test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Tactical Console Suggestions
eraserfish
Member Posts: 0 Arc User
So I made a thread not too long ago about how Tactical consoles are kind of dumb because there's essentially no choice in terms of consoles. You can only get damage boosters and nothing else, and the damage boosters that do the most boosting are energy-specific ones. Contrast to Engineering and Science consoles, which come in a variety of different types and with a variety of different functions.
With that in mind, I propose the following to promote more variety for Tactical consoles:
Lower damage bonus of existing consoles
Reduce the damage bonus scaling of Tactical consoles down from 1.8 to 1.9% to a lower percentage, with the overall goal of reducing peak bonus damage potential of escorts to a number that is lower than +100%.
I have two reasons for suggesting this. The first is to bring Tactical consoles and escorts to a level more on par with their respective counterparts, while the second is to set the stage for my other suggestion...
Introduce new consoles
Add a variety of new Tactical consoles that are not purely focused on improving weapon damage.
Here are a few examples that I've thought of so far:
Torpedo Impulse Booster - Increases the speed of torpedo projectiles
Secondary Weapons Relay - Reduces overall energy drain from firing energy weapons
Warhead Calibrator - Increases the damage dealt by ability-enhanced torpedo projectiles
IFF Transceiver - Reduces time needed for mine projectiles to arm themselves
Tactical Autopilot Module - Enhances Starship Attack Pattern skills
Change existing consoles
Remove, or otherwise severely reduce damage bonuses from energy type-specific consoles. Instead, such consoles focus on providing alternative bonuses for their energy type, while general damage consoles now provide most of the damage bonuses.
Here are a few examples:
Phaser Relay - Increases Phaser weapon accuracy
Disruptor Induction Coil - Increases duration of Disruptor effect
Plasma Infuser - Increases duration of Plasma effect
Photon Detonation Assembly - Increases speed of Photon projectiles
Ambiplasma Envelope - Increases damage of Plasma effect
Transphasic Compressor - Increases shield penetration of Transphasic projectiles
With that in mind, I propose the following to promote more variety for Tactical consoles:
Lower damage bonus of existing consoles
Reduce the damage bonus scaling of Tactical consoles down from 1.8 to 1.9% to a lower percentage, with the overall goal of reducing peak bonus damage potential of escorts to a number that is lower than +100%.
I have two reasons for suggesting this. The first is to bring Tactical consoles and escorts to a level more on par with their respective counterparts, while the second is to set the stage for my other suggestion...
Introduce new consoles
Add a variety of new Tactical consoles that are not purely focused on improving weapon damage.
Here are a few examples that I've thought of so far:
Torpedo Impulse Booster - Increases the speed of torpedo projectiles
Secondary Weapons Relay - Reduces overall energy drain from firing energy weapons
Warhead Calibrator - Increases the damage dealt by ability-enhanced torpedo projectiles
IFF Transceiver - Reduces time needed for mine projectiles to arm themselves
Tactical Autopilot Module - Enhances Starship Attack Pattern skills
Change existing consoles
Remove, or otherwise severely reduce damage bonuses from energy type-specific consoles. Instead, such consoles focus on providing alternative bonuses for their energy type, while general damage consoles now provide most of the damage bonuses.
Here are a few examples:
Phaser Relay - Increases Phaser weapon accuracy
Disruptor Induction Coil - Increases duration of Disruptor effect
Plasma Infuser - Increases duration of Plasma effect
Photon Detonation Assembly - Increases speed of Photon projectiles
Ambiplasma Envelope - Increases damage of Plasma effect
Transphasic Compressor - Increases shield penetration of Transphasic projectiles
Post edited by eraserfish on
0
Comments
Reduce Damage
To reduce damage I'd go for diminishing returns and I'd have it scale (at Mk XII Very Rare) to give +30%, +20%, +15%, +12.5% and +10%, you the best you can get is +87.5% from consoles, on top of the +150% from weapon power. This means that slotting two consoles is about what it is now, but slotting the third isn't quite an automatic decision.
Rarity of the console could possibly factor in though, so an uncommon console may give +1.5% accuracy, Rare would give +2% and Very Rare would give +2.5%, so slotting a full five Very Rares could still give you +10% accuracy if you're willing to go that route. They would only apply accuracy to the relevant weapon type which is actually an interesting perk for the all-energy consoles.
This would be instead of changing the behaviour of the consoles as they are.
New Consoles
Not sure about the Secondary Weapon Relay, as that seems more like an engineering type thing; something to emphasise power recovery for either burst or continuous drain would be nice as an engineering console though, just needs to be less powerful than an EPS relay would be which I believe is why they don't help at the moment. For example, if one console gave a constant power return even when firing weapons but was quite low, while another gave a higher return but had a cool-down time after each burst?
I'd like to see some of the things that you have listed as changed consoles as their own new consoles, this way you could choose to slot phaser damage consoles with special phaser-only bonus consoles such as accuracy as you've mentioned to focus on phaser damage, or you could mix with torpedo damage for a hybrid build or whatever. Might be interesting to see Tricobalt torpedoes with a (non-stacking) console that lets you choose to return to previous status (double damage, double cool-down), maybe bumping projectile health into the bargain.
Game Balance - Ship Size and Wingmates
It's not about nerfing escorts at all, it's about reigning in the currently pointless tactical console system in favour of giving it the same variety and choice of engineering and science. Okay, granted engineering and science aren't perfect either as they have tons of pointless consoles, but currently the tactical slots may as well just be ditched in favour of a 1.25 to 2.25 damage modifier.
Game Balance - Ship Size and Wingmates
Maybe you should read the post.
"Reduce the damage bonus scaling of Tactical consoles down from 1.8 to 1.9% to a lower percentage, with the overall goal of reducing peak bonus damage potential of escorts to a number that is lower than +100%. I have two reasons for suggesting this. The first is to bring Tactical consoles and escorts to a level more on par with their respective counterparts, while the second is to set the stage for my other suggestion..."
What do you call that if not a nerf to escorts?
I commend you on your sharp-eyed reading ability, especially in regards to picking out words that you believe to be objectionable.
Yes, I think that the damage stacking on Tactical consoles is ridiculous, especially in the case of escorts. At present, lack of options for Tactical consoles essentially means that the number of Tactical console slots are in effect, a fixed damage bonus. If that's the case, then why bother with having different types of consoles at all?
I am proposing that the damage consoles scale up less so that they are less potent in numbers, which would affect overall damage of all vessel types. It will lower the gap in terms of raw damage, but escorts will retain a certain ratio of firepower superiority anyhow.
I respect your right to dislike my suggestion, but I am going to say that I never intended for you to have to like it. You can exercise your right to ignore me, since you are not required to come into this topic and post a response.
In any case, who's the one crying and whining? I'm not the one calling for a mod to muzzle someone just because I can't stand a contrary opinion.
I dislike the idea of diminishing returns on damage consoles. It made sense in the case of armour and plating consoles because it was too easy for players to build up to max damage resistance. What purpose does it serve here, other than to discourage console stacking? I don't find anything explicitly wrong with console stacking, only that it reaches excess under the current system.
It's just a rough idea and I don't want to introduce over-complicate things here.
The way I see it, Tactical consoles ought to allow players the option of determining whether or not they want to boost sustained damage, burst damage, or otherwise make some attack-related factors a little more convenient.
A nerf to the Excelsior and Sovereign fleet refits too. Which is a little amusing, nerf the Escorts and also hit two of the hardest hitting Cruisers at the same time.
If you go by eraserfish's original post then maybe instead of automatically slotting 5x phaser damage consoles you might slot three phaser damage, one special phaser console (bonus accuracy) and then a console that improves attack patterns. You'd still have a competitive escort but for reasons other than just damage output, which would still be plenty competitive by the way thanks to plenty of room for tactical consoles, tactical abilities and dual cannons.
Or you could ditch the attack patterns bonus for a torpedo console, so you're doing extra damage from your torpedoes and cannons/beams in tandem rather than just boosting one exclusively.
Another interesting new console idea could be a marine contingent; 90% resistance to crew damage if it falls beneath 75 or 10% (whichever is lower), increases level of boarding parties and doubles crew damage that they inflict. Doubles duration of Tactical Team bonuses (not shield distribution).
Game Balance - Ship Size and Wingmates
>>
<<
If "I don't find anything explicitly wrong with console stacking, only that it reaches excess under the current system." is true why does it only apply to one and not the other?
Other then that, great job on working out a alternative to console stacking.
If you implement a diminishing returns system on Tactical consoles, you are essentially discouraging players from stacking them at all. This is at odds with my belief that escorts should enjoy a certain level of damage superiority over other vessels, and diminishing returns would make that level of superiority very thin indeed.
What I don't believe in is the raw numbers present in the current system. A damage bonus of over 100% is an enormous advantage in firepower compared to the best that can be done with ships holding fewer Tactical console slots. Therefore, I think this figure should be reduced, but in a way that escorts can still maintain their edge in terms of firepower.
I do like the call for more variety in tac consoles, some of them might actually give science some utility.
Perhaps if you want to be extremely narrow about it. If you introduce a bunch more f useful alternatives to damage consoles it will enhance the choices that escort pilots have in creating a viable build. While his proposal may lessen your DPS, it provides nice opportunities to be effective I other ways. Done right it's the best combination of nerf/boost.
Could be, but it might have other merits if you'd read through it again without shades on your eyes.
Perhaps an example is in order.
Take the "Torpedo Impulse Booster" suggestion for example.
At a distance of maybe 8-9 clicks out, your target loses a facing.
Should you fire a torpedo at that range, he may well have enough time to turn and catch it on an active facing. But if your torpedo moved faster, it might be able to manage a direct hit on hull plating in time.
One person might like it because they find that it increases the window of opportunity in which a shot could get in, while another person does not see any value in it and will rarely notice any difference. But then another person comes along and says, "hey, my high-yield plasma torpedoes are actually hitting that beam cruiser now, all without firing it at a range where I risk getting burned myself".
I believe this to be loads better than the current system, where you get dopeslapped for even the slightest consideration that you could use a Directed Energy Distribution Manifold or a Geometry Detonator in one slot.
My problem isn't with the second half, it's with the first and the problems a hole in your logic will cause.
"... It made sense in the case of armour and plating consoles because it was too easy for players to build up to max damage resistance. ..."
Ok, If I reword this:
What's wrong with the above misquote if the first quote is fine?
I don't think that the tac consoles need diminishing returns. That's built in with the way damage resistance is supposed to work. The only problem with them is that the sustained damage damage curve from DHCs spikes waaay sooner than the damage curve from beams. That's entirely a function of the weapon's cycle time and weapons energy drain mechanics more than anything else. If you bumped the cycle time of DHCS to 1.25 seconds or lowered the cycle time of beam arrays to .75 but kept the exact same base DPS, you'd see a lot more parity between the two systems, with six beam arrays dealing 2/3 the damage of 4 DHCs before consoles and maintaining that ratio as long as an equal number of identical consoles are used. Tac captains in escorts could push that further, of course.
Ah but see, you are committing a logical fallacy in assuming that both situations are identical, when they are not mutually interchangeable.
I remember reading somewhere that damage resistance in STO is capped at 75%.
Without diminishing returns, this would mean that one could easily hit the limit against a given damage type with nothing more than a pair of purple xi plates, and that's without factoring in either skills or abilities. The long and short of it is that damage resistance wouldn't mean a lot if almost any ship could hit the maximum or go very close to it.
Damage meanwhile, still has meaning. It does not have a maximum cap, or at least one that could be realistically achieved by a regular player. What doesn't have meaning is the fact that there are no choices in Tactical console slots, whereas players in the past did have some choice of what to do with their Engineering slots, however silly the idea of 75% reduction may be.
That's at best a justification after the fact. (Yes, I do that a lot, but it's more of a surprise to me no one faults me on it. I expect them to to move the point along. :P)
My problem isn't that you want give choices in tactical consoles. I like that idea. If anything it's like agreeing there should be roses at a wedding, but arguing over what color the roses should be. :P
And, they are not or shouldn't be because? ...
Awesome Idee. Boost abilitys with consoles would bei great and gives Fleet a tactical Advantage.
Maybe there should be a Console to increase the Shield damage of Tetryon massiv, but decreases the ability to do Hull damage. That would be a great thing for Teamplaying. One guy drains Shield massivly on a Cube and the Other fires a massive HY3 burst.
Well one of the reasons why I've suggested nerfing console damage in general is to lower the extent by which damage is improved with each subsequent console. If a purple mk xii went from 30% down to 20%, a typical escort filled to the brim with damage bonuses will retain the same ratio of damage superiority over other ships as it always had, but the overall damage output would be lesser. And really, part of the whole "maximizing damage at any cost" mentality seems to be partly inspired by the lack of any other avenues to do so.
With that in mind, I believe that nerfing the damage is necessary, or otherwise my proposed consoles would have to buffed out of proportion to be viable.
So yes, you could stack general damage consoles and it will have its advantages in that your overall DPS may well be higher. However, it won't (or should) be able to stack up to specialized consoles in terms of raw burst damage, while emphasis on some secondary capabilities may work better with some ships or builds than others. Faster torpedo projectiles would be a god-send for those who use plasma torpedoes extensively, and may well be worth a slight decline in damage if it can noticeably and reliably ensure a hit; likewise, a reduction in power demands caused by firing up to eight weapons simultaneously could help improve overall DPS more than another damage console.
As for what players will do, well... not much that can be done about that. If the idea of behind proposing additional Tactical consoles with effects attracts interest however, that might change.
No I don't work for CBS and if you steal my idea I SWEAR I WILL SUE!
Opening a lockbox is like using a public restroom when u gotta poo.
You are just hoping nobody blew on the seat or that all the toilet paper is gone.
It would give sci and eng captains some options as to how they can best apply the damage they are capable of. As and eng myself given the choice I would have consoles like this:
x1 overload battery to increase BO damage
x1 long range targeting computer to increase max range accuracy
x1 secondary weapons relay from OP to reduce drain
Couple these with a high skill in electro-plasma relays (or the console that boosts this) I could snipe at enemies from maximum range with good damage, leaving the escorts to brawl at close quarters. Just one idea from potentially many.
Even as a tac you'd have more choice in the type of combat you want to partake in, rather than be the DHC wielding escort everyone expects you to be.
Diminishing returns has the advantage that it means there's a reason to not take more, without forcing you not to or relying on other options being just as good. If done on the right curve it should mean that maximum damage output is a harder choice; ideally not a no-brainer either way. It also means that ships with fewer tactical consoles may still want to take some of the alternative new consoles if they're happy that one or two damage bonuses is adequate for their build.
Game Balance - Ship Size and Wingmates