test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Strategist Specialization

24

Comments

  • stobg2015stobg2015 Member Posts: 800 Arc User
    e1im wrote: »
    Big naming confusion. Strategist/Command/Commando. Not a big PROBLEM, but there's that.
    Intelligence suggested to Command that only a bad Strategist would go Commando.

    You sir, win the thread. ;)
    (The Guy Formerly And Still Known As Bluegeek)
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    Looks good overall, I am concerned that:
    Show of Force

    Threatening Stance On: Increase Incoming Healing by 10%.
    Threatening Stance Off:
    Gain 2% Critical Hit Severity for each foe you hit with energy weapons. This stacks up to 5 times.

    Seems to buff BFAW, the arguably most OP ability in the game

    FAW is not overpowered. It is as powerful as the players skills and equipment. I have seen plenty of parser's where FAW III was being used by people, and they still only reach 8k DPS.

    The only overpowered stuff in the game was involved in the science abilities. Thankfully, that is being changed. Wait...I don't PVP so I could care less how OP Science and FAW are! The ONLY people complaining about how powerful BFAW is are PVP players, and they are a very small minority in this game. This game is not going to be balanced around those people. Why would anyone that cares only for PVE (which is what this game is about), cry nerf on abilities that would help their team blow stuff up in space and complete the mission??

    Get over it. BFAW is not going to change because you got blown up in a pvp match by it.

    ... I don't PVP in any MMO I play so ...

    I do however have a few cannon builds, and you can't deny that BFAW is far more effective than its cannon counter part, CSV
    that's getting a balance pass though, so maybe not so much?
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • dalolorndalolorn Member Posts: 3,655 Arc User
    Looks good overall, I am concerned that:
    Show of Force

    Threatening Stance On: Increase Incoming Healing by 10%.
    Threatening Stance Off:
    Gain 2% Critical Hit Severity for each foe you hit with energy weapons. This stacks up to 5 times.

    Seems to buff BFAW, the arguably most OP ability in the game

    FAW is not overpowered. It is as powerful as the players skills and equipment. I have seen plenty of parser's where FAW III was being used by people, and they still only reach 8k DPS.

    The only overpowered stuff in the game was involved in the science abilities. Thankfully, that is being changed. Wait...I don't PVP so I could care less how OP Science and FAW are! The ONLY people complaining about how powerful BFAW is are PVP players, and they are a very small minority in this game. This game is not going to be balanced around those people. Why would anyone that cares only for PVE (which is what this game is about), cry nerf on abilities that would help their team blow stuff up in space and complete the mission??

    Get over it. BFAW is not going to change because you got blown up in a pvp match by it.

    The only time someone can say FAW is OP in PvP is if they try doing anything other than dueling. Even carriers can survive, only being inconvenienced and possibly rendered incapable of killing the opponent if they lose their fighters - it's PvE that suffers horribly from even half-decent FAW builds.

    Why?

    Because aside from PvP being largely dead, there is the fact that you don't see as many hostiles in a PvP environment as in a PvE one. Where you would see a couple of (arguably really tough, depending on the build) player ships in PvP, you'd see half a dozen or more HP sponges. The DPS boost FAW provides is negligible in a single-target environment - when you're fighting more than half a dozen ships at once, however, that is not the case.

    Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.p3OEBPD6HU3QI.jpg
  • burstdragon323burstdragon323 Member Posts: 853 Arc User
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    I guess there will also be new ships with Strategist boff seats?

    I doubt it, as the blog didnt have any BOFF powers. It's probably just passives like Commando.
  • captaind3captaind3 Member Posts: 2,449 Arc User
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    So every time we swap between ground and space we need to change the secondary specialization if we use the ground one. Can we automate that process?

    We've needed that since this system dropped. It makes no sense to have Pilot active on ground, or Commando in space and you can't change them on mission maps, so any mission that involves both, which is almost all of them, you're weakened.
    reyan01 wrote: »
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    I guess there will also be new ships with Strategist boff seats?

    I'm guessing a T6 Sovereign will get it at some point.

    Frankly I wanted an Intel seat for my Sovereign. The ships should be variable in that. I understand that it monetizes the system, but seriously, with the exception of the pieces that required special modules like the Intel ships every ship should be able to be customized with any specialization. Charge a dilithium/zen cost if you want, or let us purchase individually specced ships. That way I would get an Intel Sovereign 6, someone else would get a Pilot, while someone else could have a Command.

    Now that I'm thinking about it though actually NO ship is gonna get a Strategist seat since it's a secondary specialization.
    dalolorn wrote: »
    Looks good overall, I am concerned that:
    Show of Force

    Threatening Stance On: Increase Incoming Healing by 10%.
    Threatening Stance Off:
    Gain 2% Critical Hit Severity for each foe you hit with energy weapons. This stacks up to 5 times.

    Seems to buff BFAW, the arguably most OP ability in the game

    FAW is not overpowered. It is as powerful as the players skills and equipment. I have seen plenty of parser's where FAW III was being used by people, and they still only reach 8k DPS.

    The only overpowered stuff in the game was involved in the science abilities. Thankfully, that is being changed. Wait...I don't PVP so I could care less how OP Science and FAW are! The ONLY people complaining about how powerful BFAW is are PVP players, and they are a very small minority in this game. This game is not going to be balanced around those people. Why would anyone that cares only for PVE (which is what this game is about), cry nerf on abilities that would help their team blow stuff up in space and complete the mission??

    Get over it. BFAW is not going to change because you got blown up in a pvp match by it.

    The only time someone can say FAW is OP in PvP is if they try doing anything other than dueling. Even carriers can survive, only being inconvenienced and possibly rendered incapable of killing the opponent if they lose their fighters - it's PvE that suffers horribly from even half-decent FAW builds.

    Why?

    Because aside from PvP being largely dead, there is the fact that you don't see as many hostiles in a PvP environment as in a PvE one. Where you would see a couple of (arguably really tough, depending on the build) player ships in PvP, you'd see half a dozen or more HP sponges. The DPS boost FAW provides is negligible in a single-target environment - when you're fighting more than half a dozen ships at once, however, that is not the case.

    I disagree. I prefer to use FAW in the single target environment as it's the only rapid fire weapons option my T5U Sovvy has. Against a single target it is effectively my CRF. They keep coldly locking needed abilities for older ships behind abilities only usable by newer ships. So I'm still stuck with the old standby.
    tumblr_mr1jc2hq2T1rzu2xzo9_r1_400.gif
    "Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many — they are few"
  • stobg2015stobg2015 Member Posts: 800 Arc User
    There are implications coming out of this that strike me as interesting.

    Pilot was originally a secondary spec until they expanded it along with introducing the Pilot ships, leaving Commando all on its own and prompting thoughts that they might eventually expand Commando in like manner.

    With the introduction of Strategist, they have signaled that "Secondary Specialization" trees will likely remain a thing and we can speculate that they will eventually introduce more of them. Which makes sense since the existing full spec trees already cover a lot of ground and it will be easier to create secondary trees that don't simply rehash existing spec abilities and don't require special ships of their own.

    The other interesting thing here is that Strategist is effectively a modifier for a single ability, Threatening Stance. (Although the special trait also modifies Brace for Impact, so Strategist might conceivably modify other abilities that we don't know about because we haven't seen the full tree yet.)

    The reason I find this interesting is because it invites some speculation about what abilities future specializations might be built around, perhaps abilities that don't exist yet.
    (The Guy Formerly And Still Known As Bluegeek)
  • orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,222 Arc User
    edited March 2016
    "Strategy" would be the type of ship(s) deployed in battle, and their loadouts; this specialization should more appropriately be named "Tactician", since how assets are used during a battle are affected by these attributes.
    "Tactician" is too close to "Tactical", one of the three career paths.

    On the other hand, "Command" and "Commando"...
    kelettes wrote: »
    So, is there some way to respec specialization points to allow us to USE this?

    There is no point to introducing respec for specializations. Given enough time, you can unlock every node on every spec tree.
    There is a point for OCD character whoars like me, in which every spec point counts and a miss-spent spec point causes table flips.
    FAW is not overpowered. It is as powerful as the players skills and equipment. I have seen plenty of parser's where FAW III was being used by people, and they still only reach 8k DPS.

    The only overpowered stuff in the game was involved in the science abilities. Thankfully, that is being changed. Wait...I don't PVP so I could care less how OP Science and FAW are! The ONLY people complaining about how powerful BFAW is are PVP players, and they are a very small minority in this game. This game is not going to be balanced around those people. Why would anyone that cares only for PVE (which is what this game is about), cry nerf on abilities that would help their team blow stuff up in space and complete the mission??

    Get over it. BFAW is not going to change because you got blown up in a pvp match by it.
    I do not think you can demonstrate this. In fact, your entire argument is unreasonable and biased.​​
  • stobg2015stobg2015 Member Posts: 800 Arc User
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    So every time we swap between ground and space we need to change the secondary specialization if we use the ground one. Can we automate that process?

    I can't see the Devs leaving this open-ended after they've specifically said that they want to limit spec swapping.

    However, I would certainly be in favor of being able to set Primary/Secondary Space and Primary/Secondary Ground and have the system automatically set your primary and secondary according to whether you are on a ground map or a space map. That way you could be Command/Strategist in space and Intel/Commando on the ground.

    If that's too OP, then what about just for the secondary tree? Primary would have to be swapped out in a social zone or sector space only, but the Secondary could switch between your preset tree for Space and Ground. That way you could have Command/Pilot in space and Command/Commando on the ground without having to exit a mission first.
    (The Guy Formerly And Still Known As Bluegeek)
  • talasivaritalasivari Member Posts: 59 Arc User
    storules wrote: »
    Can we have a "ground" based tree? Space is too overated in this MMO bear-41.gif​​

    Seconded!.

    If this new specialization is popular, maybe the devs will break out the Ground Based skillz.

    Because part of the "Boldly Go" includes visiting "Strange, New Worlds". :smiley:
    Urtlolev of the Andorian Imperial Fleet
  • dalolorndalolorn Member Posts: 3,655 Arc User
    captaind3 wrote: »
    I disagree. I prefer to use FAW in the single target environment as it's the only rapid fire weapons option my T5U Sovvy has. Against a single target it is effectively my CRF. They keep coldly locking needed abilities for older ships behind abilities only usable by newer ships. So I'm still stuck with the old standby.

    Ehh, if memory serves it only adds one extra shot per firing cycle. That's what, a 20% buff? Nothing compared to the 200+% buff you get against multiple targets. :p

    Of course, one could argue that it's better to have low but focused damage instead of uselessly padding your damage numbers - but that argument only really holds water in PvP where you need to put some serious firepower into overwhelming an opponent's heals and other defenses. There is little to no 'useless padding' in PvE, barring shooting something that's constantly being healed to full like transwarp gateways, or shooting stuff like an NPC's hangar pets/photonic displacements.

    Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.p3OEBPD6HU3QI.jpg
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    talasivari wrote: »
    storules wrote: »
    Can we have a "ground" based tree? Space is too overated in this MMO bear-41.gif​​
    Seconded!.

    If this new specialization is popular, maybe the devs will break out the Ground Based skillz.

    Because part of the "Boldly Go" includes visiting "Strange, New Worlds". :smiley:
    Commando for Primary Spec! :p
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • gerwalk0769gerwalk0769 Member Posts: 1,095 Arc User
    edited March 2016
    Please include torpedoes and mines, not only energy weapons, in Show of Force.
    Joined STO in September 2010.
  • e1ime1im Member Posts: 63 Arc User
    Intelligence suggested to Command that only a bad Strategist would go Commando.

    Man...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dthVEJtMbA
  • farmallmfarmallm Member Posts: 4,630 Arc User
    This sounds good. I will look forward to this. Looks like Season 11.5 is going to be very nice.
    Enterprise%20C_zpsrdrf3v8d.jpg

    USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
    Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
  • centaurianalphacentaurianalpha Member Posts: 1,150 Arc User
    "Tactician" is too close to "Tactical", one of the three career paths.

    But this criticism misses the point entirely. "Tactician" would be most useful for Engy & Sci captains, as a means of expanding their effectiveness beyond their original career path. And to be sure, not all tactical officers are natural tacticians (in light of how many red shirts get killed off in the franchise). Kirk was an engineer, but was also a brilliant tactician. The "Tactician" specialization would help to correct some of the weaknesses in the new skill system for those who dare to choose Engy & Sci career paths.

    This then begs the question of whether there should also be a "Researcher" and/or "Inventor" specialization, to provide some balance options for Tac captains... :o

    Either way, the new specialization as described is definitely NOT strategic, and should be renamed accordingly. :s
    Expendables Fleet: Andrew - Bajoran Fed Engineer Ken'taura - Rom/Fed Scientist Gwyllim - Human Fed Delta Tac
    Savik - Vulcan Fed Temporal Sci
    Dahar Masters Fleet: Alphal'Fa - Alien KDF Engineer Qun'pau - Rom/KDF Engineer D'nesh - Orion KDF Scientist Ghen'khan - Liberated KDF Tac
    Welcome to StarBug Online - to boldly Bug where no bug has been before!
    STO player since November 2013
  • baddmoonrizinbaddmoonrizin Member Posts: 11,213 Community Moderator
    storules wrote: »
    Can we have a "ground" based tree? Space is too overated in this MMO bear-41.gif​​

    I'd love to see Commando expanded to a full Specialization.
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    I guess there will also be new ships with Strategist boff seats?

    As others have said, Secondary Specializations don't have BOFF seats.
    GrWzQke.png
    Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
    Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
    Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
    ----> Contact Customer Support <----
    Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
    Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
    Want the latest information on Star Trek Online?
    Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
  • baddmoonrizinbaddmoonrizin Member Posts: 11,213 Community Moderator
    stobg2015 wrote: »
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    So every time we swap between ground and space we need to change the secondary specialization if we use the ground one. Can we automate that process?

    I can't see the Devs leaving this open-ended after they've specifically said that they want to limit spec swapping.

    However, I would certainly be in favor of being able to set Primary/Secondary Space and Primary/Secondary Ground and have the system automatically set your primary and secondary according to whether you are on a ground map or a space map. That way you could be Command/Strategist in space and Intel/Commando on the ground.

    If that's too OP, then what about just for the secondary tree? Primary would have to be swapped out in a social zone or sector space only, but the Secondary could switch between your preset tree for Space and Ground. That way you could have Command/Pilot in space and Command/Commando on the ground without having to exit a mission first.

    Perhaps they could allow us to have two (2) active Secondary Specializations: one (1) Space and one (1) Ground.
    GrWzQke.png
    Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
    Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
    Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
    ----> Contact Customer Support <----
    Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
    Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
    Want the latest information on Star Trek Online?
    Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
  • pottsey5gpottsey5g Member Posts: 4,258 Arc User
    edited March 2016
    Please include torpedoes and mines, not only energy weapons, in Show of Force.
    Between this and the new skill tree I am starting to think the devs hate projectile weapons and are trying to push us away from them. Those of us who are focused on projectile weapons lose out. First we get new energy only skills in the new tree with nothing new for projectiles. Then the Ultimate powers are all based around energy weapons and now part of the new Specialization is only triggered on energy weapons.

    I was hoping a new skill tree would fix the balance between energy and projectile weapons but I guess not :(

    EDIT: Isn't healing giving a 2% recharge pretty useless? That's what 3 seconds if you have 3 heals? EDIT2: Seems to be broken the skill counts down 1 second then jumps up 1 second. Maxed outs its unnoticeable, appears to do nothing.

    EDIT3: more testing it seems to be adding 2%. When I heal the skill timer increases.
  • centaurianalphacentaurianalpha Member Posts: 1,150 Arc User
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    Please include torpedoes and mines, not only energy weapons, in Show of Force.
    Between this and the new skill tree I am starting to think the devs hate projectile weapons and are trying to push us away from them. Those of us who are focused on projectile weapons lose out. First we get new energy only skills in the new tree with nothing new for projectiles. Then the Ultimate powers are all based around energy weapons and now part of the new Specialization is only triggered on energy weapons.

    I was hoping a new skill tree would fit the balance between energy and projectile weapons but I guess not :(

    You are assuming that the dev's actually play the game... :s
    Expendables Fleet: Andrew - Bajoran Fed Engineer Ken'taura - Rom/Fed Scientist Gwyllim - Human Fed Delta Tac
    Savik - Vulcan Fed Temporal Sci
    Dahar Masters Fleet: Alphal'Fa - Alien KDF Engineer Qun'pau - Rom/KDF Engineer D'nesh - Orion KDF Scientist Ghen'khan - Liberated KDF Tac
    Welcome to StarBug Online - to boldly Bug where no bug has been before!
    STO player since November 2013
  • gaevsprivsmangaevsprivsman Member Posts: 314 Arc User
    storules wrote: »
    Can we have a "ground" based tree? Space is too overated in this MMO bear-41.gif​​

    Trees are usually found in the ground.. dunno what you are talking about :wink:
  • stobg2015stobg2015 Member Posts: 800 Arc User
    stobg2015 wrote: »
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    So every time we swap between ground and space we need to change the secondary specialization if we use the ground one. Can we automate that process?

    I can't see the Devs leaving this open-ended after they've specifically said that they want to limit spec swapping.

    However, I would certainly be in favor of being able to set Primary/Secondary Space and Primary/Secondary Ground and have the system automatically set your primary and secondary according to whether you are on a ground map or a space map. That way you could be Command/Strategist in space and Intel/Commando on the ground.

    If that's too OP, then what about just for the secondary tree? Primary would have to be swapped out in a social zone or sector space only, but the Secondary could switch between your preset tree for Space and Ground. That way you could have Command/Pilot in space and Command/Commando on the ground without having to exit a mission first.

    Perhaps they could allow us to have two (2) active Secondary Specializations: one (1) Space and one (1) Ground.

    They'd have to have more specialization trees in the pipeline before it would be worth it to them to do it, I think. When 11.5 launches there will only be two secondary trees available, one each for space and ground.

    But if the game ever evolves to the point where there are multiple choices available, I like the suggestion.
    (The Guy Formerly And Still Known As Bluegeek)
  • lucho80lucho80 Member Posts: 6,600 Bug Hunter
    Read the Tribble patch notes. Seems I'll have to wait until hell freezes over before they add offensive science stuff to specializations.
  • warmaker001bwarmaker001b Member Posts: 9,205 Arc User
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    I guess there will also be new ships with Strategist boff seats?

    My guess, eventually there will be Full Specialization ships if they do not hit with the Spec being released. Command Spec set a precedent. When it came out, there were no Full Command Spec ships and the limited spec access Samsar then came out with the Anniversary Event. A month or so after that, only then did the Command FDCs come out.
    XzRTofz.gif
  • warmaker001bwarmaker001b Member Posts: 9,205 Arc User
    Looks good overall, I am concerned that:
    Show of Force

    Threatening Stance On: Increase Incoming Healing by 10%.
    Threatening Stance Off:
    Gain 2% Critical Hit Severity for each foe you hit with energy weapons. This stacks up to 5 times.

    Seems to buff BFAW, the arguably most OP ability in the game

    FAW is not overpowered. It is as powerful as the players skills and equipment. I have seen plenty of parser's where FAW III was being used by people, and they still only reach 8k DPS.

    The only overpowered stuff in the game was involved in the science abilities. Thankfully, that is being changed. Wait...I don't PVP so I could care less how OP Science and FAW are! The ONLY people complaining about how powerful BFAW is are PVP players, and they are a very small minority in this game. This game is not going to be balanced around those people. Why would anyone that cares only for PVE (which is what this game is about), cry nerf on abilities that would help their team blow stuff up in space and complete the mission??

    Get over it. BFAW is not going to change because you got blown up in a pvp match by it.

    The guy you were quoting made no mention of PVP and the cries about BFAW have occurred in PVE-land, if you haven't noticed.

    The benefits of "Crits Getting Moar Crits" from the simple fact of hitting more opponents makes it obvious to see how far this benefits, especially in PVE-land where NPCs hardly move and have next to no Bonus Defense to evade player shots.
    XzRTofz.gif
  • captaind3captaind3 Member Posts: 2,449 Arc User
    edited March 2016
    stobg2015 wrote: »
    There are implications coming out of this that strike me as interesting.

    Pilot was originally a secondary spec until they expanded it along with introducing the Pilot ships, leaving Commando all on its own and prompting thoughts that they might eventually expand Commando in like manner.

    With the introduction of Strategist, they have signaled that "Secondary Specialization" trees will likely remain a thing and we can speculate that they will eventually introduce more of them. Which makes sense since the existing full spec trees already cover a lot of ground and it will be easier to create secondary trees that don't simply rehash existing spec abilities and don't require special ships of their own.

    The other interesting thing here is that Strategist is effectively a modifier for a single ability, Threatening Stance. (Although the special trait also modifies Brace for Impact, so Strategist might conceivably modify other abilities that we don't know about because we haven't seen the full tree yet.)

    The reason I find this interesting is because it invites some speculation about what abilities future specializations might be built around, perhaps abilities that don't exist yet.

    Actually now that you mention it, that's basically being true to the name, specialization. Strategist is specializing in Threat management and tanking.
    stobg2015 wrote: »
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    So every time we swap between ground and space we need to change the secondary specialization if we use the ground one. Can we automate that process?

    I can't see the Devs leaving this open-ended after they've specifically said that they want to limit spec swapping.

    However, I would certainly be in favor of being able to set Primary/Secondary Space and Primary/Secondary Ground and have the system automatically set your primary and secondary according to whether you are on a ground map or a space map. That way you could be Command/Strategist in space and Intel/Commando on the ground.

    If that's too OP, then what about just for the secondary tree? Primary would have to be swapped out in a social zone or sector space only, but the Secondary could switch between your preset tree for Space and Ground. That way you could have Command/Pilot in space and Command/Commando on the ground without having to exit a mission first.

    That's all I ask. This 50/50 stuff just doesn't work.
    dalolorn wrote: »
    captaind3 wrote: »
    I disagree. I prefer to use FAW in the single target environment as it's the only rapid fire weapons option my T5U Sovvy has. Against a single target it is effectively my CRF. They keep coldly locking needed abilities for older ships behind abilities only usable by newer ships. So I'm still stuck with the old standby.

    Ehh, if memory serves it only adds one extra shot per firing cycle. That's what, a 20% buff? Nothing compared to the 200+% buff you get against multiple targets. :p

    Of course, one could argue that it's better to have low but focused damage instead of uselessly padding your damage numbers - but that argument only really holds water in PvP where you need to put some serious firepower into overwhelming an opponent's heals and other defenses. There is little to no 'useless padding' in PvE, barring shooting something that's constantly being healed to full like transwarp gateways, or shooting stuff like an NPC's hangar pets/photonic displacements.

    FAW 3 grants a 32% damage increase in your firing cycle. Even FAW 1 is a 25% boost. That's weaker than Rapid Fire 3 (50% damage boost) and stronger than Scatter Volley 3 (25% boost).
    "Tactician" is too close to "Tactical", one of the three career paths.

    But this criticism misses the point entirely. "Tactician" would be most useful for Engy & Sci captains, as a means of expanding their effectiveness beyond their original career path. And to be sure, not all tactical officers are natural tacticians (in light of how many red shirts get killed off in the franchise). Kirk was an engineer, but was also a brilliant tactician. The "Tactician" specialization would help to correct some of the weaknesses in the new skill system for those who dare to choose Engy & Sci career paths.

    This then begs the question of whether there should also be a "Researcher" and/or "Inventor" specialization, to provide some balance options for Tac captains... :o

    Either way, the new specialization as described is definitely NOT strategic, and should be renamed accordingly. :s

    I'm an engineer though, so I'd be all over inventor. My engineer IS an inventor. Should probably be tied to R&D in that regard.

    Sisko was an engineer too. Picard and Janeway were a sci's. Archer and Sulu were a pilots so tac, though Archer had engineer roots.
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    Please include torpedoes and mines, not only energy weapons, in Show of Force.
    Between this and the new skill tree I am starting to think the devs hate projectile weapons and are trying to push us away from them. Those of us who are focused on projectile weapons lose out. First we get new energy only skills in the new tree with nothing new for projectiles. Then the Ultimate powers are all based around energy weapons and now part of the new Specialization is only triggered on energy weapons.

    I was hoping a new skill tree would fix the balance between energy and projectile weapons but I guess not :(

    EDIT: Isn't healing giving a 2% recharge pretty useless? That's what 3 seconds if you have 3 heals? EDIT2: Seems to be broken the skill counts down 1 second then jumps up 1 second. Maxed outs its unnoticeable, appears to do nothing.

    EDIT3: more testing it seems to be adding 2%. When I heal the skill timer increases.

    Doesn't the Command Specialization enhance the synergy between energy weps and projectiles?

    tumblr_mr1jc2hq2T1rzu2xzo9_r1_400.gif
    "Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many — they are few"
  • gerwalk0769gerwalk0769 Member Posts: 1,095 Arc User
    edited March 2016
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    Please include torpedoes and mines, not only energy weapons, in Show of Force.
    Between this and the new skill tree I am starting to think the devs hate projectile weapons and are trying to push us away from them. Those of us who are focused on projectile weapons lose out. First we get new energy only skills in the new tree with nothing new for projectiles. Then the Ultimate powers are all based around energy weapons and now part of the new Specialization is only triggered on energy weapons.

    I was hoping a new skill tree would fix the balance between energy and projectile weapons but I guess not :(

    EDIT: Isn't healing giving a 2% recharge pretty useless? That's what 3 seconds if you have 3 heals? EDIT2: Seems to be broken the skill counts down 1 second then jumps up 1 second. Maxed outs its unnoticeable, appears to do nothing.

    EDIT3: more testing it seems to be adding 2%. When I heal the skill timer increases.

    Please include torpedoes and mines as weapons that benefit from Ultimate powers.
    Please include torpedoes and mines when weapons benefits are introduced in STO, including but not limited to Lab Secondary Deflectors, and this new Specialization.
    Torpedo and mine based procs, not only energy weapon proccing kinetics, would be appreciated. New separate powers do not necessarily need to be created hopefully duplicate or inclusive procs can be realized.

    Thanks for the mention pottsey5g, we have to be a squeaky wheel.
    Joined STO in September 2010.
  • lucho80lucho80 Member Posts: 6,600 Bug Hunter
    edited March 2016
    FAW in PvP does jack squat, no one in PvP complains about FAW. Don't blame us for the cries to nerf it.

    The one thing I love about the Breach event is that the citadel spams APD and TT. It's actually easier to bring down the Citadel with a heavy drain boat on the team. FAW alone will get you nowhere fast.
  • wilai29#4617 wilai29 Member Posts: 95 Arc User
    Threatening Stance On: Reduce your Bridge Officer Recharge times by 1% when healed.


    This sounds ridiculous, what use will 3, 4% at max have?
  • warmaker001bwarmaker001b Member Posts: 9,205 Arc User
    lucho80 wrote: »
    FAW in PvP does jack squat, no one in PvP complains about FAW. Don't blame us for the cries to nerf it.

    The one thing I love about the Breach event is that the citadel spams APD and TT. It's actually easier to bring down the Citadel with a heavy drain boat on the team. FAW alone will get you nowhere fast.

    It is indeed funny to watch, isn't it? :D
    XzRTofz.gif
  • johnnymo1johnnymo1 Member Posts: 697 Arc User
    reyan01 wrote: »
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    I guess there will also be new ships with Strategist boff seats?

    I'm guessing a T6 Sovereign will get it at some point.

    I was thinking the same thing, This looks like how Enterprise entered the fight against the borg at Earth in First Contact.
Sign In or Register to comment.