test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Cant we nerf BFAW?

13468915

Comments

  • kostamojenxkostamojenx Member Posts: 251 Arc User
    The biggest problem with how good BFAW is, is that it makes everything else useless.

    Surgical Strikes, Beam Overload, Suppression Barrage, and Reroute Reserves to Weapons are all rendered almost completely irrelevant by the quality of FAW.

    And as we know, its so good its almost rendered Canons and Scatter Volley and Rapid fire almost obsolete as well.

    This is not good... Not good at all.
  • darkknightucfdarkknightucf Member Posts: 1,546 Media Corps
    It's almost like asking the question, "Why have these weapons been the go-to for these factions for over 200 years in the Star Trek universe?".
    Well now you know.
    Leave well enough alone.

    Then lets look at it from your perspective.... why are ships in STO removing torpedoes and replacing them with beams? Aren't torpedoes a major part of Star Trek?
    @Odenknight | U.S.S. Challenger | "Remember The Seven"
    Fleet Defiant Kinetic Heavy Fire Support | Fleet Manticore Kinetic Strike Ship | Tactical Command Kinetic Siege Refit | Fleet Defiant Quantum Phase Escort | Fleet Valiant Kinetic Heavy Fire Support
    Turning the Galaxy-X into a Torpedo Dreadnought & torpedo tutorial, with written torpedo guide.
    "A good weapon and a great strategy will win you many battles." - Marshall
    I knew using Kinetics would be playing the game on hard mode, but what I didn't realize was how bad the deck is stacked against Kinetics.
  • jaymclaughlinjaymclaughlin Member Posts: 630 Arc User
    redvenge wrote: »
    Mines are awesome... check my link at the top of the page.
    Well, you had me sold until you got to the tac cube. Over ten minutes to kill it, and your teamies were dropping over and over. You would have been better off killing it with Shield Scraping and Ramming Speed than mines. After 6 minutes of riveting dive-bombing, I was wondering why you did not have plasma mines.

    Yeah that's the major problem with kinetic only builds... They're ineffective against npc's with high shield regen. We tried things like transphasics to bypass, but they don't do enough damage compared to things like the tricobalts. Ultimately, it would have been far quicker if tachyon beam actually did what it's supposed to do at end game.

    Realistically, that video is silly. I mean 3 people doing ISA using only mines? However, my point is, mines can be made to work. They're obviously not going to be 'optimal', but there's a big difference between optimal and viable. It was also a lot of fun to do (until the tac cube obviously!).
    animated.gif
  • shinnok918shinnok918 Member Posts: 312 Arc User
    tasila wrote: »
    I think BFAW should get an limited ARC of your Actual Target in 90-180 cone that even would made gws more use full or abilitys that get enemys on certian points.

    limited arc? like say, cannon scatter volley. oh wait, no need since if u want to use an ability with a limited arc u have cannon scatter volley. go CSV ur heart out.
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    edited December 2015
    It's almost like asking the question, "Why have these weapons been the go-to for these factions for over 200 years in the Star Trek universe?".
    Well now you know.
    Leave well enough alone.

    Then lets look at it from your perspective.... why are ships in STO removing torpedoes and replacing them with beams? Aren't torpedoes a major part of Star Trek?

    I'd say they are about equally important, though many canon ships tended to have multiple phaser weapons and a much lower number of torpedo launchers. The Galaxy Class for example had 2 torpedo launcher and 12 phaser banks.

    I think it would be nice if the game mechanics would lead to a scenario where one or two torpedo launchers and 4+ energy weapons are close to the optimum. It almost used to be that way before we get all the power buffs, overcap bonuses, and power drain reduction abilities. Torpedoes were a good way to add spike damage to a build, without sacrificing much (or anything) in terms of DPS. (The biggest hindrance against it used to be that many Cruisers had only 2-3tactical slots, which means they could not really equip buffs both for beams and torpedoes. Nowadays, with all the cooldown reductions, there would be no need to run two BFAWs for example, and pretty much no cruiser has less than 3 tac slots anymore, so adding a torpedo and a torpedo buff would not be impossible. It's just that BFAW is too good to waste a weapon slot on a torpedo and a tac slot on a torpedo buff.)
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • theillusivenmantheillusivenman Member Posts: 438 Arc User
    edited December 2015


    BFAW+torps with kemo has reigned for a while actually, it's only recently that torps been completely swapped for moar beams. In ideal world, everything should be viable about the same (though no MMO ever achieved a perfect balance), if we're stictly speaking canon - as in Feds phaser arrays being "as is", while I see the point I'd like to pull weight on the other side of the spectrum - Klinks wanting to go canonical are then gimped and I don't think it's fair portion of playerbase is above the rest. Neither is fair saying "suck it up klinks and go arrays". I needn't remind people (I hope) that Star Trek experience isn't the same for all the players.

    With this I'm not saying there's need for a nerf. But I am saying BFAW is above the rest at the momentd, and it's the cannons that need some looking into now to even out the playing field.
    5980291nyfcc.png
    "Reality is a thing of the past."
    Proud supporter of equality for all human beings.
  • meimeitoomeimeitoo Member Posts: 12,587 Arc User
    edited December 2015
    EDIT: I'm not even gonna bother.
    Post edited by meimeitoo on
    3lsZz0w.jpg
  • misterferengi#8959 misterferengi Member Posts: 486 Arc User
    edited December 2015
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    The biggest problem with how good BFAW is, is that it makes everything else useless.

    Surgical Strikes, Beam Overload, Suppression Barrage, and Reroute Reserves to Weapons are all rendered almost completely irrelevant by the quality of FAW.

    No, Surgical Strikes was fantastic! Then the PvP community whined, very aggressively, and kept whining and spamming the forums with their whine, until Bort finally caved and decided to nerf it to death (i.e. decided to making it in line with CRF, aka sub-BFAW quality).

    I remember that Surgical Strikes when 1st brought to the table where amazing then they got nerfed. Neutronic Torpedo was pretty decent, it got nerfed. Science abilities were good when game launched, they got nerfed, but are back on the rise with partigen builds.

    Nerfing isn't the answer, buffing other weapons is.

    I believe NPC HP and Shields got a major buff when DR launched, Beams have received a lot of traits that help buff their effectiveness, but the base level of beams has not increased. These are the same beams that existed before DR hit and Cannons were still competitive.

    My option is Beams have been buffed up to deal with the HP and Shield increase but Mines/Cannons and Torpedo's have not. You only have to look at the lack of Starship Mastery Traits, R&D traits, Lockbox Traits and Consoles to see that is where the disparity between Beams and other weapons lie.

    Plus it also helps that any ship can equip beams fore and aft, broadside and double up the amount of weapons they can bring to bare. People seem to also forget the 2 biggest and more critical differences in this debate about the Competitiveness between Beams and Cannons. there are other differences but these are the biggest.

    1. Cannons can only be equipped Fore. Beams Fore and Aft. Therefore weapons of the same strength can be equipped to cover all areas of your ship.

    2. Firing Arc, a weapon with 180* Arc even at a lower base dmg is going to essentially be more effective against a moving target as it doesn't require as much piloting to keep a moving target in its Arc. (I say this as no weapon should be vaping a target within its firing cycle so if it takes 2-3-4 weapons cycles to kill something then the weapon with the better Arc is going to be more effective, as moving target is within Arc longer, therefore more chance of keeping it within a continuous firing cycle).

    So Beams have been buffed but other weapons types have been left to Pre-DR power levels, so instead of calling out a nerf to the skill that got attention ask for the skills that have not to be improved.
  • seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 10,918 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »

    See, you are under the rather mistaken impression that the game isn't in a state of broken NOW. It is. Seriously. The DPS people are making a mockery of all the content now. The average pug blows through CCA in under 3 min. Hell, the bad pugs blow through CCA in 5. So...yeah...we don't get a BFAW nerf, getting cannons buffed or not, another DR is coming.

    Then this is the root of our disagreement. To me, you're using the easiest of all the ques and the top 1% of the player base as a measuring stick for the 'norm.'

    For every DPS legend that can pull 100k there are hundreds of sub 10k players. The DPS Gods will always be at the top, they'll always have game breaking numbers, it's what they do and they're very good at it. You can't use them as the measuring stick, they're the top couple percent of the player base, not the norm. CCA is the easiest que in the game, pugs still struggle massively in most other advanced ques.

    Also, before it comes up, all of my arguments focus entirely on PVE. Like Cryptic themselves, I don't care one bit about PvP.
    Insert witty signature line here.
  • harlequinpixieharlequinpixie Member Posts: 172 Arc User
    Answer this, what question is BFAW not the right answer to?

    Works for AoE, works for single target, facing and/or piloting effectively don't matter.

    So a question was asked and promptly answered by yourself. However, to feed the passive aggressive nature of some posters I'll simply point out. There are two beam skills to pick from. Other than the special seating ones, so that leaves choice of, Fire at will or beam overload. Overload is not useful due to the one shot every 15 seconds. So people do not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out FAW is better.

    Faw does not need a nerf at all, and the OP posted reasons which made no actual case as to why it is needed to be nerfed other than it was "Boring". Other than that, piloting does matter for some builds, flanking is all important. And positioning, oh...but of course people knew that already.

    I'll leave it here, as I originally just wished to say my piece even if it was overlooked or not.
  • tasilatasila Member Posts: 77 Arc User
    Answer this, what question is BFAW not the right answer to?

    Works for AoE, works for single target, facing and/or piloting effectively don't matter.

    So a question was asked and promptly answered by yourself. However, to feed the passive aggressive nature of some posters I'll simply point out. There are two beam skills to pick from. Other than the special seating ones, so that leaves choice of, Fire at will or beam overload. Overload is not useful due to the one shot every 15 seconds. So people do not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out FAW is better.

    Faw does not need a nerf at all, and the OP posted reasons which made no actual case as to why it is needed to be nerfed other than it was "Boring". Other than that, piloting does matter for some builds, flanking is all important. And positioning, oh...but of course people knew that already.

    I'll leave it here, as I originally just wished to say my piece even if it was overlooked or not.

    BUT there should be ALTERNATIVES and u CANT WIN things like Battle of Korfez without FAW! AT LEAST 3 Average players should run FAW + 2 single target DUAL/Heavy Cannon users rapid/surgical strikes.
  • tunebreakertunebreaker Member Posts: 1,222 Arc User
    tasila wrote: »
    Answer this, what question is BFAW not the right answer to?

    Works for AoE, works for single target, facing and/or piloting effectively don't matter.

    So a question was asked and promptly answered by yourself. However, to feed the passive aggressive nature of some posters I'll simply point out. There are two beam skills to pick from. Other than the special seating ones, so that leaves choice of, Fire at will or beam overload. Overload is not useful due to the one shot every 15 seconds. So people do not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out FAW is better.

    Faw does not need a nerf at all, and the OP posted reasons which made no actual case as to why it is needed to be nerfed other than it was "Boring". Other than that, piloting does matter for some builds, flanking is all important. And positioning, oh...but of course people knew that already.

    I'll leave it here, as I originally just wished to say my piece even if it was overlooked or not.

    BUT there should be ALTERNATIVES and u CANT WIN things like Battle of Korfez without FAW! AT LEAST 3 Average players should run FAW + 2 single target DUAL/Heavy Cannon users rapid/surgical strikes.

    Totally agree with you that there should be alternatives for BFAW that perform as well. However, I'm sure Fez is totally doable with no one in the team using BFAW. It would be harder, for sure, but definitely not impossible.
  • p4hajujup4hajuju Member Posts: 214 Arc User
    I was wondering last night, when I pugged an ISA, that does the people who start these nerf bfaw to death, even play pug stf's anymore.
    I had a bad team with me and we got the optionals and the whole ISA, but if I hadn't been there it would have been a mess.

    And nerf everything to zero, then the few people will be happy. Everything on our side I mean, NPC's can stay where they are.
    Galavant!
    "Use Temporal Skills to NERF EVERYTHING before it happened!" -Unknown source.
  • shadowwraith77shadowwraith77 Member Posts: 6,395 Arc User
    It's almost like asking the question, "Why have these weapons been the go-to for these factions for over 200 years in the Star Trek universe?".
    Well now you know.
    Leave well enough alone.

    Then lets look at it from your perspective.... why are ships in STO removing torpedoes and replacing them with beams? Aren't torpedoes a major part of Star Trek?

    I'd say they are about equally important, though many canon ships tended to have multiple phaser weapons and a much lower number of torpedo launchers. The Galaxy Class for example had 2 torpedo launcher and 12 phaser banks.

    I think it would be nice if the game mechanics would lead to a scenario where one or two torpedo launchers and 4+ energy weapons are close to the optimum. It almost used to be that way before we get all the power buffs, overcap bonuses, and power drain reduction abilities. Torpedoes were a good way to add spike damage to a build, without sacrificing much (or anything) in terms of DPS. (The biggest hindrance against it used to be that many Cruisers had only 2-3tactical slots, which means they could not really equip buffs both for beams and torpedoes. Nowadays, with all the cooldown reductions, there would be no need to run two BFAWs for example, and pretty much no cruiser has less than 3 tac slots anymore, so adding a torpedo and a torpedo buff would not be impossible. It's just that BFAW is too good to waste a weapon slot on a torpedo and a tac slot on a torpedo buff.)

    The main reasons for torpedo bays vs arrays, is because torpedo bays use up a lot of real estate on a ship it seems, and have limited ammo capacity.

    While arrays use up energy, which is something ships generate normally, arrays offer death dealing from various angles hence why your example ship had so many of them 12 I belive.

    The Galaxy didn't have 12 arrays so they could broadside with all 12, they had 12 so no matter what arc an enemy is attacking from, they can deliver an array response back!

    tumblr_nq9ec3BSAy1qj6sk2o2_500_zpspkqw0mmk.gif


    Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!

  • knightnbluknightnblu Member Posts: 104 Arc User
    Why not just nerf the whole game, that make you happy? Let's all just use T1 ships and common T1 gear and call it a day. No powers, no nifty traits and no sexy specializations. Happy now? Of course you aren't. Because you would be bored out of your mind. If you don't like FAW then find a way around it. Use a drain build for example to take the sting out of it. I have seen players who don't ask for everything to be nerfed find ways to do what they want to do. They can do this because they have knowledge of the game and imagination. Why do you think the number of the DPS league is so high? It isn't FAW, it's using what is given to you to maximum effect. It's research. It's innovation. It's out of the box thinking.

    Try some of that, you may just find that you like it.
  • cidstormcidstorm Member Posts: 1,220 Arc User
    Nefing FAW is not the answer.

    I have said this before, I'll say it again. The chief concern with Fire At Will right now is that everyone uses it. It's the 'best' ability and is therefore the 'go to.'

    Lets ask ourselves why this is? Why does everyone FAW everything? Does everyone hate the idea of Cannons?

    There is one reason only.. lack of alternatives.

    You can go Cannons, who's mechanics are horribly flawed and make them require far more effort for less payoff (in most cases.)

    Even if you're a Beam Captain, what's your alternative? Beam Overload? Again.. odd mechanics, most people don't use it. Surgical Strikes? Sure.. that one is not bad but of course there is what.. 3 ships that can even use it? Hardly a mass solution.

    Nerfing abilities does not cause diversity.. it never has and it never will. When you take the best ability and reduce it's effectiveness, it has one of two effects. Either it still remains the best ability even after the nerf and everyone sticks with it while setting the forums on fire. Or the nerfed ability moves below the 2nd best option and the 2nd best becomes the new 'Meta' and the problem persists.

    The way you create diversity is creating desirable alternatives. You overhaul Cannons to make them competitive. You look at introducing other Beam Skills or improving things like Overload or Surigical Strikes to make them viable alternatives to Fire At Will. When you give people options, they'll try different things. Back when Aux2Bat was the big thing everyone wanted it nerfed. Cryptic instead did the smart thing, and introduced alternatives. They put in the Nukara traits that made people want high Aux, they put in traits and other mechanics that people could use as alternatives and people naturally moved away from A2B. Meanwhile, those who enjoyed it were able to stick with it and didn't have to change if they didn't want to.

    Nerfing Fire At Will is a reactionary, short sided solution that lacks imagination and won't fix the problem. You want to really fix the problem? Give people alternatives.. give them other effective abilities and people will naturally migrate away from Fire At Will.

    Just say no to nerfs.

    Pretty strong post. I'm no fan of FAW but it's the only widely available answer to elite difficulty. Torps and cannons probably need a buff. Tier 6 specialty ships are only making the problem worse by hoarding new weapon abilities.
  • seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 10,918 Arc User
    edited December 2015
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    Did you read the word AVERAGE in my post? That is not dealing with the top DPSers...or the bottom couple of percent you seem to be stuck in.

    Yes, I did. You and I are not going to agree because we have wildly different ideas who who constitutes the 'average' player. Our fundamental difference in opinion over the make up of the player base is going to make it so that we're not going to find mutal ground. I'm not criticizing your view point, I just stating there is no way we're going to agree.
    knightnblu wrote: »
    Why not just nerf the whole game, that make you happy? Let's all just use T1 ships and common T1 gear and call it a day. No powers, no nifty traits and no sexy specializations. Happy now? Of course you aren't. Because you would be bored out of your mind. If you don't like FAW then find a way around it. Use a drain build for example to take the sting out of it. I have seen players who don't ask for everything to be nerfed find ways to do what they want to do. They can do this because they have knowledge of the game and imagination. Why do you think the number of the DPS league is so high? It isn't FAW, it's using what is given to you to maximum effect. It's research. It's innovation. It's out of the box thinking.

    Try some of that, you may just find that you like it.

    I agree. The first thing that that people need to accept is that 'power creep' is part of the game. Love it, hate it, it doesn't matter.. it's part of the game and it's going to happen. People don't just want 'new stuff,' they want 'good new stuff' and that means more and more powerful ships and abilities. The big problem right now is that outside of 'Drain Builds' as you mentioned, there is pretty much no viable alternative to FAW builds. Other builds and abilities are outclassed and under performing. If those abilities were more desirable, people would use them and some people currently using FAW would migrate away in favor of other options.

    As I said before though, the big trick is to just 'boost' other abilities, not push them past FAW. Pushing abilities too far would have potentially disastrous effects on overall balance. I'm calling for balancing under performing powers, not making them godly powerful or pushing them past the current meta.
    Insert witty signature line here.
  • asuran14asuran14 Member Posts: 2,335 Arc User
    Well it is pretty well known how i feel, as i think both sides have the right idea in parts of a split picture, which i mean buffing some/all abilities is needed yet to minimize the bloat this might/will cause you should also though nerf any abilities that are seen/viewed as over-performing compared to the other abilities into line with a pre-determined standardized par. But i digress an will agree to disagree over just arguing the same point an getting no where, but hope that trendy as well as the devs look at the thread to see what they think on the matter themselves.

    Now for afew things i would change with some abilities i have though up afew examples, such as with beam overload, torpedo spread, cannon rapid-fire, as well as a new idea for torpedoes. Many of these changes would make the abilities more desirable to be used/slotted, but would also mean a change to some doff abilities.
    1. Beam: Overload: This version of the ability would be a toggled ability, which would amp the beam arrays/banks slotted on a starship improving both their damage output as well as critical hit (or possibly critical severity at a higher rank), but which would than also increase the energy drain of the beam arrays/banks fired while this ability is active. This ability would be stack-able with beam fire-at-will, but would also increase the weapon weapon power drain because of the increased firing rate of the fire-at-will ability gives.
    2. Cannon: Rapid-fire: Kinda the same idea as with beam: Overload I would change rapid-fire to a toggled ability as well, which would increase the rate of fire of slotted cannons, but which would increase the weapon power drain of cannons fired while the ability is toggled on. Also like Overload it would be stack-able with cannon spread, but would increase the weapon power drain.
    3. Torpedo spread: For me where torpedo spread is concerned I would keep alot of this ability's function the same, but would change one feature that just never made much sense to me, which would increase the viability of using multiple torpedo launchers on a ship more than already established. When firing a torpedo spread i feel that it should launch as normal 3-5 clusters of 4-8 torpedoes for each cluster, but that it should also launch a cluster of 1-3 torpedoes (this number could be altered for balancing.) from each torpedo launcher of a similar type to the main torpedo launcher the spread was fired from (like photon or plasma that is slotted). Now i would also say that any slotted torpedo launchers that can't launch a volley at the primary target (like the target being outside the firing arc) should fire their launched torpedoes at targets that are within their firing arcs.
    4. Accelerated launch: This is the new idea i had for a torpedo ability, which might be able to make those destructible torpedoes more able to hit a target without being shot down. This ability would affect any torpedoes fired during it's duration of 15 seconds causing them to have a higher travel time to their target, but which would take a decrease to their damage output as the torpedoes might have been streamlined an lighter weight, while also those destructible torpedoes would gain a passive chance to evade being shot down by any non-hanger pet or point defense system.
  • meathook2099meathook2099 Member Posts: 35 Arc User
    It's almost like asking the question, "Why have these weapons been the go-to for these factions for over 200 years in the Star Trek universe?".
    Well now you know.
    Leave well enough alone.

    Then lets look at it from your perspective.... why are ships in STO removing torpedoes and replacing them with beams? Aren't torpedoes a major part of Star Trek?

    Yes they are and they should drain shields and do kinetic damage just like they do on....wait for it....Star Trek.
    The franchise that this game is named for.

    Beams are looking good, now let's get those torps fixed.

  • yaisuke15yaisuke15 Member Posts: 421 Arc User
    BFaW should be split into numerous categories so we don't can have more diversity.

    Should be one to that upgrades beams so that they are point defence, stopping destructibles torps and fighters. This is the only one I want since I wanna focus fire on just one target and not worry about a flanking torpedo.

    Then there is one that can focus fire in a designated area. Like say BFaW Starboard, Aft, Fore or Port. I'd add ventral and dorsal, but we don't have those shield facings... Yet.

    Then Beam Repeated Fire at Will, starting at Lieutenant. That would make it so Captains will have to choose between the AoE BFaW and it's focused fire version. The focus fire version will of course increase the power drain.

    But that's just my thoughts. I'd say diversify the BFaW abilities. But we also need to buff other abilities so people can use them too.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    "Look at me I'm a target!"
    "Fire the Lance on my mark... MARK!
    "How many times have we gone into the breach again R'shee?"
    My proposal for a Galaxy bundle
  • kerygankerygan Member Posts: 254 Arc User
    u nutz ... !? Why nerf FAW ? I failed at all other mmos where abilities needs positioning and some neurons to use them , and aoe skills deals less dmg than single target skills. But STO ... I love it , 15 secs shared CD 360 deg. aoe more dmg than ... anything ... its awesome ... this is the first mmo where im not a noob ... Weeeree
  • bogardanbogardan Member Posts: 35 Arc User
    The issue in't necessarily with one skill, though BFAW could use a little workover. The issue is that the game penalizes people for playing anything other than high level builds. There's also too much of a penalty on using cannon-type weapons. The falloff penalty is far too strict, and makes little to no sense. Why should a cannon using raider or escort risk going into the 3km range just to get some more damage? They get hit with torpedoes too fast to use brace for impact (Which is a terrible skill and cryptic SHOULD feel terrible), and often get hit by multiple core breaches when nearby enemies explode. In counterpoint? That's 110,000 damage for you from anything other than a frigate. Have fun with that. As the game is now, cannons are simply inefficient. You expend much more effort compared to what you gain. Especially when you look at beam builds, which are easy to make.

    And there in lies the point: Beam builds are easy. Who would want to worry about facing an enemy and getting abilities off when you can just as easily pop fire at will and watch high numbers rolling in? This is not to say i hate beam builds (I run an Astika on one of my characters for god's sakes so please don't nerf it too much!), but i think the meta is currently slanted towards ships and builds that can take an enemy down fast from long range before it can get abilities off. Which thusfar only beam builds can do. This has to change. It's too much of a damagefest to be fun for us and profitable for cryptic in the long run. People will get bored, and bored people spend less.

    Mind you, these are just my thoughts on the matter, so.. yeah.
  • seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 10,918 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    Did you read the word AVERAGE in my post? That is not dealing with the top DPSers...or the bottom couple of percent you seem to be stuck in.

    Yes, I did. You and I are not going to agree because we have wildly different ideas who who constitutes the 'average' player. Our fundamental difference in opinion over the make up of the player base is going to make it so that we're not going to find mutal ground. I'm not criticizing your view point, I just stating there is no way we're going to agree.

    You can think what is average all you want...but these times are what we see in the queues that are getting run. We all know that they have a metric of must spend 15 min in queues. Last time we were in this breezing through content mode, we got DR. You know what, I'd rather we have some nerfs over another DR. If you think having another DR like pass is gonna hurt your "average" players less then a sensible nerf to BFAW along with a buff to some of the torp and cannons stuff...I'm sorry, but no, you are just wrong here.

    You either haven't read a word I have said, or you simply don't understand it. What you just posted is nothing close to what I have said. No matter how much I explain it, you just filter in what you think I'm saying. You're the one using top DPS players as the measuring stick, not me. You're guilty of everything you're accusing me of. I would try and explain it again, but what would be the point?

    You just go on believing everything should be nerfed. You obviously don't want to hear any other arguments and you're not going to listen anyway.
    Insert witty signature line here.
  • darkknightucfdarkknightucf Member Posts: 1,546 Media Corps
    Bottom line: It's a GAME!
    @Odenknight | U.S.S. Challenger | "Remember The Seven"
    Fleet Defiant Kinetic Heavy Fire Support | Fleet Manticore Kinetic Strike Ship | Tactical Command Kinetic Siege Refit | Fleet Defiant Quantum Phase Escort | Fleet Valiant Kinetic Heavy Fire Support
    Turning the Galaxy-X into a Torpedo Dreadnought & torpedo tutorial, with written torpedo guide.
    "A good weapon and a great strategy will win you many battles." - Marshall
    I knew using Kinetics would be playing the game on hard mode, but what I didn't realize was how bad the deck is stacked against Kinetics.
Sign In or Register to comment.