I don't know how much of this is tacs fighting to keep what they feel they are entitled to or not.
As someone who also plays all classes in many ship types GDF isn't doing much in a PvE environment for damage. In normal, if you lose shields you are terribly bad, so bad you aren't doing much damage to start with. In elite if those shields aren't up all the time, you are dead dead dead, the torpedoes are too strong to try and use GDF properly. What they've done is basically remove a captain ability from tacs, which is what I disagree with.
In PvP, with yo-yo healing, all it does it further assist tacs, so its an odd change.
I built my eng build around their abilities, the one I don't use often is Miracle Worker. Also Nadeon Inversion is underwhelming.
And other than the overpowered nature of subnuc in PvP, sci overall is a mess that needs help.
This. They simply could have just as removed the ability.
There is nerfing something, and there is making it totally useless. This is the latter.
I wonder how you guys would react if subnuc was nerfed to remove just 1 buff, or if EPS power transfer could only be activated when at 50% health to provide 5 engine power.
Let us wear Swimsuits on Foundry maps or bridges please! I would pay zen for that.
And other than the overpowered nature of subnuc in PvP, sci overall is a mess that needs help.
This is just completely untrue,
I'm not trying to be rude, but this statement of Sci captains being a mess is 100% completely wrong.
Every single Sci captain power is some from of a force multiplier, yes even the relatively lame Photonic Fleet.
Unfortunately most players
A) Do not understand what a force multiplier is, with regards to MMOs. Do not recognize why that is powerful and valuable to a team.
C) Due to A & B are unable to capitalize on the power of a force multiplier.
Sensor Scan: AoE (massive) resistance debuff, can draw out multiple Science Teams. Force Multiplier (increases the entire teams damage output, potentially reduces the entire opposing team's cleanses)
SNB: Undisputed king of all powers in PvP. The ultimate trump card & force multiplier - can turn 75% shield resistance, APO, EPTS, and any other buff into vapor. Flat out Creates or Increases the entire team's kill successes on targets.
Scatter Field: AoE resistance buff, i.e. force multiplier. Better up-time than Eng Fleet.
Photonic Fleet: The only weak power, will soon be even more spammy.
Post LoR, if the new trait only increases use of this by a factor of 2 (i.e. 2x as often or 2 min CD) than 1 Sci captain can cast this 10x in 20 minutes. 3 Sci captains can cast this 30x in 20 minutes.
30x Photonic Fleets in 20 minutes. I hope you like phaser and disruptor procs and UI spam.
Sci Fleet: Hands down the best "Fleet" power available. Force multiplier, 3x Sci captains can chain this for a full 90s of straight, teamwide, coverage.
A lot of your post said stuff I think you've wanted to say. I've left it as is, since there isn't actually anything particular to disagree with or comment on from me.
On the above however, the devs have found a neat little way to address the PvE in that Sci captains can now boost their Sci power damage by up to 30%.
That is no small amount if it works like I think it works (APA is 50%, so if it works like APA I'll be taking more threat control on all of my Scis - please shoot me)
Yeah, like I told grim - it was an old discussion.
And yeah, that post was kind of a vent thing to all the entitled folks, whether Tac, Eng, Sci - Escort, Cruiser, Science Vessel...it kind of just flooded out.
I did get a chuckle from the first reply after that post... /cough
But still, like I've tried to make clear in each post (tried to at least)...even as a guy that currently runs 4 Eng, 2 Sci, and 2 Tac - and - that is looking at adding 2 Sci with LoR...I still think the GDF changes are bad. Just trying to add that feedback from somebody that's obviously not biased for Tac and has to fight his bias against Tac...that I agree the GDF changes are bad.
Since the two of us agreeing on something is said to be the first herald of apocalyptic events in more then one quadrant of the STO universe, take this:
Since the two of us agreeing on something is said to be the first herald of apocalyptic events in more then one quadrant of the STO universe, take this:
If the scaling of the new GDF is the same as the current GDF (as in the damage buff stays the same sub 50%) then all that would be needed would be a look at the cooldown.
Go Down Fighting is meant to be a desperation power, sort of like "Miracle Worker."
It doesn't matter what it's called, it's not meant to be an offensively oriented power, which Tac captains already have plenty of.
I don't know why players think that names determine what a power does instead of role determining both. I've seen the same argument with regard to "Emergency Power To [X]" abilities, where people think that if we just rename them, the devs won't try to turn them into situational powers.
I don't know why players think that names determine what a power does instead of role determining both. I've seen the same argument with regard to "Emergency Power To [X]" abilities, where people think that if we just rename them, the devs won't try to turn them into situational powers.
When the name of a power gets in the way of the functionality of a power being fixed, or used as a rationale for a drastic negative alteration of a power, you had best believe folks will get their hackles up.
Let's use the example you provided: EPtX. One of the primary reasons given for the initial change was "if you're using it constantly, it really isn't Emergency is it?", with zero regard for the effect said change would have on the underlying mechanics of the game as a result. Your rationale for keeping the Tribble GDF is functionally identical.
When the name of a power gets in the way of the functionality of a power being fixed, or used as a rationale for a drastic negative alteration of a power, you had best believe folks will get their hackles up.
Let's use the example you provided: EPtX. One of the primary reasons given for the initial change was "if you're using it constantly, it really isn't Emergency is it?", with zero regard for the effect said change would have on the underlying mechanics of the game as a result. Your rationale for keeping the Tribble GDF is functionally identical.
And it's flat out wrong.
Pretty much this.
Naming should add flavor and theme to good mechanics.
Mechanics should never be enslaved by a naming convention, where the name prevents a mechanic or power from being good/useful.
Honestly, I'd prefer GDF as a activate-anytime damage resistance buff primarily, that increases damage dealt as the ship takes damage. Tactical captains already get a straight damage buff, a single-target DR debuff, and TI.
Compared to engineers and science officers, tactical is a bit one-trick pony. Engineers get two heals/DR buffs, a general-effect buff, and a straight DPS buff. Science officers get a team DR buff, a single-target buff-stripper, a PBAoE DR debuff, and photonic fleet (for what that's worth). Tactical officers really need a captain power that isn't all about more damage, preferably one that increases survivability and punishes the hell out of assist training and concentrated fire.
I'd like to see it changed to something to the tune of,
30-second duration, 120-second cooldown.
Reduces all damage taken by 25%. In addition, each time you take damage, your damage increases by 2%. Stacks up to 25 times.
Somebody getting uppity about canon? No problem! Just take a deep breath, and repeat after me:
When the name of a power gets in the way of the functionality of a power being fixed, or used as a rationale for a drastic negative alteration of a power, you had best believe folks will get their hackles up.
.
That's my point. "Naming" isn't in the way of anything. They don't start with a name, they start with an intended function, and then name and design the power.
Just because you're confused about how this works doesn't mean that they're as confused as you are. People are "getting hackles up" because their thinking is cloudy, and they've badly misidentified the reason that a power doesn't do what they think it should do.
No one is making design decisions based on what something is named. It's named according to its intended role and/or a description of what it does.
They can call "Go Down Fighting" "Fred Flintstone" and it doesn't change the fact that the intended role of the power is as an "Oh *****" button.
Naming should add flavor and theme to good mechanics.
Mechanics should never be enslaved by a naming convention, where the name prevents a mechanic or power from being good/useful.
Mechanics aren't enslaved by naming convention.
You're ignoring the blindingly obvious idea that the name reflects the intended role, and that the design also reflects the intended role, and as such, the name and design will match.
It's not all the people with umbrellas out who are making it rain, and whoever thinks it is, is wrong.
That's my point. "Naming" isn't in the way of anything. They don't start with a name, they start with an intended function, and then name and design the power.
Just because you're confused about how this works doesn't mean that they're as confused as you are. People are "getting hackles up" because their thinking is cloudy, and they've badly misidentified the reason that a power doesn't do what they think it should do.
No one is making design decisions based on what something is named. It's named according to its intended role and/or a description of what it does.
They can call "Go Down Fighting" "Fred Flintstone" and it doesn't change the fact that the intended role of the power is as an "Oh *****" button.
I dislike how you assume its a + "Oh *****" button + .
Only the ability name implies that. So you are contradicting your own self.
Let us wear Swimsuits on Foundry maps or bridges please! I would pay zen for that.
with GDF and the EPt skills, their intentions are WRONG. i dont care what their damn intentions are, their intentions suck, and make the game worse. they need to leave well enough alone, and actually fix abilities that have problems. like TR, and the shield strips, buff GW too wile they are at it. give us a reason to use an eng too, there is exactly 0 reason to bring one into any situation. good eng captains are good in spite of being eng captains.
They should keep GDF like it is on Holo but make sure that the LDE trait only applies at 50% or below.
TBH, I've always felt it was kinda bad that GDF looked like it was intended to be used at lower health, a last-ditch all-or-nothing sink-or-swim...except that it was on cooldown because, hey, I can still get some extra damage out of it by firing it even at full health! Thematically, I thought it fell flat on its face (not a commentary on game balance, but how it appeared to be intended to be used vs how it was actually used).
THIS, and maybe one other caveat, could get it used more the way it was intended, I think. Rather than having GDF locked until 50% or less, maybe it's locked until, say 80% or less, increasing damage as you get lower in health, and if it's fired at 50% or below (or your health dips to 50% or below while active), LDE kicks in.
Getting to 80% health "safely" shouldn't be too much of an issue, it prevents the sort of "and the kitchen sink" tactics of tossing everything in up front (okay, I don't know if "professional" tac players do that, but that's how it feels when I play MY tac) , and tactical officers still have a reasonable choice; do I take the damage bonus NOW, or do I hold it for somewhat more dire circumstances?
Thoughts? I mean, it'd still be something of a nerf, but less of a nerf than it is on Tribble now, and still being more thematically appropriate than the current Holodeck setup, might get some dev buy-in.
Instead of TRIBBLE around with tacticals, etc.. they coulve spend their time making engineers more useful in a team setup. But they choose not to. Pretty much shows how well they know their own game.
Zombie tanks ftw, team play forget it.
A great starter idea would be to make Rotate shield frequency castable on others, see it as an extend which cannot be shocked off like an extend can. Make miracle worker cast on others as well.
Or the idea what alot of MMOs implement is a 'guard' thingy which basically lets you click a player, give him extra resistance, and you absorb a portion of the dmg.
Its mind boggling on how the general idea about classes are supposed to function by cryptics mind, either senseless tac/escort npc stomping with no realistic AI/brains or be god and never die in an engineer and brag about it.
Sad.
Sci? The only class which one only purpose is either in PvP or RP with your holoships. LOL
THIS, and maybe one other caveat, could get it used more the way it was intended, I think. Rather than having GDF locked until 50% or less, maybe it's locked until, say 80% or less, increasing damage as you get lower in health, and if it's fired at 50% or below (or your health dips to 50% or below while active), LDE kicks in.
Another alternative to that, would be that GDF stays at being able to be used whenever with the new trait kicking in at sub 50%, but the damage buff at full health is nerfed from it's current 25% to around 10% or so.
The coding for it could be rather iffy though as it would depend on how the system handles the scaling of GDF, whether the buff is calculated during activation or if it's simply a call to the appropriate version of GDF.
Also how LDE is being implemented in code and how that interacts with the buff system, since it could be a simple couple of "if" checks or it could be some labyrinthine method of application.
As an aside, characters/captains in STO are not based around a 'tank, healer, dps' class system, they are based around a 'support, debuff, offensive' method system. (Ie, Eng's buff themselves/others, Sci's debuff enemies, Tac's shoot harder.)
It's rather annoying to see that assumption brought up so much.
I dislike how you assume its a + "Oh *****" button + .
Only the ability name implies that. So you are contradicting your own self.
There's no contradiction at all. The name is an indicator of function. The design is also an indicator of function. That people have used it as an alpha strike ability may have been tolerated but it was clearly never the core intended function of the ability.
As tactical captains have become the dominant class in the game, Cryptic has made the decision to tone down the alpha of tacticals while upping the damage of science and engineering.
GDF isn't changed because somebody at Cryptic woke up one day and said "Oh TRIBBLE, the ability doesn't match the name! Regardless of what makes sense for balance or enjoyment, we are bound to make the ability match the name! "
How could anyone believe that's reasonable on any level? Do you ever listen to podcasts or read interviews with the developers? Do they really seem stupid to you? Do they seem like they make changes to the game without any thought about their design goals?
Not having 5% damage of firing GDF off at full health never let anyone escape.
I do wish I could fire it off at 75%, that's when I usually use GDF.
50% just makes sure I get a large boost instead of a silly one.
Its just the practicality of locking it behind 50% pretty much reduces it to STF/Tholian space battles only, where I often deliberately get beaten up to get the larger GDF bonus without dying. Sure as hell takes it out of pvp use. Which as the Devil's Advocate I think its not a bad thing.
The problem is not the GDF change, its that Subnuc is still terrifically terrifying. You can't subnuc my captain giving an inspirational speech that boost ship damage when consoles are blowing up!
Make all captain skills immune to subnuc and some whinging will stop.
"Last Engage! Magical Girl Origami-san" is in print! Now with three times more rainbows.
Now my tact will only have one usefull pvp ability (AP:A).
And nubcleotic beam keeps its 30s cd prolongation after a full buffs strip which is a real issue when you play in PUG queues (if 2 or more scis are focusing their SNB on you you can just warp out because you wont play for entire minutes).
Why not give tacts something interresting instead of another damage buff? IMO Subspace jump should have been a tactical captain skill.
You're ignoring the blindingly obvious idea that the name reflects the intended role, and that the design also reflects the intended role, and as such, the name and design will match.
It's not all the people with umbrellas out who are making it rain, and whoever thinks it is, is wrong.
Since you clearly missed it, or completely ignored it because it contradicted your argument, the entire EPtX debacle, and subsequent resolution, blows that entire train of thought out of the water.
Dev's made a change, in no small part predicated on the fact that the name of the power set didn't match what the powerset was doing. If your argument were true, they wouldn't have needed to do that since the functionality would have matched the name from the get go.
But it didn't. So please, stop hanging your entire argument that an ability's name inherently dictates an ability's function when there are multiple examples in STO of that clearly being not the case.
That's my point. "Naming" isn't in the way of anything. They don't start with a name, they start with an intended function, and then name and design the power.
Just because you're confused about how this works doesn't mean that they're as confused as you are. People are "getting hackles up" because their thinking is cloudy, and they've badly misidentified the reason that a power doesn't do what they think it should do.
Oh, so now names don't dictate function? Or does that rule only apply when you're supporting a particular change you like?
No one is making design decisions based on what something is named. It's named according to its intended role and/or a description of what it does.
But wait, now name does dictate function? Make up your mind.
In any event, what you're describing in bold (for emphasis) above is exactly what is occurring here. GDF is being shackled with restrictions for no other reason than it's function doesn't thematically match it's name enough for someone on the Dev team.
There's no contradiction at all. The name is an indicator of function. The design is also an indicator of function. That people have used it as an alpha strike ability may have been tolerated but it was clearly never the core intended function of the ability.
As tactical captains have become the dominant class in the game, Cryptic has made the decision to tone down the alpha of tacticals while upping the damage of science and engineering.
And now we're at the crux of your argument: you want to nerf tactical captains.
Could have saved everyone a great deal of trouble just by being up front and honest with your position from the beginning.
How could anyone believe that's reasonable on any level? Do you ever listen to podcasts or read interviews with the developers? Do they really seem stupid to you? Do they seem like they make changes to the game without any thought about their design goals?
Since you clearly missed it, or completely ignored it because it contradicted your argument, the entire EPtX debacle, and subsequent resolution, blows that entire train of thought out of the water.
I ignored it because I didn't want to embarrass you guys further. I figured that pointing out your error once would allow you to understand your error in the other case, but I'll address it.
EPtX wasn't changed because it has 'Emergency" in the name, it was changed because they want abilities to be decisions you make rather than just another thing that you put into your generic keybind.
The way that EPtX abilities work on live, you just put a pair or quad of them in your generic keybind/macro and go on your merry way, which isn't compelling in any way. If they wanted that, they could just make those abilities toggles.
This was explained by a developer in a thread on this message forum. Your lack of understanding is not a contradiction on my part.
Dev's made a change, in no small part predicated on the fact that the name of the power set didn't match what the powerset was doing.
Wrong.
If your argument were true, they wouldn't have needed to do that since the functionality would have matched the name from the get go.
Or, the abilities weren't designed as well as they should have been, or the game changed and therefore the vision for the function changed, etc. There are really obvious reasons for changes other than "Derr, it has to match the name!"
But it didn't. So please, stop hanging your entire argument that an ability's name inherently dictates an ability's function when there are multiple examples in STO of that clearly being not the case.
Seriously, is there something wrong with you? You guys are the ones who are saying that the name *dictates* something, not me. You don't get to claim that I'm the one making that ridiculous argument. I'm pointing out what should be obvious: that a name FOLLOWS a function, just as a form follows a function. Neither form nor name dictates function.
Oh, so now names don't dictate function? Or does that rule only apply when you're supporting a particular change you like?
No, names don't dictate function. I've said that very clearly from the start. Again, your lack of reasoning and reading comprehension is not a contradiction on my part.
But wait, now name does dictate function? Make up your mind.
In any event, what you're describing in bold (for emphasis) above is exactly what is occurring here. GDF is being shackled with restrictions for no other reason than it's function doesn't thematically match it's name enough for someone on the Dev team.
Since the forums don't quote text that's been quoted in another post, I'll go ahead and quote the text you're referring to:
"No one is making design decisions based on what something is named. It's named according to its intended role and/or a description of what it does."
Look man, I don't know if English isn't your primary language, or you have dyslexia or you're just trolling, but you're clearly having a hard time responding to a basic logical argument. It's not even a sophisticated argument so I'm not sure why it's kicking your butt so bad.
Function = A
Form =B
Name = C
Devs chose B because of A.
Devs choose C because of A
Devs do not choose B because of C.
B and C will usually match because they both belong to A.
I don't even know how to make this simpler for you, but before you respond again, you should take the time to drill it into your head.
You guys are ascribing a ridiculous argument to the developers, then complaining about the ridiculous argument that they never made.
And now we're at the crux of your argument: you want to nerf tactical captains.
No, the crux of my argument is that you people are wasting a lot of time and words trying to argue against a straw man.
You keep saying "You shouldn't make a change just because of the name!" while the developers are nodding their heads silently and thinking "That's true, but that's not why we did it."
It makes my head hurt to watch the forum echo chamber make these misdirected arguments, pat each other on the back for such a well directed salvo, and not even realize that the target is behind them and not where they're shooting.
As far as what I want or don't want: I'm not the one who changed GDF. However, it's pretty clear if you're paying attention that the developers are scaling back the alpha strike ability of tactical captains, and both of the new space traits for tacticals are defensively oriented. Do YOU think that's by accident? Do you think the developers are noobs who don't realize that tactical captains are traditionally very DPS oriented? I think it's deliberate.
I don't think you have to be very smart to look at a game with 3 classes, where 70-80% of the population is playing a single class, and realize "hmm, something is possibly amiss here" and then observe that the 70-80% class is getting a little nip and tuck, and think "Oh hey, maybe this is intentional!"
Comments
This. They simply could have just as removed the ability.
There is nerfing something, and there is making it totally useless. This is the latter.
I wonder how you guys would react if subnuc was nerfed to remove just 1 buff, or if EPS power transfer could only be activated when at 50% health to provide 5 engine power.
This is just completely untrue,
I'm not trying to be rude, but this statement of Sci captains being a mess is 100% completely wrong.
Every single Sci captain power is some from of a force multiplier, yes even the relatively lame Photonic Fleet.
Unfortunately most players
A) Do not understand what a force multiplier is, with regards to MMOs.
C) Due to A & B are unable to capitalize on the power of a force multiplier.
Sensor Scan: AoE (massive) resistance debuff, can draw out multiple Science Teams. Force Multiplier (increases the entire teams damage output, potentially reduces the entire opposing team's cleanses)
SNB: Undisputed king of all powers in PvP. The ultimate trump card & force multiplier - can turn 75% shield resistance, APO, EPTS, and any other buff into vapor. Flat out Creates or Increases the entire team's kill successes on targets.
Scatter Field: AoE resistance buff, i.e. force multiplier. Better up-time than Eng Fleet.
Photonic Fleet: The only weak power, will soon be even more spammy.
Post LoR, if the new trait only increases use of this by a factor of 2 (i.e. 2x as often or 2 min CD) than 1 Sci captain can cast this 10x in 20 minutes. 3 Sci captains can cast this 30x in 20 minutes.
30x Photonic Fleets in 20 minutes. I hope you like phaser and disruptor procs and UI spam.
Sci Fleet: Hands down the best "Fleet" power available. Force multiplier, 3x Sci captains can chain this for a full 90s of straight, teamwide, coverage.
Yeah, like I told grim - it was an old discussion.
And yeah, that post was kind of a vent thing to all the entitled folks, whether Tac, Eng, Sci - Escort, Cruiser, Science Vessel...it kind of just flooded out.
I did get a chuckle from the first reply after that post... /cough
But still, like I've tried to make clear in each post (tried to at least)...even as a guy that currently runs 4 Eng, 2 Sci, and 2 Tac - and - that is looking at adding 2 Sci with LoR...I still think the GDF changes are bad. Just trying to add that feedback from somebody that's obviously not biased for Tac and has to fight his bias against Tac...that I agree the GDF changes are bad.
Since the two of us agreeing on something is said to be the first herald of apocalyptic events in more then one quadrant of the STO universe, take this:
USS is right. No problems with sci captains.
a history of sto pvp: 2010 - 2011
a history of sto pvp: 2012 - 2013
Ok, that was funny. :P
Yeah this change basically makes it a nerfed, 0 thought power.
Even then that would be icing on top of the cake.
It doesn't matter what it's called, it's not meant to be an offensively oriented power, which Tac captains already have plenty of.
I don't know why players think that names determine what a power does instead of role determining both. I've seen the same argument with regard to "Emergency Power To [X]" abilities, where people think that if we just rename them, the devs won't try to turn them into situational powers.
Then I suggest you start lobbying for GDF to have it's damage boost removed.
When the name of a power gets in the way of the functionality of a power being fixed, or used as a rationale for a drastic negative alteration of a power, you had best believe folks will get their hackles up.
Let's use the example you provided: EPtX. One of the primary reasons given for the initial change was "if you're using it constantly, it really isn't Emergency is it?", with zero regard for the effect said change would have on the underlying mechanics of the game as a result. Your rationale for keeping the Tribble GDF is functionally identical.
And it's flat out wrong.
Pretty much this.
Naming should add flavor and theme to good mechanics.
Mechanics should never be enslaved by a naming convention, where the name prevents a mechanic or power from being good/useful.
Compared to engineers and science officers, tactical is a bit one-trick pony. Engineers get two heals/DR buffs, a general-effect buff, and a straight DPS buff. Science officers get a team DR buff, a single-target buff-stripper, a PBAoE DR debuff, and photonic fleet (for what that's worth). Tactical officers really need a captain power that isn't all about more damage, preferably one that increases survivability and punishes the hell out of assist training and concentrated fire.
I'd like to see it changed to something to the tune of,
30-second duration, 120-second cooldown.
Reduces all damage taken by 25%. In addition, each time you take damage, your damage increases by 2%. Stacks up to 25 times.
Spock's Brain.
That's my point. "Naming" isn't in the way of anything. They don't start with a name, they start with an intended function, and then name and design the power.
Just because you're confused about how this works doesn't mean that they're as confused as you are. People are "getting hackles up" because their thinking is cloudy, and they've badly misidentified the reason that a power doesn't do what they think it should do.
No one is making design decisions based on what something is named. It's named according to its intended role and/or a description of what it does.
They can call "Go Down Fighting" "Fred Flintstone" and it doesn't change the fact that the intended role of the power is as an "Oh *****" button.
Mechanics aren't enslaved by naming convention.
You're ignoring the blindingly obvious idea that the name reflects the intended role, and that the design also reflects the intended role, and as such, the name and design will match.
It's not all the people with umbrellas out who are making it rain, and whoever thinks it is, is wrong.
I dislike how you assume its a + "Oh *****" button + .
Only the ability name implies that. So you are contradicting your own self.
TBH, I've always felt it was kinda bad that GDF looked like it was intended to be used at lower health, a last-ditch all-or-nothing sink-or-swim...except that it was on cooldown because, hey, I can still get some extra damage out of it by firing it even at full health! Thematically, I thought it fell flat on its face (not a commentary on game balance, but how it appeared to be intended to be used vs how it was actually used).
THIS, and maybe one other caveat, could get it used more the way it was intended, I think. Rather than having GDF locked until 50% or less, maybe it's locked until, say 80% or less, increasing damage as you get lower in health, and if it's fired at 50% or below (or your health dips to 50% or below while active), LDE kicks in.
Getting to 80% health "safely" shouldn't be too much of an issue, it prevents the sort of "and the kitchen sink" tactics of tossing everything in up front (okay, I don't know if "professional" tac players do that, but that's how it feels when I play MY tac) , and tactical officers still have a reasonable choice; do I take the damage bonus NOW, or do I hold it for somewhat more dire circumstances?
Thoughts? I mean, it'd still be something of a nerf, but less of a nerf than it is on Tribble now, and still being more thematically appropriate than the current Holodeck setup, might get some dev buy-in.
Instead of TRIBBLE around with tacticals, etc.. they coulve spend their time making engineers more useful in a team setup. But they choose not to. Pretty much shows how well they know their own game.
Zombie tanks ftw, team play forget it.
A great starter idea would be to make Rotate shield frequency castable on others, see it as an extend which cannot be shocked off like an extend can. Make miracle worker cast on others as well.
Or the idea what alot of MMOs implement is a 'guard' thingy which basically lets you click a player, give him extra resistance, and you absorb a portion of the dmg.
Its mind boggling on how the general idea about classes are supposed to function by cryptics mind, either senseless tac/escort npc stomping with no realistic AI/brains or be god and never die in an engineer and brag about it.
Sad.
Sci? The only class which one only purpose is either in PvP or RP with your holoships. LOL
Another alternative to that, would be that GDF stays at being able to be used whenever with the new trait kicking in at sub 50%, but the damage buff at full health is nerfed from it's current 25% to around 10% or so.
The coding for it could be rather iffy though as it would depend on how the system handles the scaling of GDF, whether the buff is calculated during activation or if it's simply a call to the appropriate version of GDF.
Also how LDE is being implemented in code and how that interacts with the buff system, since it could be a simple couple of "if" checks or it could be some labyrinthine method of application.
As an aside, characters/captains in STO are not based around a 'tank, healer, dps' class system, they are based around a 'support, debuff, offensive' method system. (Ie, Eng's buff themselves/others, Sci's debuff enemies, Tac's shoot harder.)
It's rather annoying to see that assumption brought up so much.
There's no contradiction at all. The name is an indicator of function. The design is also an indicator of function. That people have used it as an alpha strike ability may have been tolerated but it was clearly never the core intended function of the ability.
As tactical captains have become the dominant class in the game, Cryptic has made the decision to tone down the alpha of tacticals while upping the damage of science and engineering.
GDF isn't changed because somebody at Cryptic woke up one day and said "Oh TRIBBLE, the ability doesn't match the name! Regardless of what makes sense for balance or enjoyment, we are bound to make the ability match the name! "
How could anyone believe that's reasonable on any level? Do you ever listen to podcasts or read interviews with the developers? Do they really seem stupid to you? Do they seem like they make changes to the game without any thought about their design goals?
I do wish I could fire it off at 75%, that's when I usually use GDF.
50% just makes sure I get a large boost instead of a silly one.
Its just the practicality of locking it behind 50% pretty much reduces it to STF/Tholian space battles only, where I often deliberately get beaten up to get the larger GDF bonus without dying. Sure as hell takes it out of pvp use. Which as the Devil's Advocate I think its not a bad thing.
The problem is not the GDF change, its that Subnuc is still terrifically terrifying. You can't subnuc my captain giving an inspirational speech that boost ship damage when consoles are blowing up!
Make all captain skills immune to subnuc and some whinging will stop.
"Last Engage! Magical Girl Origami-san" is in print! Now with three times more rainbows.
Support the "Armored Unicorn" vehicle initiative today!
Thanks for Harajuku. Now let's get a real "Magical Girl" costume!
That would be fair right?
Actually locking Miracle Worker to below 50% would be great. Then I could add it to my keybind.
Just makes engineers even better.
Scattering would make more sense, no? If one was going to go that way...
And nubcleotic beam keeps its 30s cd prolongation after a full buffs strip which is a real issue when you play in PUG queues (if 2 or more scis are focusing their SNB on you you can just warp out because you wont play for entire minutes).
Why not give tacts something interresting instead of another damage buff? IMO Subspace jump should have been a tactical captain skill.
Since you clearly missed it, or completely ignored it because it contradicted your argument, the entire EPtX debacle, and subsequent resolution, blows that entire train of thought out of the water.
Dev's made a change, in no small part predicated on the fact that the name of the power set didn't match what the powerset was doing. If your argument were true, they wouldn't have needed to do that since the functionality would have matched the name from the get go.
But it didn't. So please, stop hanging your entire argument that an ability's name inherently dictates an ability's function when there are multiple examples in STO of that clearly being not the case.
Oh, so now names don't dictate function? Or does that rule only apply when you're supporting a particular change you like?
But wait, now name does dictate function? Make up your mind.
In any event, what you're describing in bold (for emphasis) above is exactly what is occurring here. GDF is being shackled with restrictions for no other reason than it's function doesn't thematically match it's name enough for someone on the Dev team.
And now we're at the crux of your argument: you want to nerf tactical captains.
Could have saved everyone a great deal of trouble just by being up front and honest with your position from the beginning.
For the third time now: EPtX.
I ignored it because I didn't want to embarrass you guys further. I figured that pointing out your error once would allow you to understand your error in the other case, but I'll address it.
EPtX wasn't changed because it has 'Emergency" in the name, it was changed because they want abilities to be decisions you make rather than just another thing that you put into your generic keybind.
The way that EPtX abilities work on live, you just put a pair or quad of them in your generic keybind/macro and go on your merry way, which isn't compelling in any way. If they wanted that, they could just make those abilities toggles.
This was explained by a developer in a thread on this message forum. Your lack of understanding is not a contradiction on my part.
Wrong.
Or, the abilities weren't designed as well as they should have been, or the game changed and therefore the vision for the function changed, etc. There are really obvious reasons for changes other than "Derr, it has to match the name!"
Seriously, is there something wrong with you? You guys are the ones who are saying that the name *dictates* something, not me. You don't get to claim that I'm the one making that ridiculous argument. I'm pointing out what should be obvious: that a name FOLLOWS a function, just as a form follows a function. Neither form nor name dictates function.
No, names don't dictate function. I've said that very clearly from the start. Again, your lack of reasoning and reading comprehension is not a contradiction on my part.
Since the forums don't quote text that's been quoted in another post, I'll go ahead and quote the text you're referring to:
"No one is making design decisions based on what something is named. It's named according to its intended role and/or a description of what it does."
Look man, I don't know if English isn't your primary language, or you have dyslexia or you're just trolling, but you're clearly having a hard time responding to a basic logical argument. It's not even a sophisticated argument so I'm not sure why it's kicking your butt so bad.
Function = A
Form =B
Name = C
Devs chose B because of A.
Devs choose C because of A
Devs do not choose B because of C.
B and C will usually match because they both belong to A.
I don't even know how to make this simpler for you, but before you respond again, you should take the time to drill it into your head.
You guys are ascribing a ridiculous argument to the developers, then complaining about the ridiculous argument that they never made.
No, the crux of my argument is that you people are wasting a lot of time and words trying to argue against a straw man.
You keep saying "You shouldn't make a change just because of the name!" while the developers are nodding their heads silently and thinking "That's true, but that's not why we did it."
It makes my head hurt to watch the forum echo chamber make these misdirected arguments, pat each other on the back for such a well directed salvo, and not even realize that the target is behind them and not where they're shooting.
As far as what I want or don't want: I'm not the one who changed GDF. However, it's pretty clear if you're paying attention that the developers are scaling back the alpha strike ability of tactical captains, and both of the new space traits for tacticals are defensively oriented. Do YOU think that's by accident? Do you think the developers are noobs who don't realize that tactical captains are traditionally very DPS oriented? I think it's deliberate.
I don't think you have to be very smart to look at a game with 3 classes, where 70-80% of the population is playing a single class, and realize "hmm, something is possibly amiss here" and then observe that the 70-80% class is getting a little nip and tuck, and think "Oh hey, maybe this is intentional!"
Er...source?