of accepted game play- and then 'fixing it' and claiming it's a 'bug' means you're incompetent and/or a liar. Instead that's called a nerf.

    Cryptic has only itself to blame for how people perceive it. It they took bug fixes seriously, things like this wouldn't happen.

    Umm...no. If it isn't working as it should be, no matter WHEN they fix it, it's a bug fix. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that bug fixes can somehow happen magically overnight. There are MILLIONS...possibly BILLIONS of lines of code in a game like this. You think that something going wrong can be tracked down and fixed in DAYS with a dev crew of a couple dozen at best?!? You are lucky anything gets fixed at all with how much legacy code this game has (and in fact the string of them causing more bugs as they try and fix them a while back is proof how this works). Hell WoW with it's whole other stratosphere size of a dev team have bugs that last more then your maximiun define time frame of weeks. Hell, they have bugs that are YEARS old...just like this game. Cryptic has absolutely ZERO blame in this case. The blame is entirely on YOU because you are an unreasonable person who has zero concept of what programming is like. So yeah...learn the language of normal sane people...or you can spout off and just prove how much more crazy, insane and unreasonable you can be. Go ahead...I love it when people just string themselves up to be hanged by their own rope.

    It wasn't really a bug.
    • Item does x damage type.
    • Item boosts x damage type.
    • x damage type is boosted by boost to x damage type.
    • Bugged?
    I think that's pretty much a bug, still. Most bugs are usually unintended side effects like this. They wanted the weapon to deal physical damage, they didn't want it to be buffed by stuff that was supposed to boost melee attacks, nor stuff to be triggered by it that was supposed to be triggered by melee attacks.

    Eh, I've always interpreted the term "bug" as referring to things going wrong from an actual error in coding, in a functional manner rather than in judgement or foresight on the designer's part. This was always functioning as it was written and designed to, it merely worked better than intended in the long run and got a nerf to put it in check.

    So a bug can include telling the software to do something that it turns out you really didn't want it to do?
    Lot's of bugs are usually oversights of something interacting in the wrong way.

    "Oh, of course, it's possible that this function returns a null pointer, and if I then ask the null-pointer to give me the value of his member variable, it will crash. Duh! I should probably put in a null-reference check, and just return null myself... Oh, wait, but if I do this, then the outer method will get a NULL and might cause a crash. And damn, why should that method return a null reference at all? Oh, so it does that because the whole outerlying method is called before we even initialized the underlying data structure it asks. Why does it do that? Oh, because we are triggering an event in this thread, and stay in this thread,but the main thread hasn't even run through the initialization methods yet, and the event should probably go through the message queue to be handled in the main thread... But if we do that and make it a non-blocking event, the rest of that method that is throwing the event can't work correctly, but if we block, we're sitting in the middle of a mutex that the main thread also needs to go through. Why are we even doing that other thing again? ... "

    (Of course, the mythology behind "Bug" as word is that of a bug crawling into one of those old vacuum tube computers and causing a short or something... Though that might be debunked ... In that it happened, but the term "bug" already was used then, and someone wrote that this meant that this might be the fist time a program failed literally due to a bug...)
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • coldnapalm was warned for this.
    This content has been removed.
  • breadandcircusesbreadandcircuses Member Posts: 2,355 Arc User
    edited December 2015
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    Seriously people...since when are BUG FIXES nerfs? Do you all speak the same language as the rest of us? Because see, we, the normal sane people call things that aren't working right getting fixed a bug fix...not a nerf.

    You're view of how the language is used is incorrect.

    If you release software with a bug, acknowledge it when it's found, and fix it in a timely matter (days or weeks). It's a bug fix.

    If you don't acknowledge, allow it to exist for months or years and it becomes part of accepted game play- and then 'fixing it' and claiming it's a 'bug' means you're incompetent and/or a liar. Instead that's called a nerf.

    Cryptic has only itself to blame for how people perceive it. It they took bug fixes seriously, things like this wouldn't happen.

    Umm...no. If it isn't working as it should be, no matter WHEN they fix it, it's a bug fix. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that bug fixes can somehow happen magically overnight. There are MILLIONS...possibly BILLIONS of lines of code in a game like this. You think that something going wrong can be tracked down and fixed in DAYS with a dev crew of a couple dozen at best?!? You are lucky anything gets fixed at all with how much legacy code this game has (and in fact the string of them causing more bugs as they try and fix them a while back is proof how this works). Hell WoW with it's whole other stratosphere size of a dev team have bugs that last more then your maximiun define time frame of weeks. Hell, they have bugs that are YEARS old...just like this game. Cryptic has absolutely ZERO blame in this case. The blame is entirely on YOU because you are an unreasonable person who has zero concept of what programming is like. So yeah...learn the language of normal sane people...or you can spout off and just prove how much more crazy, insane and unreasonable you can be. Go ahead...I love it when people just string themselves up to be hanged by their own rope.

    It wasn't really a bug.
    • Item does x damage type.
    • Item boosts x damage type.
    • x damage type is boosted by boost to x damage type.
    • Bugged?
    I think that's pretty much a bug, still. Most bugs are usually unintended side effects like this. They wanted the weapon to deal physical damage, they didn't want it to be buffed by stuff that was supposed to boost melee attacks, nor stuff to be triggered by it that was supposed to be triggered by melee attacks.

    Eh, I've always interpreted the term "bug" as referring to things going wrong from an actual error in coding, in a functional manner rather than in judgement or foresight on the designer's part. This was always functioning as it was written and designed to, it merely worked better than intended in the long run and got a nerf to put it in check.

    So a bug can include telling the software to do something that it turns out you really didn't want it to do?
    Lot's of bugs are usually oversights of something interacting in the wrong way.

    "Oh, of course, it's possible that this function returns a null pointer, and if I then ask the null-pointer to give me the value of his member variable, it will crash. Duh! I should probably put in a null-reference check, and just return null myself... Oh, wait, but if I do this, then the outer method will get a NULL and might cause a crash. And damn, why should that method return a null reference at all? Oh, so it does that because the whole outerlying method is called before we even initialized the underlying data structure it asks. Why does it do that? Oh, because we are triggering an event in this thread, and stay in this thread,but the main thread hasn't even run through the initialization methods yet, and the event should probably go through the message queue to be handled in the main thread... But if we do that and make it a non-blocking event, the rest of that method that is throwing the event can't work correctly, but if we block, we're sitting in the middle of a mutex that the main thread also needs to go through. Why are we even doing that other thing again? ... "

    (Of course, the mythology behind "Bug" as word is that of a bug crawling into one of those old vacuum tube computers and causing a short or something... Though that might be debunked ... In that it happened, but the term "bug" already was used then, and someone wrote that this meant that this might be the fist time a program failed literally due to a bug...)

    I think the real point of clarification I'm looking for is about the actual design aspect. Can a "bug" refer to an unitentional outcome, even after the fact, while functioning properly and exactly as designed? Would it be possible to tell a system to add 2+2, get 4 as a result, and call it a "bug" because you wanted it to give you a 3? Actually, in looking over your responses... yes. If I'm following the logic, since code is written as a means of providing a desired outcome, anything that prevents it from reaching that desired outcome is a "bug" and needs a "bug fix".

    So: Any outcome from a given piece of code, even if that code functions properly as it written to do, is considered a "bug" if it does not fit the desired outcome or goal of that code, even after the fact. "Buffs", "nerfs", and "balance passes" are all subtypes of "bug fixes".
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    So a bug can include telling the software to do something that it turns out you really didn't want it to do?

    Umm...yeah. Wow...people really don't know how programming works it seems. The +damage to physical mod was something that was in place before these two weapons. The fact that did not realize that this would interact with these new weapons is indeed an oversight on their part...but since that was not the intent of how these items were to work together, it is a bug.

    Apparently... yes.

    As you say, the +% Physical Damage existed before the Shotgun, so coding it as Physical Damage knowing that +% Physical Damage applies to the Physical Damage type qualifies as a bug if it turns out later that the devs didn't want the damage bonus to apply? Using that logic, the Finish Now button exists in the R&D system, so clicking that button knowing that it will Finish Now and cost dilithium qualifies as a bug if it turns out later that the player didn't want to spend the dilithium? Is the difference that one person is doing coding work and the other is an end-user?

    Really?!? I'm not even gonna justify this stupidity with a real answer. You are just trying to rules lawyer your way out now. Sorry, but nobody likes a rules lawyer...even other other rules lawyer.

    Hey now, I really am looking for clarification, no need to get insulting. I've carefully avoided that in responding to your posts and I'd appreciate the same courtesy. It just seems that the terms "balance pass" or "nerf" more appropriately apply, but if the term "bug" applies to all errors in both code and judgement so long as it is on the part of a developer... then okay.

    No, you were VERY insulting. You insulted my intelligence with that rather STUPID remark. As if I would actually fall for something THAT obvious. Don't be coy with me. And where did ANYONE say an error in judgement is a bug? We said it did not interact as INTENDED. That is different from an error in judgement because an oversight while is an error in judgement, not all errors in judgement is an oversight. Jeebus, so not only do you not understand programming, you fail at reading too it seems. Do they not teach that in schools anymore? Wait, nevermind, I know the answer to that already. Learn to read...it's OP.

    Okay, okay, no need to get all CAPITAL LETTERS on me... mustrum already gave a sufficient answer. You win, gratz, it's a "bug".
    Post edited by breadandcircuses on
    Ym9x9Ji.png
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    I do not like Geko ether.
    iconians wrote: »
    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.​​
  • ssbn655ssbn655 Member Posts: 1,894 Arc User
    ssbn655 wrote: »
    Shouldn't affect the shotgun either as its kinetic as well.
    no, the shotgun is actually physical, as seen below

    Zefram_Cochrane_Shotgun_Info.png

    which is likely why they even bothered to make that change to the armor and EV suits in the first place​​
    no, the shotgun is actually physical, as seen below

    Zefram_Cochrane_Shotgun_Info.png

    which is likely why they even bothered to make that change to the armor and EV suits in the first place​​

    My bad was kinda zoned posting my remark.
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,573 Arc User
    This 'fix' was made to stop people from complaining about never having the chance for their Delta Recruits, new characters, blah blah from ever getting the Shotgun. Take away its awesomeness and they will shut up and won't keep pestering them. ;)
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
    Judge Dan Haywood
    'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
    l don't know.
    l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
    That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • drakethewhitedrakethewhite Member Posts: 1,240 Arc User
    ltminns wrote: »
    This 'fix' was made to stop people from complaining about never having the chance for their Delta Recruits, new characters, blah blah from ever getting the Shotgun. Take away its awesomeness and they will shut up and won't keep pestering them. ;)

    I think that's likely.
  • drakethewhitedrakethewhite Member Posts: 1,240 Arc User
    lianthelia wrote: »
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    Seriously people...since when are BUG FIXES nerfs? Do you all speak the same language as the rest of us? Because see, we, the normal sane people call things that aren't working right getting fixed a bug fix...not a nerf.

    The entitlement is strong in this community!
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    Seriously people...since when are BUG FIXES nerfs? Do you all speak the same language as the rest of us? Because see, we, the normal sane people call things that aren't working right getting fixed a bug fix...not a nerf.

    You're view of how the language is used is incorrect.

    If you release software with a bug, acknowledge it when it's found, and fix it in a timely matter (days or weeks). It's a bug fix.

    If you don't acknowledge, allow it to exist for months or years and it becomes part of accepted game play- and then 'fixing it' and claiming it's a 'bug' means you're incompetent and/or a liar. Instead that's called a nerf.

    Cryptic has only itself to blame for how people perceive it. It they took bug fixes seriously, things like this wouldn't happen.

    Or it's a bug and you shouldn't exploit it? People are lucky they don't get banned for exploiting the bugs of this game...Cryptic does this all the time...there is a bug and if it takes a while to fix and more and more start to exploit it and it gets fixed.

    I'd do that. If there were a freakin' bug list published.

    But there's not. Their 'known issues' in the patch notes are joke. This *never* appeared on it. Even if it did, it should never take over a year to fix a 'bug' as simple as this.

    The development team for this game is the flat worst I've even seen since the day of text MUDs. They are horrible.
  • azniadeetazniadeet Member Posts: 1,871 Arc User
    It's not a bug when you give people a year to build their toons around these powers.

    It's no wonder I find myself logging in less and less and less as time goes on.
  • jorantomalakjorantomalak Member Posts: 7,133 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    Seriously people...since when are BUG FIXES nerfs? Do you all speak the same language as the rest of us? Because see, we, the normal sane people call things that aren't working right getting fixed a bug fix...not a nerf.

    In rebuttal there is no such thing as normal, what is normal and sane to one person may be abnormal and insane to another.

  • azniadeetazniadeet Member Posts: 1,871 Arc User
    When an item says specifically that physical damage receives a boost- not melee damage- why should a player assume that the intent of that item is only to improve melee damage?
  • warmaker001bwarmaker001b Member Posts: 9,205 Arc User
    risian4 wrote: »
    I hope it hits them hard. Hehehe.

    Seriously though, a single weapon shouldn't have only advantages and no disadvantages over all other weapons of it's type and render entire damage types and special weapons obsolete. When it does have these advantages it doesn't need to benefit from even more buffs.

    A few days ago I saw someone kill about a third of an Elite drone with that rifle in a single shot. I assume this person was using the armour buffs cause he was a Sci so there's not many other things that could have buffed his damage the way it did. Good that it's fixed.

    Science has its modules and captain abilities to debuff targets on the ground.
    XzRTofz.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.