Actually I am not talking about MY immersion. I am talking about the world view that the devs have. As they are the ones who makes the game. If a dev had an image of a world where the fighters use a sword (or any one handed melee weapon) and shield but forgot to hardcode that into their system at the start, somebody using a mace and crossbow is a problem they should fix for the world view that the dev had in mind. This is not related to a player demand at all. It is not about the players immersion or world view. This is about what the person who MADE THE BLOODY WORLD wants. I said in no way is what Johnny, Susie or Timmy wants even matters in this case. How was that not abundantly clear? So if the STO devs thinks that they want a more canon loadout and want to make some projectile only slots, it is well within their rights to do so. If they don't...than they can leave things alone too.
And now the goal post shifts. In our hypothetical scenario you gave above, if our fighters are intended to use a one handed weapon and a shield like little Johnny and little Susie, but due to an issue in the code little Timmy is able to use a mace and crossbow and ignore the shield outright. In that scenario little Timmy is taking advantage of a bug, which means it was never intended to be part of the world to start with and will get fixed. Bugs happen all the time in games and get fixed.
The problem you have however is the devs have long since established that all beam builds ARE INTENDED to be part of the world. It's an intended feature that has been part of the game since the get go. If it wasn't intended that players could equip all beams it would have been fixed ages ago.
The issue I have with demanding restrictions on weapons in the nature folks have done is it robs me of options. Per our example, it's already been established folks are allowed to run a one handed weapon and shield like Johnny and Susie, or you can run a mace and crossbow like Timmy. It's intended that BOTH setups be a possibility in the world. What the OP is doing is basically demanding Timmy no longer be allowed to run his mace and crossbow setup because he doesn't like that setup himself.
In other words because HE has decided HE doesn't like 8 beam array builds, neither should anyone else and no on else should be allowed to run them, but instead should be mandated they use a torpedo like him, because of the "evil DPSers" and he thinks those builds fit better into canon. I ask one final time, why should my options be restricted because someone else doesn't like it, especially when it's long since been established I am allowed to run those types of builds? Instead of demanding already existing slots be restricted in the name of diversity, why not ask for slots to be added? Thus everyone wins. Sci ships are unique because of their added secondary deflector, escorts are unique because of their experimental weapons.
It all boils down to immersion and the OP essentially demanding everyone else be restricted because HIS immersion is broken. Why should one guy get to dictate to everyone else simply because he doesn't like it, when there are already established solutions in place he can use? It's a textbook case of the "less is more" approach. Why make sweeping changes to everyone else when he could play with like minded friends. What I do in my game has absolutely zero to do with him, yet he's demanding my gameplay be restricted because he doesn't like a choice I've made. It's 100% an immersion argument which is purely subjective and not based in any sort of objective reality.
"Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations
Of course there will always be cookie cutter builds. But that's not actually the diversity I was after, but rather the diversity of the ships themselves. Namely, that there are a bazillion and one T6 ships in the game more released all the time, yet there you can count on your fingers all the possible weapon slot layouts between all of them.
Just putting in a torpedo slot on everything (regardless of whether it's a new slot or converted from a universal slot) wouldn't actually make anything interesting or unique at all, because there'd still be exactly as few different layouts to go around as there were before.
To give ships more unique layouts, they'd need different slots. Projectile slots, energy slots, special weapon slots, front, rear, side-facing, 360 slots, whatever. And in different combinations. But there it's basically impossible to have enough room to maneuver if the premise is that all ships must have 6-8 universal front/rear slots to begin with. Even if they introduced T7's, they couldn't realistically put more than one or two extra slots in.
There is actually quite a few ways to make ships unique that are left. How about a T6 ship with just an ensign tac slot and 7 engineer slots? Why don't we see that? Because it won't sell well. The reason we see so many cookie cutter like T6 ship layouts is because those are the ones that sell well so they get copied. Even if we do make some projectile only slots, we will eventually run into the same issue as whatever layout is what sells gets copied. So really we won't see a diversity in ship layouts. Which is why I went from liking the idea to not.
Actually...I think this would sell to a niche of players. Imagine actually having a TANK. 6 or 7 Eng console slots, plus universal console. Introduce an agro console that when activated attracts all enemy fire for a brief period of time with a massive hull resistance or hull regen when active. Same for Science. And a special console that creates a 5 click radius healing sphere (similar to say the Rep clicky we get from...one of them. Why NOT? Doesn't FORCE players to actually play a healer or a tank, but right now EVERYBODY is a damage dealer just in different cloths. Actually make Eng and Sci characters necessary. They KIND of did this with mirror invasion and a few others, but actually make it mandatory. So ONLY a SCI can close a portal, ONLY and ENG can recalibrate the sensors. Etc. They could actually bring back diversity without forcing anyone to change if they didn't want to. It would just give the players the LIKE to play tanks or healers a reason to play as they would become necessary.
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,590Community Moderator
Instead of limiting the types of weapons you can equip, one could make both types of weapons effectively required. So, torpedoes get a -75% damage reductions vs shields, and energy weapons likewise get a -75% damage reduction vs hull.
So again... saying people MUST conform to your prefered style if they're going to be able to do anything. And... then we also come to the issue of what category do Energy Torpedos fall under? They do Energy damage, yet are Torpedos. So... do you slap them with BOTH nerfs? Make them so undesirable that no one wants them?
Darkblade said it best earlier when he quoted Trendy, and again reiterated that this is an imersion issue, not a gameplay issue. Why must someone you've never met be forced into a particular playstyle for the sole purpose of "conforming to canon" in terms of torpedos? Why stop there then? Why not limit what damage types we can use period?! Why not FORCE Fed players into ONLY Phasers? Want to do Tetryon damage? NOPE! Sorry! Not canon. You do Phaser and YOU WILL LIKE IT! Want to do Disruptor? Go roll a KDF. Want to run plasma? Roll a Romulan. Want Polaron? We got Dominion. Want Tetryon or Antiproton? Sorry! You're outta luck! Want a Transphasic? NOPE! Sorry! You get Photons and ONLY Photons and YOU WILL LIKE IT!
You see how stupid this whole argument can spiral to? Its dumb to demand others conform to your style because "reasons". If you want to be THAT limited... go play SFC3 if you can figure out how to run it on a modern system with something higher than DX 9.0c.
Why don't you make that same argument against the 75% damage reduction vs shields that torpedoes suffer?
Because that is a question that isn't discussed here. The question is: should people be forced to change their builds according to some random demands by somebody who wants a specific playstyle? (And I don't care if "forced" works as a rule restriction, as a ship blowing up suddenly if it hasn't fired a torp in 20 seconds, or as a total nerf to any torp less build). And my answer is "no". Even though I hate min maxing and would like for a mix like the ones your ships usually start with to work.
Thing is: in every game like this, no matter how hard the devs try and balance and rebalance till kingdom come, some options will be more viable in terms of DPS or whatever goal you have in mind than others. Some players roll with it, some prefer the build anyway for their head canon or what they think is good gameplay, some would prefer a different build. Why should an existing rule be changed to comfort the third group but annoy the second and slightly inconvenience the first (which has to change the setup for no other reason than "now it is this way".
Remember: we are talking about an existing game. Many of the valid arguments about balance still apply, but many will not be valid. If we were talking about "how to best design space combat for an upcoming game", things would be different. If you were asking for torpedoes to be more viable compared to pure beam or pure cannon builds, things might be different. But asking for a specific build to be favored over others, to be made stronger than other builds intentionally - nope.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
The one thing I see here, is the apparent usefulness of torpedoes, one of the things I pointed out. The specific energy type topredoes, are useful. Since they can be buffed off your specific energy consoles. However, other's fall in the lackluster category, because there's just the Warhead yield consoles. Which means havint to seat two different consoles.
However, if there was something like...
Integrated Armaments Console
+30% Directed Energy Weapons Damage
+20% Torpedo and Mine Damage
2 second recharge reduction for all torpedoes and mines
2% cooldown reduction for all energy weapon, torpedo, and mine bridge officer abilities
One could even make that...
+30% Tetryon/Phaser/Polaron/Plasma/Etcetera
+20% Torpedo and Mine Damage
2 second recharge reduction for all torpedoes and mines
2% cooldown reduction for all energy weapon, torpedo, and mine bridge officer abilities
It would bring some usefulness back to torpedoes, more so than just the specific energy types. As now you have a means of not only buffing your energy weapons. But a means of buffing torpedoes as well.
This would breath some life back in to torpedo use. Because now to buff energy and torp damage you need only seat this console, instead of having to seat two separate consoles.
It would bring some usefulness back to torpedoes, more so than just the specific energy types. As now you have a means of not only buffing your energy weapons. But a means of buffing torpedoes as well.
In a way they are doing it with the perk points where you end up taking +energy weapons dmg *and* +projectile weapons dmg?
First time when you don't have projectiles you leave something out.
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
It would bring some usefulness back to torpedoes, more so than just the specific energy types. As now you have a means of not only buffing your energy weapons. But a means of buffing torpedoes as well.
In a way they are doing it with the perk points where you end up taking +energy weapons dmg *and* +projectile weapons dmg?
First time when you don't have projectiles you leave something out.
Well, yeah. I mean the perk points, while they feed into the DPS side of things. Once they're maxed, it also gives a base to all you characters. This in turn gives you the ability to consider more diverse builds, For example the Crit Hit perk, this will give you 7.5% at max, the same as putting all three points into the Crit Hit skill.
It would bring some usefulness back to torpedoes, more so than just the specific energy types. As now you have a means of not only buffing your energy weapons. But a means of buffing torpedoes as well.
In a way they are doing it with the perk points where you end up taking +energy weapons dmg *and* +projectile weapons dmg?
First time when you don't have projectiles you leave something out.
The perks are nice, yet they have one issue. They buff your damage at a base line, but you still need to choose if you are going to gimp your ship via splitting your console slots between two weapon/energy type, or just stacking a single type. How useful is it to slot a torpedo/mine for a +x to projectile/mine damage or critical severity, when you slotted all of your tactical consoles for your primary weapon/energy type? A console that combines buffing a energy an torpedo (either generally or specifically) even if that buff were at a grade quality less than the specific energy/torpedo type would make just overall it more appealing. As all the console bonus from those tactical consoles you jsut stacked are not lost on those weapon slots you have torpedoes/mines in.
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,590Community Moderator
I don't even bother with Torp consoles, and I still mount torps because I want to.
One of my favorite tactics back when I first started years ago was dump warp plasma, and drop mines on top of the immobilized enemy. D'Deridex Warbirds broke me of that REAL fast.
It would bring some usefulness back to torpedoes, more so than just the specific energy types. As now you have a means of not only buffing your energy weapons. But a means of buffing torpedoes as well.
In a way they are doing it with the perk points where you end up taking +energy weapons dmg *and* +projectile weapons dmg?
First time when you don't have projectiles you leave something out.
The perks are nice, yet they have one issue. They buff your damage at a base line, but you still need to choose if you are going to gimp your ship via splitting your console slots between two weapon/energy type, or just stacking a single type. How useful is it to slot a torpedo/mine for a +x to projectile/mine damage or critical severity, when you slotted all of your tactical consoles for your primary weapon/energy type? A console that combines buffing a energy an torpedo (either generally or specifically) even if that buff were at a grade quality less than the specific energy/torpedo type would make just overall it more appealing. As all the console bonus from those tactical consoles you jsut stacked are not lost on those weapon slots you have torpedoes/mines in.
There are consoles that combine an energy and projectile buff, in the fleet colony. Though it the secondary buff is a whole lot less than a grade quality down (it's 1/6th of the primary). And you have to give up the +crit buff from the spire consoles to get it, so it's still a tradeoff. Sure, you can buff your torp a bit without giving up too much energy weapon damage, but you're still gonna have to choose between putting in a little bit buffed torpedo or using the slot for one more fully buffed energy weapon.
But that's not even the all of it. Then there's boff abilities, traits, doffs, etc. You can have all your buffs affect all your weapons, but only if they're all the same type. And since there's nothing in the game where mixed types are a benefit (not even the borg with their adaptation), there's really nothing to gain by giving that up.
It would bring some usefulness back to torpedoes, more so than just the specific energy types. As now you have a means of not only buffing your energy weapons. But a means of buffing torpedoes as well.
In a way they are doing it with the perk points where you end up taking +energy weapons dmg *and* +projectile weapons dmg?
First time when you don't have projectiles you leave something out.
The perks are nice, yet they have one issue. They buff your damage at a base line, but you still need to choose if you are going to gimp your ship via splitting your console slots between two weapon/energy type, or just stacking a single type. How useful is it to slot a torpedo/mine for a +x to projectile/mine damage or critical severity, when you slotted all of your tactical consoles for your primary weapon/energy type? A console that combines buffing a energy an torpedo (either generally or specifically) even if that buff were at a grade quality less than the specific energy/torpedo type would make just overall it more appealing. As all the console bonus from those tactical consoles you jsut stacked are not lost on those weapon slots you have torpedoes/mines in.
There are consoles that combine an energy and projectile buff, in the fleet colony. Though it the secondary buff is a whole lot less than a grade quality down (it's 1/6th of the primary). And you have to give up the +crit buff from the spire consoles to get it, so it's still a tradeoff. Sure, you can buff your torp a bit without giving up too much energy weapon damage, but you're still gonna have to choose between putting in a little bit buffed torpedo or using the slot for one more fully buffed energy weapon.
But that's not even the all of it. Then there's boff abilities, traits, doffs, etc. You can have all your buffs affect all your weapons, but only if they're all the same type. And since there's nothing in the game where mixed types are a benefit (not even the borg with their adaptation), there's really nothing to gain by giving that up.
Even though getting access to fleet gear is not hard, some players are just not interested in dealing with that situation either as a temporary member to get the gear an leave, or as a permanent one. An i do think that the highest quality of gear should be gotten via fleets just makes sense like in the same vain having the best pve an pvp gear in raids an high ranked pvp in other mmos. Looking at this from a point where alot of other players are just using non-fleet gear an rep items.
Also though it giving such a small bonus might be something to look at buffing that amount to make it more of a appealing option. while maybe making the current version in the fleet the one we see drop from npcs. When flying around an doing missions if i saw some consoles that gave me a +25-33 to my main weapon type as an example an then a bonus to my secondary at a 6th of it, than I would see it as a potentially useful console to use., while the fleet console like it that gave a higher amount that made it a worthy option next to the other options as a incentive to get into fleets.
I agree that we could use more boff abilities, doffs, and even traits that give rewards an benefits for using mixed builds.Right now though we are in kinda a catch 22 without making using mixed build more appealing the appeal of making doffs/boffs/traits to work with it just is not there, compared to making boff/doffs/traits that interact with what it known to be viable an appealing to use.To make a change an get out of the catch 22 you need to start putting in thins to bring the appeal (not viablity, but appeal) of running mixed builds. After that we can start making suggestions on how to buff it, what new boff/doff/traits to add to make it something even better.
Comments
And now the goal post shifts. In our hypothetical scenario you gave above, if our fighters are intended to use a one handed weapon and a shield like little Johnny and little Susie, but due to an issue in the code little Timmy is able to use a mace and crossbow and ignore the shield outright. In that scenario little Timmy is taking advantage of a bug, which means it was never intended to be part of the world to start with and will get fixed. Bugs happen all the time in games and get fixed.
The problem you have however is the devs have long since established that all beam builds ARE INTENDED to be part of the world. It's an intended feature that has been part of the game since the get go. If it wasn't intended that players could equip all beams it would have been fixed ages ago.
The issue I have with demanding restrictions on weapons in the nature folks have done is it robs me of options. Per our example, it's already been established folks are allowed to run a one handed weapon and shield like Johnny and Susie, or you can run a mace and crossbow like Timmy. It's intended that BOTH setups be a possibility in the world. What the OP is doing is basically demanding Timmy no longer be allowed to run his mace and crossbow setup because he doesn't like that setup himself.
In other words because HE has decided HE doesn't like 8 beam array builds, neither should anyone else and no on else should be allowed to run them, but instead should be mandated they use a torpedo like him, because of the "evil DPSers" and he thinks those builds fit better into canon. I ask one final time, why should my options be restricted because someone else doesn't like it, especially when it's long since been established I am allowed to run those types of builds? Instead of demanding already existing slots be restricted in the name of diversity, why not ask for slots to be added? Thus everyone wins. Sci ships are unique because of their added secondary deflector, escorts are unique because of their experimental weapons.
It all boils down to immersion and the OP essentially demanding everyone else be restricted because HIS immersion is broken. Why should one guy get to dictate to everyone else simply because he doesn't like it, when there are already established solutions in place he can use? It's a textbook case of the "less is more" approach. Why make sweeping changes to everyone else when he could play with like minded friends. What I do in my game has absolutely zero to do with him, yet he's demanding my gameplay be restricted because he doesn't like a choice I've made. It's 100% an immersion argument which is purely subjective and not based in any sort of objective reality.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
Considering I don’t even have a Jugger with a pol/torp setup this quite a statement.
But don’t let that stop you from discussing stuff with your alt account.
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
Actually...I think this would sell to a niche of players. Imagine actually having a TANK. 6 or 7 Eng console slots, plus universal console. Introduce an agro console that when activated attracts all enemy fire for a brief period of time with a massive hull resistance or hull regen when active. Same for Science. And a special console that creates a 5 click radius healing sphere (similar to say the Rep clicky we get from...one of them. Why NOT? Doesn't FORCE players to actually play a healer or a tank, but right now EVERYBODY is a damage dealer just in different cloths. Actually make Eng and Sci characters necessary. They KIND of did this with mirror invasion and a few others, but actually make it mandatory. So ONLY a SCI can close a portal, ONLY and ENG can recalibrate the sensors. Etc. They could actually bring back diversity without forcing anyone to change if they didn't want to. It would just give the players the LIKE to play tanks or healers a reason to play as they would become necessary.
So again... saying people MUST conform to your prefered style if they're going to be able to do anything. And... then we also come to the issue of what category do Energy Torpedos fall under? They do Energy damage, yet are Torpedos. So... do you slap them with BOTH nerfs? Make them so undesirable that no one wants them?
Darkblade said it best earlier when he quoted Trendy, and again reiterated that this is an imersion issue, not a gameplay issue. Why must someone you've never met be forced into a particular playstyle for the sole purpose of "conforming to canon" in terms of torpedos? Why stop there then? Why not limit what damage types we can use period?! Why not FORCE Fed players into ONLY Phasers? Want to do Tetryon damage? NOPE! Sorry! Not canon. You do Phaser and YOU WILL LIKE IT! Want to do Disruptor? Go roll a KDF. Want to run plasma? Roll a Romulan. Want Polaron? We got Dominion. Want Tetryon or Antiproton? Sorry! You're outta luck! Want a Transphasic? NOPE! Sorry! You get Photons and ONLY Photons and YOU WILL LIKE IT!
You see how stupid this whole argument can spiral to? Its dumb to demand others conform to your style because "reasons". If you want to be THAT limited... go play SFC3 if you can figure out how to run it on a modern system with something higher than DX 9.0c.
Because that is a question that isn't discussed here. The question is: should people be forced to change their builds according to some random demands by somebody who wants a specific playstyle? (And I don't care if "forced" works as a rule restriction, as a ship blowing up suddenly if it hasn't fired a torp in 20 seconds, or as a total nerf to any torp less build). And my answer is "no". Even though I hate min maxing and would like for a mix like the ones your ships usually start with to work.
Thing is: in every game like this, no matter how hard the devs try and balance and rebalance till kingdom come, some options will be more viable in terms of DPS or whatever goal you have in mind than others. Some players roll with it, some prefer the build anyway for their head canon or what they think is good gameplay, some would prefer a different build. Why should an existing rule be changed to comfort the third group but annoy the second and slightly inconvenience the first (which has to change the setup for no other reason than "now it is this way".
Remember: we are talking about an existing game. Many of the valid arguments about balance still apply, but many will not be valid. If we were talking about "how to best design space combat for an upcoming game", things would be different. If you were asking for torpedoes to be more viable compared to pure beam or pure cannon builds, things might be different. But asking for a specific build to be favored over others, to be made stronger than other builds intentionally - nope.
However, if there was something like...
Integrated Armaments Console
+30% Directed Energy Weapons Damage
+20% Torpedo and Mine Damage
2 second recharge reduction for all torpedoes and mines
2% cooldown reduction for all energy weapon, torpedo, and mine bridge officer abilities
One could even make that...
+30% Tetryon/Phaser/Polaron/Plasma/Etcetera
+20% Torpedo and Mine Damage
2 second recharge reduction for all torpedoes and mines
2% cooldown reduction for all energy weapon, torpedo, and mine bridge officer abilities
It would bring some usefulness back to torpedoes, more so than just the specific energy types. As now you have a means of not only buffing your energy weapons. But a means of buffing torpedoes as well.
This would breath some life back in to torpedo use. Because now to buff energy and torp damage you need only seat this console, instead of having to seat two separate consoles.
In a way they are doing it with the perk points where you end up taking +energy weapons dmg *and* +projectile weapons dmg?
First time when you don't have projectiles you leave something out.
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
Well, yeah. I mean the perk points, while they feed into the DPS side of things. Once they're maxed, it also gives a base to all you characters. This in turn gives you the ability to consider more diverse builds, For example the Crit Hit perk, this will give you 7.5% at max, the same as putting all three points into the Crit Hit skill.
The perks are nice, yet they have one issue. They buff your damage at a base line, but you still need to choose if you are going to gimp your ship via splitting your console slots between two weapon/energy type, or just stacking a single type. How useful is it to slot a torpedo/mine for a +x to projectile/mine damage or critical severity, when you slotted all of your tactical consoles for your primary weapon/energy type? A console that combines buffing a energy an torpedo (either generally or specifically) even if that buff were at a grade quality less than the specific energy/torpedo type would make just overall it more appealing. As all the console bonus from those tactical consoles you jsut stacked are not lost on those weapon slots you have torpedoes/mines in.
One of my favorite tactics back when I first started years ago was dump warp plasma, and drop mines on top of the immobilized enemy. D'Deridex Warbirds broke me of that REAL fast.
But that's not even the all of it. Then there's boff abilities, traits, doffs, etc. You can have all your buffs affect all your weapons, but only if they're all the same type. And since there's nothing in the game where mixed types are a benefit (not even the borg with their adaptation), there's really nothing to gain by giving that up.
Even though getting access to fleet gear is not hard, some players are just not interested in dealing with that situation either as a temporary member to get the gear an leave, or as a permanent one. An i do think that the highest quality of gear should be gotten via fleets just makes sense like in the same vain having the best pve an pvp gear in raids an high ranked pvp in other mmos. Looking at this from a point where alot of other players are just using non-fleet gear an rep items.
Also though it giving such a small bonus might be something to look at buffing that amount to make it more of a appealing option. while maybe making the current version in the fleet the one we see drop from npcs. When flying around an doing missions if i saw some consoles that gave me a +25-33 to my main weapon type as an example an then a bonus to my secondary at a 6th of it, than I would see it as a potentially useful console to use., while the fleet console like it that gave a higher amount that made it a worthy option next to the other options as a incentive to get into fleets.
I agree that we could use more boff abilities, doffs, and even traits that give rewards an benefits for using mixed builds.Right now though we are in kinda a catch 22 without making using mixed build more appealing the appeal of making doffs/boffs/traits to work with it just is not there, compared to making boff/doffs/traits that interact with what it known to be viable an appealing to use.To make a change an get out of the catch 22 you need to start putting in thins to bring the appeal (not viablity, but appeal) of running mixed builds. After that we can start making suggestions on how to buff it, what new boff/doff/traits to add to make it something even better.