test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

The End of Stacking Consoles

velquavelqua Member Posts: 1,220 Arc User
With all the nerfs and potential nerfs inbound, one balancing idea that might actually be worth doing is restricting the number of consoles used to just one per console. Though this would initially reduce the DPS of many players due to the loss of additional embassy, K-13, mining, and spire consoles (including standard consoles), this would push players to begin using other available consoles that most players either never considered or avoid. With such a restriction, this could allow those players, who prefer or tend to use those consoles that are apart of ships and sets, to be just a competitive as their DPS counterparts. Reducing the stacked consoles could also help reduce Bank and Inventory space due to duplicate consoles and set-consoles taking up space in either storage locations.

Whether the Developers decide to implement this or not for space re-balancing, it is something that should be considered as more unique consoles are created and especially if the Developers wish to see more variation in builds. Again, I do believe this would boost the usage of set and other non-used unique consoles. Just something to think about.
18662390068_f716cd60e3.jpg
«134

Comments

  • altran3301altran3301 Member Posts: 167 Arc User
    Yeah great plan - waste everyone's resources that they spent on upgrading multiple consoles. No.
    tnl3Zwx.png
  • nightkennightken Member Posts: 2,824 Arc User
    I wouldn't mind this. though it shouldn't affect basic consoles.
    altran3301 wrote: »
    Yeah great plan - waste everyone's resources that they spent on upgrading multiple consoles. No.

    they can always add a way to trade in some of the consoles to get at least some of those resources back.


    if I stop posting it doesn't make you right it. just means I don't have enough rum to continue interacting with you.
  • davefenestratordavefenestrator Member Posts: 10,501 Arc User
    This would hurt the low-DPS players more than the top-of-the-charts ones if it included standard tac consoles and their Fleet variants.
  • alcyoneserenealcyoneserene Member Posts: 2,412 Arc User
    edited February 2017
    After buying and upgrading multiple consoles across multiple toons, no.
    Ships are also specifically set up to allow for say 5x tac consoles. This can't be changed, nor should it.
    Y945Yzx.jpg
    Devs: Provide the option to Turn OFF full screen flashes from enemy ship explosions
    · ♥ · ◦.¸¸. ◦'¯`·. (Ɏ) V A N U _ S O V E R E I G N T Y (Ɏ) .·´¯'◦.¸¸. ◦ · ♡ ·
    «» \▼/ T E R R A N ¦ R E P U B L I C \▼/ «»
    ﴾﴿ ₪ṩ ||| N A N I T E S Y S T E M S : B L A C K | O P S ||| ₪ṩ ﴾﴿
  • snipey47asnipey47a Member Posts: 485 Media Corps
    Stacking consoles is totally acceptable because you are unbalancing your build in other areas that you would need to compensate for via BOFFS, traits etc....

    Balancing how those stacked console interact with the character and other abilities is what is required during this balancing.
  • tempus64tempus64 Member Posts: 806 Arc User
    The problem with this idea is that is screws over everyone including the more casual players instead of focusing on all the things most of those players don't even know about that are used to create the uber DPS.
  • tygerzztygerzz Member Posts: 105 Arc User
    I have 15 characters all loaded up with level 14 gear most of which was purchased with fleet marks and dil. If the deal was to cash back existing consoles for a refund, and they threw in a skill reshuffle then I might buy in, but as you currently propose it no thanks.
  • pweistheworstpweistheworst Member Posts: 986 Arc User
    Helz NO. Just ... NO.

    I can understand diminishing returns on stacked consoles (where each identical console added after the first console provides a progressively weaker bonus) but too many players have invested REAL time and money into upgrading consoles.

    The devs need to avoid doing anything that completely devalues gear that players have already invested time and money into.
    In the immortal words of Captain Sisko: "It may not be what you believe, but that doesn't make it wrong."

    Don't believe the lies in this forum. I am NOT an ARC user. I play STO on Steam or not at all.
  • alexraptorralexraptorr Member Posts: 1,192 Arc User
    An absolutely boneheaded and terrible idea. Unless of course your goal is to kill the game by forcing the majority of the players to ragequit, then I suppose its a great idea!
    "If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid." - Q
  • koppsterkoppster Member Posts: 179 Arc User
    No. Old school players will remember their months of levelling R&D thrown into the replicators. They remember the Big Currency Conversion Fiasco (™). What we don't need is sometimes months of work making upgrades and sinking dil into epic'ing gear out to also be thrown onto the garbage scow. They need to find a way that does not trivialise the years of effort people have put into their gear. I don't envy them the task.
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    Even if you didn't allow multiple identical consoles, there are still ways around it using multiple similar consoles.

    Like, to boost AP beams, instead of 5x AP locators you'd use 1x each of AP locator, beam locator, AP exploiter, beam exploiter and standard AP console (forgot what its name is)...

    ...I like it. :)
  • meimeitoomeimeitoo Member Posts: 12,587 Arc User
    altran3301 wrote: »
    Yeah great plan - waste everyone's resources that they spent on upgrading multiple consoles. No.


    ^^ 100% This!
    3lsZz0w.jpg
  • aeieaeie Member Posts: 57 Arc User
    velqua wrote: »
    With all the nerfs and potential nerfs inbound, one balancing idea that might actually be worth doing is restricting the number of consoles used to just one per console.

    My opinion on it:

    If by reduce number of consoles you mean lessen the console slots. No, that would be a bad idea. It's one mechanic that makes things fun and allows for much needed customization.

    However, if you mean restricting consoles based on effects, lets say anti-proton damage, and you can only have one tac/sci/eng console that boosts anti-proton damage, then I'm ALL for it. Personally I'd say it's about time they put diminishing returns on console stacking. There's no skill or thinking involved, and that should not be encouraged in the slightest. People should be trying to make sets, and stack set bonuses not stacking some arbitrary console cause it adds the same bonus over and over and over. Thinking should be rewarding, taking the least amount of effort should not be.

    Least that's what I'm hoping this balance pass accomplishes, whether it does or not, we can only wait and see.

  • lowy1lowy1 Member Posts: 964 Arc User
    edited February 2017
    Not good, diminishing returns and hard caps is the solution not limiting to one, especially already existing consoles. If they introduced it with follow on holdings then cool. If anything you limit universal consoles to dedicated slots (I think 3 is a good number) and then work around ships like the Breen fleet as necessary.
    HzLLhLB.gif

  • gradiigradii Member Posts: 2,824 Arc User
    altran3301 wrote: »
    Yeah great plan - waste everyone's resources that they spent on upgrading multiple consoles. No.

    I agree with this, besides even stacking 5 tac consoles never guarantees high dps, I barely break 20k with 5 tac consoles on a tac captain.

    "He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
    Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
    he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
    In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
    He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
    He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
    He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
    He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
  • aeieaeie Member Posts: 57 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    It's Enhancement Diversification all over again!

    RUN REGEN SCRAPPERS!!! RUN!!!

    This made me giggle, and yes I did think about that prior to posting about it.
    However, while it did take a bit, several builds did much better with out the 6x dmg in that game.

    As to others, think of it this way, if each console is added to a specific group, maybe even multiple groups depending on what they do, there is no "getting around" restrictions if they do it right. Would Cryptic actually take the time to group every single console based on type/sub-type? Now that's another matter.

    I do believe the current theme of stacking consoles to ludicrous (yes ludicrous speed!) levels does need to stop, it's not balanced and frankly I cant think of anything more boring to play then a build like that.

    I'm also a firm believer after a previous "balance pass" that hangar pets get some love once more. It's time :smile:
  • velquavelqua Member Posts: 1,220 Arc User
    tygerzz wrote: »
    I have 15 characters all loaded up with level 14 gear most of which was purchased with fleet marks and dil. If the deal was to cash back existing consoles for a refund, and they threw in a skill reshuffle then I might buy in, but as you currently propose it no thanks.

    I like the idea of having a cash back should this ever happen, especially with all the effort, currency, money, and time spent into upgrading consoles. I would support this completely.
    aeie wrote: »
    velqua wrote: »
    With all the nerfs and potential nerfs inbound, one balancing idea that might actually be worth doing is restricting the number of consoles used to just one per console.

    My opinion on it:

    If by reduce number of consoles you mean lessen the console slots. No, that would be a bad idea. It's one mechanic that makes things fun and allows for much needed customization.

    However, if you mean restricting consoles based on effects, lets say anti-proton damage, and you can only have one tac/sci/eng console that boosts anti-proton damage, then I'm ALL for it. Personally I'd say it's about time they put diminishing returns on console stacking. There's no skill or thinking involved, and that should not be encouraged in the slightest. People should be trying to make sets, and stack set bonuses not stacking some arbitrary console cause it adds the same bonus over and over and over. Thinking should be rewarding, taking the least amount of effort should not be.

    Least that's what I'm hoping this balance pass accomplishes, whether it does or not, we can only wait and see.

    I am referring to consoles and not console slots.
    warpangel wrote: »
    Even if you didn't allow multiple identical consoles, there are still ways around it using multiple similar consoles.

    Like, to boost AP beams, instead of 5x AP locators you'd use 1x each of AP locator, beam locator, AP exploiter, beam exploiter and standard AP console (forgot what its name is)...

    ...I like it. :)

    This is exactly what I had in mind. At this point in the game, there are various ways to get the damage boosts you need. Some can come from various independent consoles while others can come from console sets. In some ways, this could bring back the need and usage of ship consoles sets as well as Lockbox/Lobi consoles.
    18662390068_f716cd60e3.jpg
  • tribbulatertribbulater Member Posts: 291 Arc User
    edited February 2017
    Even having lived through the horrors of E.D., I can't say I'd have a problem with the typical diminishing returns setup where 5 consoles of the same type give you only a little more benefit than 3 of the same. Most setups would not be horribly affected by this, and there are lots of 'other types' of consoles of similar benefit that could be swapped in.

    That being said, I don't really have enough experience with high-end builds that stack 4-5 of the same console for tremendous effect to say what might be 'fixed' by this. It could a solution in search of a problem.

    (Note: Avatar is of an E.D. survivor who had just as much fun after enhancement diversification as before)
  • nimbullnimbull Member Posts: 1,564 Arc User
    edited February 2017
    gradii wrote: »
    altran3301 wrote: »
    Yeah great plan - waste everyone's resources that they spent on upgrading multiple consoles. No.

    I agree with this, besides even stacking 5 tac consoles never guarantees high dps, I barely break 20k with 5 tac consoles on a tac captain.

    I'm stacking 7 tac consoles if I count a 3 piece bonus + nausican science console for disruptor damage on my engineer. All golded up from upgrades. I'd hate to lose from my 5 fleet tac consoles but on the other hand I'd add more consoles for power levels. I'm already running at 125/75x3 almost in power before buffs so more power consoles would be fun if everything got knocked down from stacking.
    Green people don't have to be.... little.
  • baudlbaudl Member Posts: 4,060 Arc User
    edited February 2017
    I like the idea. It is idiotic game design that the best gear option is multiplying one or 2 items...same with weapons actually.
    Pros I see:
    • Makes other console choices more viable, especially those that come with certain ships and form sets (which are extremely underperforming compared to stacking.
    • multiple proc console, give multiple procs...bad game design again, this implementation would get rid of that
    • ships that do not have 4-5 slots of a specific colour have a chance to close their performance gap
    • allows for more creativity when creating builds, opens up more viable combo options
    • the cheaply craftable consoles (not the special ones) would have a reason to exist again.
    Go pro or go home
  • brwjames85brwjames85 Member Posts: 84 Arc User
    Who ever said you need to stack 4x and 5x some console to have a decent build?

    Ever seen Iron Eagle 3? (yh, i'm early 80's kid)

    "It used to be the man, not the machine"
    Finally, T6 Fleet sovy! My life is complete!
  • brwjames85brwjames85 Member Posts: 84 Arc User
    gradii wrote: »
    altran3301 wrote: »
    Yeah great plan - waste everyone's resources that they spent on upgrading multiple consoles. No.

    I agree with this, besides even stacking 5 tac consoles never guarantees high dps, I barely break 20k with 5 tac consoles on a tac captain.

    Following stuff also influences DPS:
    • Type of pets, if applicable
    • Type of weapons, beam arrays, DBB, DC, DHC, Singles
    • Skills used and timing of those skills
    • Piloting: Being in the right spot at the right time
    • Team. the faster you complete the mission, the higher DPS will be. crummy team = crummy dps, no matter how good yr build or you are
    Finally, T6 Fleet sovy! My life is complete!
  • anazondaanazonda Member Posts: 8,399 Arc User
    Here is another idea: no.

    Unless, whatever dil and zen you earn from here on, is donated to any, and every other player who spend resources on getting and upgrading said consoles.
    Don't look silly... Don't call it the "Z-Store/Zen Store"...
    Let me put the rumors to rest: it's definitely still the C-Store (Cryptic Store) It just takes ZEN.
    Like Duty Officers? Support effords to gather ideas
  • lianthelialianthelia Member Posts: 7,820 Arc User
    edited February 2017
    snipey47a wrote: »
    Stacking consoles is totally acceptable because you are unbalancing your build in other areas that you would need to compensate for via BOFFS, traits etc....

    Balancing how those stacked console interact with the character and other abilities is what is required during this balancing.

    Except that is completely untrue...you don't need that stuff when you have all of these various powers, traits, and one size fits all consoles.

    If that were the case then escorts would actually be glass cannons, except they aren't...

    Second part is very agreeable...if they actually did that then it would give more power to not stacking while not making stacking and all the time and currencies to upgrade their stacked consoles, useless.

    But that wont either because any way you stack it people will complain...and people wont be spending money for zen to turn into dilithium to upgrade their gear...so not going to happen.
  • aeieaeie Member Posts: 57 Arc User
    Just an additional note aside from my "in favor for" on the topic. One other thing would very much need to occur: Stop restricting consoles to specific ships so much. Sure, there are cases that some consoles are restricted (Scimitar's shields up while cloaked), but many of them are restricted and there's really no good reason for it to be ship specific. I really think especially with the aforementioned statements of this thread, that this is also an important thing to review.

    Doing one or the other would be disastrous IMO, it needs both to work correctly. Just my 2 zen though.
  • lordsteve1lordsteve1 Member Posts: 3,492 Arc User
    Good idea I think if it had a few modifications.

    1) don't include basic consoles as in those you get from loot drops and the like. Because often for newbies those are one of the few sources of power until they get access to fleets and reputations.

    2) have a cash back or trade in scheme for anything people deem to be wasted due to changes.
    That new re-engineer tab for R&D could be useful here. Then nobody is getting shafted if they burned a tonne of resources to get all their shiny toys.

    3) it still allows builds to function within their initial basic idea. Science vessels can still slot 5 different fleet science consoles to get almost the same skill mod boosts. Tacs can still slot a mix of tactical consoles for the basic weapons damage boosts. Engies can still have a selection of different armour consoles.

    4) it might encourage players to try other console types and maybe go for the unique ship consoles so often ignored these days.

    5) it could move the meta away from the frankly ridiculous and utterly non-canon (even for STO) situation where things like the number of science consoles a ship can slot determines its weapon damage.

    6) still allows for powerful builds but reigns in some of the crazy DPS meta nonsense going on right now with science heavy cruisers being able to outgun an escort of battkevruiser.
    SulMatuul.png
  • velquavelqua Member Posts: 1,220 Arc User
    aeie wrote: »
    Just an additional note aside from my "in favor for" on the topic. One other thing would very much need to occur: Stop restricting consoles to specific ships so much. Sure, there are cases that some consoles are restricted (Scimitar's shields up while cloaked), but many of them are restricted and there's really no good reason for it to be ship specific. I really think especially with the aforementioned statements of this thread, that this is also an important thing to review.

    Doing one or the other would be disastrous IMO, it needs both to work correctly. Just my 2 zen though.

    I would love to see this happen, but I do believe that certain console abilities should be limited to specific ships just because it makes that ship even more "special" because it is the only one that can use that particular console. I would be willing to open up all T5 consoles so that they could be used on any ships while restricting T6 and Lobi.
    lordsteve1 wrote: »
    Good idea I think if it had a few modifications.

    1) don't include basic consoles as in those you get from loot drops and the like. Because often for newbies those are one of the few sources of power until they get access to fleets and reputations.

    2) have a cash back or trade in scheme for anything people deem to be wasted due to changes.
    That new re-engineer tab for R&D could be useful here. Then nobody is getting shafted if they burned a tonne of resources to get all their shiny toys.

    3) it still allows builds to function within their initial basic idea. Science vessels can still slot 5 different fleet science consoles to get almost the same skill mod boosts. Tacs can still slot a mix of tactical consoles for the basic weapons damage boosts. Engies can still have a selection of different armour consoles.

    4) it might encourage players to try other console types and maybe go for the unique ship consoles so often ignored these days.

    5) it could move the meta away from the frankly ridiculous and utterly non-canon (even for STO) situation where things like the number of science consoles a ship can slot determines its weapon damage.

    6) still allows for powerful builds but reigns in some of the crazy DPS meta nonsense going on right now with science heavy cruisers being able to outgun an escort of battkevruiser.

    At first, I thought that all consoles should be limited, but you make a good point about the newbies. I would agree that the drop consoles should be stackable, but every other console limited to just one. If you stack Epic drop Tac consoles for power as an example, you forfeit additional Crits for it; a fair trade-off in my opinion.
    18662390068_f716cd60e3.jpg
  • aeieaeie Member Posts: 57 Arc User
    edited February 2017
    velqua wrote: »
    At first, I thought that all consoles should be limited, but you make a good point about the newbies. I would agree that the drop consoles should be stackable, but every other console limited to just one. If you stack Epic drop Tac consoles for power as an example, you forfeit additional Crits for it; a fair trade-off in my opinion.

    I think stackable should be limited by rarity if that were the case, blue and under.
    Lowbies as it were, don't stay lowbie forever and are going to out level many of their drops.
    Once they hit cap restricting by rarity prevents them from continuing a bad practice (as I see it).
    Cause at that point, sets and other avenues open up that can and should be better alternatives.

Sign In or Register to comment.