That is a legitimate power accomplished by superior gunners.
Not like when you conjure up a Gravity Well when said power would make Warp Drive obsolete or summon the one and only Tyken's Rift, repeatedly, by several captains simultaneously, did I mention there was only one of them?
The solution to the PvE vs PvP gap is as follows:
A Star Trek Simulator for the fans.
And a Star Trek Arcade Game for the gamers.
Separate games on separate servers and never shall they meet or mingle.
I would have to agree with whoever suggested that they just remove pvp from the game. I think, from now on, every time I see a player make a thread calling for a nerf because of how it effects pvp, I will simply make a thread above it calling for the removal of said pvp. Honestly, I do not see how it brings anything positive to the game.
I would have to agree with whoever suggested that they just remove pvp from the game. I think, from now on, every time I see a player make a thread calling for a nerf because of how it effects pvp, I will simply make a thread above it calling for the removal of said pvp. Honestly, I do not see how it brings anything positive to the game.
Im an rper and i think the notion to eliminate pvp is ludicrous.
A good pvp community prolongs the lifespan of a game potentially indefinitely. Think about Counterstrike, Halo, Dota2 etc...THERE PLAYING THE SAME MAPS OVER AND OVER AGAIN. With a good pvp community you have a core of player that wilk be there regardless of what happens in pve... a pve only game would just be a race to faceroll the content as fast as possible... like sto is now!
PvP might be one of the most influential deterant to power creep!
Do you realky wanna play a game where every new cash shop release is blatantly more powerful than what came before?
not saying that the above is inherently wrong...but that is what your suggestion would lead to.
You wonder why people are hostile towards you? Really?
"Cannot fight against a human being". Man, take that attitude and shove it so far up your TRIBBLE your eyeballs pop out. THAT is why we hate you. Because you think your kind of fun is superior, your skills are superior, your preferences for the game and your priorities for how it should be built are superior, and that things should be changed for your benefit and your benefit alone.
What part of we COULD play competitive PvP if we wanted to do you not understand? What part of the fact that many if not most of us find that level of obsessive minimaxing to be a pointless and obnoxious pain in the TRIBBLE do you fail to understand? It's not our idea of a good time, and that does NOT make us any lesser than you.
What we want is to experience stories, immerse ourselves in the setting, and play the hero. It's entertainment for us, and for you it's a sport. We don't WANT to play it as a ******ned sport, can you wrap your head around that for once? We would find playing it that way to be frustrating and pointless and unrewarding, and find the competitive attitude required to enjoy PvP to be obnoxious and counter to the spirit of cooperative entertainment.
We as PvE players want to COOPERATE with our fellow gamers so we ALL have a good time and we all win. In the PvE game all get to be heroes and win for a change, when real life is often so stressful and harsh. We don't WANT to destroy other players or make them fail, we want to win TOGETHER with them. We get to beat up on enemies without hurting any human person's feelings or ruining anyone else's good time. We get to have fun together where nobody has to suffer frustration and disappointment. The real world is brutally competitive, we want something else from our gaming time.
You, though, think PvP is for the real players and everyone else only does it because they can't cut it. You think that taking things away from PvE players is ok because we're just losers who can't make the cut in the competitive league. Your head is so far up your own TRIBBLE you have to open your mouth to be able to see. The world, and the game, does NOT revolve around you.
If you don't like something being used against you in PvP, ask to have it banned FROM PVP and from PvP ALONE. When you want it nerfed for everyone, you're hurting everyone else and taking something away from them to suit your needs at the expense of others. It's incredibly selfish behavior and it makes those you have so selfishly caused inconvenience to to hate your self-centered TRIBBLE. You have no respect for PvE players and what we want doesn't count in your little self-centered world, because to you we're just the scrubs that can't compete. To you we're just whining, because our needs as PvE players are not considered of any value. You don't consider PvE a valid and worthy way to play the game, you consider it a trash collection of rejects who have failed PvP.
Your arrogance, condescension, self-centeredness, and refusal to respect the feelings and wishes of other players, ones you have judged to be inferior second class gamers in the shadow of your elite group, is why we hate you. We hate you because you're obnoxious and your attitude is toxic.
Please go away.
Good God! Don't ever play Monopoly, dude, you'll hate it. But I don't know if Candyland would be any better, either. After all, it's still "player-versus-player".
That is a legitimate power accomplished by superior gunners.
Not like when you conjure up a Gravity Well when said power would make Warp Drive obsolete or summon the one and only Tyken's Rift, repeatedly, by several captains simultaneously, did I mention there was only one of them?
The solution to the PvE vs PvP gap is as follows:
A Star Trek Simulator for the fans.
And a Star Trek Arcade Game for the gamers.
Separate games on separate servers and never shall they meet or mingle.
So we should eliminate science captains. How about engineering too?
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
So we should eliminate science captains. How about engineering too?
Personally, I'd prefer that they did the careers along the lines of what they did with the Specializations in a sense...Primary/Secondary. Cause it would fit in more with how many of the characters from the shows were. You'd have Eng/Sci, Sci/Eng, Tac/Eng, Eng/Tac, Tac/Sci, Sci/Tac...mixing the various abilities, etc, etc, etc.
Personally, I'd prefer that they did the careers along the lines of what they did with the Specializations in a sense...Primary/Secondary. Cause it would fit in more with how many of the characters from the shows were. You'd have Eng/Sci, Sci/Eng, Tac/Eng, Eng/Tac, Tac/Sci, Sci/Tac...mixing the various abilities, etc, etc, etc.
Yah, I like it. I pretty much gravitate whenever possible to sci/tac. But there could be a lot of interesting possibilities with others - eng mixed in to remove the need for 50 million EC leech etc..
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
The amount of time that you can be immune is just ridiculous - nearly 30% of combat time. It would be one thing if you were granted high defense or resistance for a few seconds, but this is literally Godmode for entirely too much time, way too often.
Rock N Roll - 4-5 seconds.
Thick of It (Pilot Spec) - 4 seconds
Temporal Insight - 4 seconds
Destabilizing Phase Array (Ico Rep, T4) - 3 seconds
Pilot Manuvers - 2 seconds with only a 10 second CD.
That's 17 seconds per minute (28%) right there. And I'm not even sure if I've included all possible sources.
Suggestion: Either include hard CDs for all sources of immunity (if you're immune by any source, you can not be granted immunity for another 45-60 seconds from any source), or have a cap on how much time you can spend immune (no more than 5-10 seconds per minute). Or, as others have suggested in this thread, switch it out to a high Defense and/or Resist.
EDIT: For those of you that think that this is OK, why do you feel so? Don't just say things like "WELL I'M GLAD THE DEVS DON'T TAKE ADVICE FROM THE FORUMS" or "LOL PVP" (because this is both a PvE and PvP issue), please justify why you believe that almost 20 seconds of immunity every minute is OK.
Which is it? 30%? 28%? 33.33333%? Looks like it's 28%. I'm fine with that.
What I think should be done is not me explaining why I think it's okay, but you explaining why you think it's not.
...but this is literally Godmode for entirely too much time, way too often.
This thread has been derailed into a farce by witch-hunting PvE'rs who can't even admit to themselves that things are way, WAY off kilter. The quality of some of the replies here is approaching Godwin territory at warp speed.
I guess when an entire generation grows up on cheat-codes and "everyone's a winner!" you can't expect anything else.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
This thread has been derailed into a farce by witch-hunting PvE'rs who can't even admit to themselves that things are way, WAY off kilter. The quality of some of the replies here is approaching Godwin territory at warp speed.
I guess when an entire generation grows up on cheat-codes and "everyone's a winner!" you can't expect anything else.
There's no other word for it than sad.
He didn't.. That's not an explanation; it's an assertion, and more or less Petitio Principii. How is it "God-mode"? Some immunities prevent the player from attacking for the duration of the immunity. They are by no means "instant win" buttons. So let's discuss Logic, shall we? See, this is how it's done: you provide an argument (argument - a set of statements, some of which [premises] are given in support of another [the conclusion]). If you include no statements to support your conclusion, then you haven't provided an argument, and you haven't offered an explanation other than "I don't like it." Okay, fine. I get that. You don't like it. But why is it not "OK"? WHY do you not like it?
And is the "slur" of "PvE'rs" perhaps a clue as to why you don't like it? If so, then that's all I need to know and thanks, but no thanks. I PvP too, and I am ADAMANTLY OPPOSED to any "fix" for PvP that breaks PvE. You can't very well PvP without having done some PvE (in this game, at least), so it's not a question of one or the other except for those who live only for PvP and have little patience for PvE, preferring that it not even exist (if we're being honest), and those who cannot stand PvP and prefer that it not exist (and we all know that both types exist, but some of you seem incapable of grasping anything that goes beyond the simplistic "Black-or-White" mentality).
And I'm from an older generation, not one that grew up on cheat-codes (but I do have to ask: "What's wrong with everyone being a winner? Is competition so drummed into your psyche that you can't grasp the notion that nobody has to lose for someone to win?"); I watched TOS before it was in reruns. Try not to dismiss things you don't like with assumptions and ad Hominem.
This thread has been derailed into a farce by witch-hunting PvE'rs who can't even admit to themselves that things are way, WAY off kilter.
No, this thread started out as a farce when the OP pretended "(because this is both a PvE and PvP issue)," whereas it's glaringly obvious this is just a PvP-nerf request. In PvE, these small, situational immunities are as good as irrelevant. Except for "Rock 'N Roll" maybe, which is just a handy extra Evasive Manoeuvres, as it were. The rest largely depends on making Pilot Primary (which makes no sense in PvE) and/or slotting Passive Traits no DPS-er really needs or wants.
So, if the OP can't even admit to what his thread is, and resorts to subterfuge in order to hide the fact that his is a plain PvP-nerf request, then everything he and his ilk say thereafter become 'the fruits of the poisened tree' as a result.
PvP-ers do that a lot, btw: presenting their case as if everyone benefits, whereas, in reality, it only benefits PvP.
Wow, just because he didn't write a PhD thesis on it to match your rigorous holier-than-thou internet standards doesn't mean he didn't make an observation and back it up with data then drew a conclusion.
...and no, there's no clue except from reading the bile that's been posted regarding someone who DARED to speak the heresy that maybe something isn't right here.
No, this thread started out as a farce when the OP pretended "(because this is both a PvE and PvP issue)," whereas it's glaringly obvious this is just a PvP-nerf request. In PvE, these small, situational immunities are as good as irrelevant. Except for "Rock 'N Roll" maybe, which is just a handy extra Evasive Manoeuvres, as it were. The rest largely depends on making Pilot Primary (which makes no sense in PvE) and/or slotting Passive Traits no DPS-er really needs or wants.
So, if the OP can't even admit to what his thread is, and resorts to subterfuge in order to hide the fact that his is a plain PvP-nerf request, then everything he and his ilk say thereafter become 'the fruits of the poisened tree' as a result.
PvP-ers do that a lot, btw: presenting their case as if everyone benefits, whereas, in reality, it only benefits PvP.
Gee, I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition...
But that's sadly what this whole thing has become. Congratulations.
Gee, I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition...
But that's sadly what this whole thing has become. Congratulations.
The Spanish Inquisition is OP. Plz nerf. :P
Seriously, though, things started getting ugly when the OP started referring to PvE-ers wanting "Space Barbie Godmode," and others started piling on as to how stupid PvE-ers are, don't know how to defend themselves without these alleged 'godmode' abilities, and yada, yada, yada. The usual, really.
And all because PvE-ers DARED to speak the heresy that maybe the OP had an ulterior PvP motive (which, turns out, was less ulterior than he may have wanted).
N.B. I'm not for removing PvP from this game, btw (for reasons already outlined by others). I am, however, vigilent when I see yet another PvP nerf request which, also as usual, will hurt PvE a lot (SS3 anyone?) and only maybe benefit 1% of the playerbase (half of which already indicated their willingness and ability to adapt just fine, btw).
This thread has been derailed into a farce by witch-hunting PvE'rs who can't even admit to themselves that things are way, WAY off kilter. The quality of some of the replies here is approaching Godwin territory at warp speed.
I guess when an entire generation grows up on cheat-codes and "everyone's a winner!" you can't expect anything else.
There's no other word for it than sad.
That's why I've stopped posting in here (mostly). If people can't see it themselves, then whatever. Hopefully they'll like whatever the game degenerates to, it keeps continuing down this path.
No, this thread started out as a farce when the OP pretended "(because this is both a PvE and PvP issue)," whereas it's glaringly obvious this is just a PvP-nerf request. In PvE, these small, situational immunities are as good as irrelevant. Except for "Rock 'N Roll" maybe, which is just a handy extra Evasive Manoeuvres, as it were. The rest largely depends on making Pilot Primary (which makes no sense in PvE) and/or slotting Passive Traits no DPS-er really needs or wants.
So, if the OP can't even admit to what his thread is, and resorts to subterfuge in order to hide the fact that his is a plain PvP-nerf request, then everything he and his ilk say thereafter become 'the fruits of the poisened tree' as a result.
PvP-ers do that a lot, btw: presenting their case as if everyone benefits, whereas, in reality, it only benefits PvP.
Pilot spec doesn't make sense? Do all of the +Dmg, +Def/+Res doesn't make sense in PvE purely because of Space Flanking and Intel Fleet? What about the people who aren't mix/maxing for Intel Fleet/Flanking and use Pilot as a primary with Intel Secondary?
Quick example, using the ISA that you cited earlier: Use your immunities to tank the entire (Nanite) Sphere group's Tachyon Beam, even as a glass cannon Escort. Then RnR your way past the Gate (while not having to move away from it to avoid it's fire/give yourself a chance to react to it), getting to the other side before everyone else. Use your immunities to not take any damage while having a headstart/taking fire from the enemies near the Right transformer and the Spheres that spawn there after popping one of the generators quickly. Then, once that's done, repeat the Godmode tanking of the Nanite Sphere group and laugh as the Gateway and TacCube don't pose a threat either.
But, let's suppose this is a PvP only issue - would the supposed change to high Def and/or Res (so that it can be overcome, with some effort) make it "useless" or any less viable on PvE?
Wow, just because he didn't write a PhD thesis on it to match your rigorous holier-than-thou internet standards doesn't mean he didn't make an observation and back it up with data then drew a conclusion.
...and no, there's no clue except from reading the bile that's been posted regarding someone who DARED to speak the heresy that maybe something isn't right here.
It's really quite simple. You make a claim, you back it up. You don't back it up, expect to get called on not backing it up. This is not about "internet standards" by any means. This is how you DO reasoning, in any context, if you want to do it right. I realize that many of you have little positive example, being exposed to the most outrageous rhetorical nonsense imaginable by your political figures (Rhetoric is about "winning" a discussion; Logic is about getting at the truth; Rhetoric is about "pretty words and witty insults" in order to promote your cause; Logic is about finding the right answer even if it's not the one you would like), but the concept is not that difficult to get: If you want to make a claim, you better be able to back it up, and if you can't, then you probably shouldn't make the claim, because someone WILL point out to you that you're not giving any basis for your claim other than vague predictions of doom or additional claims without any foundation and which themselves do not support the initial claim.
And yeah, there is a clue, or else you wouldn't have slung poo at "PvE'rs" in an effort to portray yourself and your faction as somehow being victimized by those who do not PvP.
Oh, look. You've done more of that playing the victim in this thread since my previous post.
I had gotten a sheshar, a benthan, a matha, command pack, etc etc just to build a bigger death ray. As long as the meta was "build the biggest death ray" I was happy to acquire every possible thing to enhance it. But, alas, my death ray is already pretty strong, and while marginal increases in strength are important for "build the biggest death ray," they don't do anything against a shield of invincibility.
another pvp predator looking for only gentle resistance to easily overcome.
btw - sorry you have so little zen/dil
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
It's really quite simple. You make a claim, you back it up. You don't back it up, expect to get called on not backing it up.
I did, but I'll do it again.
Why would you pile on Defensive gear/abilities if you can make yourself immune to the hardest hitting damage for a significant amount of time?
Example: ISA. Tanking both Nanite Sphere Tachyon Beam rushes, the TacCube, and the Gateway's damage by using your immunities.
Example: HSE tanking became a whole lot easier. Not for dedicated tanks or healers, but for everyone, further diminishing their role.
Further, isn't it a little silly, based on principle alone? NPCs aren't using many buffs or debuffs against you. They're mostly only doing damage. If you remove good sized chunks of that damage, what's left? Just pew pew pew?
It's really quite simple. You make a claim, you back it up. You don't back it up, expect to get called on not backing it up. This is not about "internet standards" by any means. This is how you DO reasoning, in any context, if you want to do it right. I realize that many of you have little positive example, being exposed to the most outrageous rhetorical nonsense imaginable by your political figures (Rhetoric is about "winning" a discussion; Logic is about getting at the truth; Rhetoric is about "pretty words and witty insults" in order to promote your cause; Logic is about finding the right answer even if it's not the one you would like), but the concept is not that difficult to get: If you want to make a claim, you better be able to back it up, and if you can't, then you probably shouldn't make the claim, because someone WILL point out to you that you're not giving any basis for your claim other than vague predictions of doom or additional claims without any foundation and which themselves do not support the initial claim.
And yeah, there is a clue, or else you wouldn't have slung poo at "PvE'rs" in an effort to portray yourself and your faction as somehow being victimized by those who do not PvP.
Oh, look. You've done more of that playing the victim in this thread since my previous post.
Wow, im just beyond impressed with your feats of logic and the breath and depth of your knowledge. Where did you get your internet diploma from?
The op made an observation, presented evidence, drew a conclusion.
That's still allowed by the serfs is it not?
Just because he didn't do it in APA format doesn't make it right for you to **** all over him and has noting to do with discussing the issue either by denying the issue exists because you don't like the Y before the X or the "MeiMei-TRIBBLE-Torquamada" witch-hunting.
Why would you pile on Defensive gear/abilities if you can make yourself immune to the hardest hitting damage for a significant amount of time?
Example: ISA. Tanking both Nanite Sphere Tachyon Beam rushes, the TacCube, and the Gateway's damage by using your immunities.
Example: HSE tanking became a whole lot easier. Not for dedicated tanks or healers, but for everyone, further diminishing their role.
Further, isn't it a little silly, based on principle alone? NPCs aren't using many buffs or debuffs against you. They're mostly only doing damage. If you remove good sized chunks of that damage, what's left? Just pew pew pew?
Non sequitur. "Immunities are out-of-hand" does not follow from anything you've said.
You provided three different claims in the OP about how much time can be spent in an "immune" state (that's already bad form, and I issued some minor scolding for that in my first post, but I'll let that go with this simple reminder, as it is only marginally relevant to the contention you have made whether it be 28% or 30% or one third). I'm going to go with the 28% one, because that's the only one you provided the math for. 30% is thus not accurate. One third (33.3333%) is patently hyperbole.
And how would immunities be "out-of-hand" even if it were possible to be "immune" for 1/3 of a minute? It's ONE THIRD, not two thirds. How much time would be "in-hand"? How far can it be pushed till you arbitrarily decide it's "out-of-hand"? Would 27% be okay? 25%? 20? On what basis do you make this claim of it being "out-of-hand," and what exactly determines when it gets to that state? Clearly, time is a factor, because your objection seems to be that 28% of a minute is too much time. So how much time is acceptable? Where is the line drawn, and why do you think you should be the one who gets to draw it?
Wow, im just beyond impressed with your feats of logic and the breath and depth of your knowledge. Where did you get your internet diploma from?
The op made an observation, presented evidence, drew a conclusion.
That's still allowed by the serfs is it not?
Just because he didn't do it in APA format doesn't make it right for you to **** all over him and has noting to do with discussing the issue either by denying the issue exists because you don't like the Y before the X or the "MeiMei-TRIBBLE-Torquamada" witch-hunting.
I got my first degree from a private university, and my second degree from another private university, both in actual classes with people physically present and so on. I won't engage in name-dropping; what I've said already is more than sufficient. Your personal attack, however, was uncalled for. I do know what I'm talking about, or I don't talk. You not liking that I know what I'm talking about is pointless. You can learn, too. I suggest you give it a shot, and I am about to offer you an opportunity to do so (again).
This isn't about format. It's about making a claim and backing it up. As I've just noted, his conclusion does NOT follow from the supposed explanation, and the claim and the "explanation" are full of holes, to boot. Logic does not require that you use any particular format; you can use Pospesel's symbolism or Kahane's or Aristotle's or someone else's -- you can even avoid the symbolism entirely and do it as a "word problem." It does have rules of inference, however, and when something is presented as a justification for something else, it had better follow those rules or else the person making the claim had better be able to tolerate being told "No, you're wrong, you haven't shown how this is so by the things you've said which were supposedly in support of it."
There's something else we learn in the study of Logic, which is of great help: you are not your beliefs. This means, among other things, that my criticism of your beliefs is not (in itself) a personal attack on you, and that your reaction to my critique need not devolve into personal attacks on me. Get it?
Non sequitur. "Immunities are out-of-hand" does not follow from anything you've said.
You provided three different claims in the OP about how much time can be spent in an "immune" state (that's already bad form, and I issued some minor scolding for that in my first post, but I'll let that go with this simple reminder, as it is only marginally relevant to the contention you have made whether it be 28% or 30% or one third). I'm going to go with the 28% one, because that's the only one you provided the math for. 30% is thus not accurate. One third (33.3333%) is patently hyperbole.
And how would immunities be "out-of-hand" even if it were possible to be "immune" for 1/3 of a minute? It's ONE THIRD, not two thirds. How much time would be "in-hand"? How far can it be pushed till you arbitrarily decide it's "out-of-hand"? Would 27% be okay? 25%? 20? On what basis do you make this claim of it being "out-of-hand," and what exactly determines when it gets to that state? Clearly, time is a factor, because your objection seems to be that 28% of a minute is too much time. So how much time is acceptable? Where is the line drawn, and why do you think you should be the one who gets to draw it?
I got my first degree from a private university, and my second degree from another private university, both in actual classes with people physically present and so on. I won't engage in name-dropping; what I've said already is more than sufficient. Your personal attack, however, was uncalled for. I do know what I'm talking about, or I don't talk. You not liking that I know what I'm talking about is pointless. You can learn, too. I suggest you give it a shot, and I am about to offer you an opportunity to do so (again).
I only say 1/3 because I'm rounding, for the sake of the argument, to give perspective. To make it a "full" 33%, that would only require an extra 3 seconds. Is that "hyperbole" or just rounding for sake of ease? Argue your point, not semantics.
Now, when you start calling it "out of hand" is a purely subjective. I personally feel that if you can eliminate almost 30% of the incoming damage, that's unnecessary, overpowered, and is just spoon feeding players. NPCs aren't doing that much as it is - letting you not even take damage is just puzzling; what's the logic behind being literally invincible?
And, come on now - this is a video game. You don't need to be bragging about degrees and such :rolleyes: That kind of talk is just unnecessary.
Do you people hear yourselves I have a great solution to this none existent problem don't equip any abilities or consoles that give you immunities for a only a few seconds then you can blow up as many times as you want while the rest of us enjoy having the ability to heal in those few seconds oh and as for global cool down times just no its a travesty that we have cool down times at all like on torp spreads for example lol.
Im an rper and i think the notion to eliminate pvp is ludicrous.
A good pvp community prolongs the lifespan of a game potentially indefinitely. Think about Counterstrike, Halo, Dota2 etc...THERE PLAYING THE SAME MAPS OVER AND OVER AGAIN. With a good pvp community you have a core of player that wilk be there regardless of what happens in pve... a pve only game would just be a race to faceroll the content as fast as possible... like sto is now!
PvP might be one of the most influential deterant to power creep!
Do you realky wanna play a game where every new cash shop release is blatantly more powerful than what came before?
not saying that the above is inherently wrong...but that is what your suggestion would lead to.
Apples to Oranges, not even remotely a valid comparison.
ALL of the games you mentioned were designed from the ground up as PvP games, they cater to an "entirely different" demographic than STO and MMORPG's in general do.
The problem with STO is that its too casual and has no real genuine endgame content to speak of, no raids or anything.
Comments
That is a legitimate power accomplished by superior gunners.
Not like when you conjure up a Gravity Well when said power would make Warp Drive obsolete or summon the one and only Tyken's Rift, repeatedly, by several captains simultaneously, did I mention there was only one of them?
The solution to the PvE vs PvP gap is as follows:
A Star Trek Simulator for the fans.
And a Star Trek Arcade Game for the gamers.
Separate games on separate servers and never shall they meet or mingle.
Lol this
/10chars
Interested in Role Playing? Join the 12th Fleet Science division!
Im an rper and i think the notion to eliminate pvp is ludicrous.
A good pvp community prolongs the lifespan of a game potentially indefinitely. Think about Counterstrike, Halo, Dota2 etc...THERE PLAYING THE SAME MAPS OVER AND OVER AGAIN. With a good pvp community you have a core of player that wilk be there regardless of what happens in pve... a pve only game would just be a race to faceroll the content as fast as possible... like sto is now!
PvP might be one of the most influential deterant to power creep!
Do you realky wanna play a game where every new cash shop release is blatantly more powerful than what came before?
not saying that the above is inherently wrong...but that is what your suggestion would lead to.
Interested in Role Playing? Join the 12th Fleet Science division!
Good God! Don't ever play Monopoly, dude, you'll hate it. But I don't know if Candyland would be any better, either. After all, it's still "player-versus-player".
So we should eliminate science captains. How about engineering too?
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Personally, I'd prefer that they did the careers along the lines of what they did with the Specializations in a sense...Primary/Secondary. Cause it would fit in more with how many of the characters from the shows were. You'd have Eng/Sci, Sci/Eng, Tac/Eng, Eng/Tac, Tac/Sci, Sci/Tac...mixing the various abilities, etc, etc, etc.
Yah, I like it. I pretty much gravitate whenever possible to sci/tac. But there could be a lot of interesting possibilities with others - eng mixed in to remove the need for 50 million EC leech etc..
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Which is it? 30%? 28%? 33.33333%? Looks like it's 28%. I'm fine with that.
What I think should be done is not me explaining why I think it's okay, but you explaining why you think it's not.
He did. You ignored it:
This thread has been derailed into a farce by witch-hunting PvE'rs who can't even admit to themselves that things are way, WAY off kilter. The quality of some of the replies here is approaching Godwin territory at warp speed.
I guess when an entire generation grows up on cheat-codes and "everyone's a winner!" you can't expect anything else.
There's no other word for it than sad.
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/57255026.jpg
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldl8ddPg8x1qe75j7o1_500.jpg
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
He didn't.. That's not an explanation; it's an assertion, and more or less Petitio Principii. How is it "God-mode"? Some immunities prevent the player from attacking for the duration of the immunity. They are by no means "instant win" buttons. So let's discuss Logic, shall we? See, this is how it's done: you provide an argument (argument - a set of statements, some of which [premises] are given in support of another [the conclusion]). If you include no statements to support your conclusion, then you haven't provided an argument, and you haven't offered an explanation other than "I don't like it." Okay, fine. I get that. You don't like it. But why is it not "OK"? WHY do you not like it?
And is the "slur" of "PvE'rs" perhaps a clue as to why you don't like it? If so, then that's all I need to know and thanks, but no thanks. I PvP too, and I am ADAMANTLY OPPOSED to any "fix" for PvP that breaks PvE. You can't very well PvP without having done some PvE (in this game, at least), so it's not a question of one or the other except for those who live only for PvP and have little patience for PvE, preferring that it not even exist (if we're being honest), and those who cannot stand PvP and prefer that it not exist (and we all know that both types exist, but some of you seem incapable of grasping anything that goes beyond the simplistic "Black-or-White" mentality).
And I'm from an older generation, not one that grew up on cheat-codes (but I do have to ask: "What's wrong with everyone being a winner? Is competition so drummed into your psyche that you can't grasp the notion that nobody has to lose for someone to win?"); I watched TOS before it was in reruns. Try not to dismiss things you don't like with assumptions and ad Hominem.
No, this thread started out as a farce when the OP pretended "(because this is both a PvE and PvP issue)," whereas it's glaringly obvious this is just a PvP-nerf request. In PvE, these small, situational immunities are as good as irrelevant. Except for "Rock 'N Roll" maybe, which is just a handy extra Evasive Manoeuvres, as it were. The rest largely depends on making Pilot Primary (which makes no sense in PvE) and/or slotting Passive Traits no DPS-er really needs or wants.
So, if the OP can't even admit to what his thread is, and resorts to subterfuge in order to hide the fact that his is a plain PvP-nerf request, then everything he and his ilk say thereafter become 'the fruits of the poisened tree' as a result.
PvP-ers do that a lot, btw: presenting their case as if everyone benefits, whereas, in reality, it only benefits PvP.
...and no, there's no clue except from reading the bile that's been posted regarding someone who DARED to speak the heresy that maybe something isn't right here.
Gee, I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition...
But that's sadly what this whole thing has become. Congratulations.
The Spanish Inquisition is OP. Plz nerf. :P
Seriously, though, things started getting ugly when the OP started referring to PvE-ers wanting "Space Barbie Godmode," and others started piling on as to how stupid PvE-ers are, don't know how to defend themselves without these alleged 'godmode' abilities, and yada, yada, yada. The usual, really.
And all because PvE-ers DARED to speak the heresy that maybe the OP had an ulterior PvP motive (which, turns out, was less ulterior than he may have wanted).
N.B. I'm not for removing PvP from this game, btw (for reasons already outlined by others). I am, however, vigilent when I see yet another PvP nerf request which, also as usual, will hurt PvE a lot (SS3 anyone?) and only maybe benefit 1% of the playerbase (half of which already indicated their willingness and ability to adapt just fine, btw).
So, yeah.
That's why I've stopped posting in here (mostly). If people can't see it themselves, then whatever. Hopefully they'll like whatever the game degenerates to, it keeps continuing down this path.
Pilot spec doesn't make sense? Do all of the +Dmg, +Def/+Res doesn't make sense in PvE purely because of Space Flanking and Intel Fleet? What about the people who aren't mix/maxing for Intel Fleet/Flanking and use Pilot as a primary with Intel Secondary?
Quick example, using the ISA that you cited earlier: Use your immunities to tank the entire (Nanite) Sphere group's Tachyon Beam, even as a glass cannon Escort. Then RnR your way past the Gate (while not having to move away from it to avoid it's fire/give yourself a chance to react to it), getting to the other side before everyone else. Use your immunities to not take any damage while having a headstart/taking fire from the enemies near the Right transformer and the Spheres that spawn there after popping one of the generators quickly. Then, once that's done, repeat the Godmode tanking of the Nanite Sphere group and laugh as the Gateway and TacCube don't pose a threat either.
But, let's suppose this is a PvP only issue - would the supposed change to high Def and/or Res (so that it can be overcome, with some effort) make it "useless" or any less viable on PvE?
It's really quite simple. You make a claim, you back it up. You don't back it up, expect to get called on not backing it up. This is not about "internet standards" by any means. This is how you DO reasoning, in any context, if you want to do it right. I realize that many of you have little positive example, being exposed to the most outrageous rhetorical nonsense imaginable by your political figures (Rhetoric is about "winning" a discussion; Logic is about getting at the truth; Rhetoric is about "pretty words and witty insults" in order to promote your cause; Logic is about finding the right answer even if it's not the one you would like), but the concept is not that difficult to get: If you want to make a claim, you better be able to back it up, and if you can't, then you probably shouldn't make the claim, because someone WILL point out to you that you're not giving any basis for your claim other than vague predictions of doom or additional claims without any foundation and which themselves do not support the initial claim.
And yeah, there is a clue, or else you wouldn't have slung poo at "PvE'rs" in an effort to portray yourself and your faction as somehow being victimized by those who do not PvP.
Oh, look. You've done more of that playing the victim in this thread since my previous post.
another pvp predator looking for only gentle resistance to easily overcome.
btw - sorry you have so little zen/dil
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
I'm sorry for shattering your little wet dream, but PvP'rs love tough resistance.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?p=23997601#post23997601
There's more than one kind of PvPer.
I did, but I'll do it again.
Why would you pile on Defensive gear/abilities if you can make yourself immune to the hardest hitting damage for a significant amount of time?
Example: ISA. Tanking both Nanite Sphere Tachyon Beam rushes, the TacCube, and the Gateway's damage by using your immunities.
Example: HSE tanking became a whole lot easier. Not for dedicated tanks or healers, but for everyone, further diminishing their role.
Further, isn't it a little silly, based on principle alone? NPCs aren't using many buffs or debuffs against you. They're mostly only doing damage. If you remove good sized chunks of that damage, what's left? Just pew pew pew?
Wow, im just beyond impressed with your feats of logic and the breath and depth of your knowledge. Where did you get your internet diploma from?
The op made an observation, presented evidence, drew a conclusion.
That's still allowed by the serfs is it not?
Just because he didn't do it in APA format doesn't make it right for you to **** all over him and has noting to do with discussing the issue either by denying the issue exists because you don't like the Y before the X or the "MeiMei-TRIBBLE-Torquamada" witch-hunting.
Non sequitur. "Immunities are out-of-hand" does not follow from anything you've said.
You provided three different claims in the OP about how much time can be spent in an "immune" state (that's already bad form, and I issued some minor scolding for that in my first post, but I'll let that go with this simple reminder, as it is only marginally relevant to the contention you have made whether it be 28% or 30% or one third). I'm going to go with the 28% one, because that's the only one you provided the math for. 30% is thus not accurate. One third (33.3333%) is patently hyperbole.
And how would immunities be "out-of-hand" even if it were possible to be "immune" for 1/3 of a minute? It's ONE THIRD, not two thirds. How much time would be "in-hand"? How far can it be pushed till you arbitrarily decide it's "out-of-hand"? Would 27% be okay? 25%? 20? On what basis do you make this claim of it being "out-of-hand," and what exactly determines when it gets to that state? Clearly, time is a factor, because your objection seems to be that 28% of a minute is too much time. So how much time is acceptable? Where is the line drawn, and why do you think you should be the one who gets to draw it?
I got my first degree from a private university, and my second degree from another private university, both in actual classes with people physically present and so on. I won't engage in name-dropping; what I've said already is more than sufficient. Your personal attack, however, was uncalled for. I do know what I'm talking about, or I don't talk. You not liking that I know what I'm talking about is pointless. You can learn, too. I suggest you give it a shot, and I am about to offer you an opportunity to do so (again).
This isn't about format. It's about making a claim and backing it up. As I've just noted, his conclusion does NOT follow from the supposed explanation, and the claim and the "explanation" are full of holes, to boot. Logic does not require that you use any particular format; you can use Pospesel's symbolism or Kahane's or Aristotle's or someone else's -- you can even avoid the symbolism entirely and do it as a "word problem." It does have rules of inference, however, and when something is presented as a justification for something else, it had better follow those rules or else the person making the claim had better be able to tolerate being told "No, you're wrong, you haven't shown how this is so by the things you've said which were supposedly in support of it."
There's something else we learn in the study of Logic, which is of great help: you are not your beliefs. This means, among other things, that my criticism of your beliefs is not (in itself) a personal attack on you, and that your reaction to my critique need not devolve into personal attacks on me. Get it?
I only say 1/3 because I'm rounding, for the sake of the argument, to give perspective. To make it a "full" 33%, that would only require an extra 3 seconds. Is that "hyperbole" or just rounding for sake of ease? Argue your point, not semantics.
Now, when you start calling it "out of hand" is a purely subjective. I personally feel that if you can eliminate almost 30% of the incoming damage, that's unnecessary, overpowered, and is just spoon feeding players. NPCs aren't doing that much as it is - letting you not even take damage is just puzzling; what's the logic behind being literally invincible?
And, come on now - this is a video game. You don't need to be bragging about degrees and such :rolleyes: That kind of talk is just unnecessary.
Apples to Oranges, not even remotely a valid comparison.
ALL of the games you mentioned were designed from the ground up as PvP games, they cater to an "entirely different" demographic than STO and MMORPG's in general do.
The problem with STO is that its too casual and has no real genuine endgame content to speak of, no raids or anything.