My complaint IS legit. Currently, my tac can freely switch between a T6 Akira and a T6 Prometheus (2 of my all time favorite ship designs) and be at peak efficiency regardless without doing a respec. In the new system, hanger pets now have a several skills of their own, so to do what I currently do I would have to respec every time I switch ships.
I realize this was shown to us waaaay to far in development to change, but IMHO hangar pets don't belong in the skill tree, they belong in their own dedicated Spec tree. One change they COULD make to -somewhat- alleviate the problem would be to make separation pets get at least a partial bonus from the hangar pet skills, but that wouldn't help everyone in my position, only those who switch between a carrier and a separation ship.
Again I'm not saying I should be able to fly escorts and sci ships or any other crazy TRIBBLE with the same build, but one build shouldn't have a problem handling two escorts.
This is a terrible argument. You're losing nothing now because the hangar pet skills simply don't exist. And said pets are not going to be nerfed either. You could continue in the exact same way post-revamp. So you certainly don't "have to respec every time you switch ships".
As an option, I see no compelling reason why pet buffs shouldn't have to share the same resources as other methods of attack, in the tactical skill tree.
As I said, pet skills have no place in the SKILL trees, they are too specialized for a tree that's otherwise fairly broad. They should instead have their own dedicated SPEC tree. It should be a choice between Intel, Command, Pilot, and Hangar.
I was very much against this whole revamp until I played with it some. Granted it needs tweaking it should work out pretty well if they listen to the feedback. A new spec tree is way overdue and I think "Hangar" is not a bad idea at all.
im loving how most of the criticism seems to be purely anecdotal comments with no actual specifics other than.. i cant do what i can do now, and that apparently, stuff that is wanted, is buried behind other stuff.
the odds are, that the majority of players currently complaining, have done little more than log into tribble, look at the new ui, and as soon as they couldn't see what they wanted right of the bat, or discovered that they had to make some 'either/or' decisions between favourable options, immediately decided.. fail system! i bet most couldn't even quote values, or the difference in stat weights between the old and the new. yet they can already decide its carp!!
those interested in actually testing are doing just that.. trying the system out, collecting data, and making proper comparisons. its far too early to be throwing dummies, toys and other collective guff, from the buggy.
My complaint IS legit. Currently, my tac can freely switch between a T6 Akira and a T6 Prometheus (2 of my all time favorite ship designs) and be at peak efficiency regardless without doing a respec. In the new system, hanger pets now have a several skills of their own, so to do what I currently do I would have to respec every time I switch ships.
I realize this was shown to us waaaay to far in development to change, but IMHO hangar pets don't belong in the skill tree, they belong in their own dedicated Spec tree. One change they COULD make to -somewhat- alleviate the problem would be to make separation pets get at least a partial bonus from the hangar pet skills, but that wouldn't help everyone in my position, only those who switch between a carrier and a separation ship.
Again I'm not saying I should be able to fly escorts and sci ships or any other crazy TRIBBLE with the same build, but one build shouldn't have a problem handling two escorts.
I think your only choice really is, do you want to buff your pets and have wasted skills when you fly the Prometheus or do you want your pets to be the same as they are now (no buff/ no nerf) and not have wasted skills while flying the Promethius? I think it's pretty obvious that you're trying to get both buffed pets and not wasted skills which is why I'm having trouble following your argument.
Because you're over simplifying the argument. The point is, on live my one set of skills puts both my Akira and my Prometheus at max capabilities, whereas the new skill tree puts one or the other at less than peak effectiveness no matter what I do.
As I said, pet skills have no place in the SKILL trees, they are too specialized for a tree that's otherwise fairly broad. They should instead have their own dedicated SPEC tree. It should be a choice between Intel, Command, Pilot, and Hangar, not between hangar pets and otherwise more useful skills.
And don't let me get started on how the tier 1 tactical unlock gives you the choice of buffing pets or stealth, two things many, many players don't have any use for at all ...
Could you post your current skill build on holodeck? That might help me understand you. I still think if you build for a standard escort it will work with both ships. The choice between stealth and pets is lame but doesn't cost any skill points.
im loving how most of the criticism seems to be purely anecdotal comments with no actual specifics other than.. i cant do what i can do now, and that apparently, stuff that is wanted, is buried behind other stuff.
the odds are, that the majority of players currently complaining, have done little more than log into tribble, look at the new ui, and as soon as they couldn't see what they wanted right of the bat, or discovered that they had to make some 'either/or' decisions between favourable options, immediately decided.. fail system! i bet most couldn't even quote values, or the difference in stat weights between the old and the new. yet they can already decide its carp!!
those interested in actually testing are doing just that.. trying the system out, collecting data, and making proper comparisons. its far too early to be throwing dummies, toys and other collective guff, from the buggy.
My complaint IS legit. Currently, my tac can freely switch between a T6 Akira and a T6 Prometheus (2 of my all time favorite ship designs) and be at peak efficiency regardless without doing a respec. In the new system, hanger pets now have a several skills of their own, so to do what I currently do I would have to respec every time I switch ships.
I realize this was shown to us waaaay to far in development to change, but IMHO hangar pets don't belong in the skill tree, they belong in their own dedicated Spec tree. One change they COULD make to -somewhat- alleviate the problem would be to make separation pets get at least a partial bonus from the hangar pet skills, but that wouldn't help everyone in my position, only those who switch between a carrier and a separation ship.
Again I'm not saying I should be able to fly escorts and sci ships or any other crazy TRIBBLE with the same build, but one build shouldn't have a problem handling two escorts.
I think your only choice really is, do you want to buff your pets and have wasted skills when you fly the Prometheus or do you want your pets to be the same as they are now (no buff/ no nerf) and not have wasted skills while flying the Promethius? I think it's pretty obvious that you're trying to get both buffed pets and not wasted skills which is why I'm having trouble following your argument.
Because you're over simplifying the argument. The point is, on live my one set of skills puts both my Akira and my Prometheus at max capabilities, whereas the new skill tree puts one or the other at less than peak effectiveness no matter what I do.
As I said, pet skills have no place in the SKILL trees, they are too specialized for a tree that's otherwise fairly broad. They should instead have their own dedicated SPEC tree. It should be a choice between Intel, Command, Pilot, and Hangar, not between hangar pets and otherwise more useful skills.
And don't let me get started on how the tier 1 tactical unlock gives you the choice of buffing pets or stealth, two things many, many players don't have any use for at all ...
Could you post your current skill build on holodeck? That might help me understand you. I still think if you build for a standard escort it will work with both ships. The choice between stealth and pets is lame but doesn't cost any skill points.
yeah im a little lost here too, as it stand there is no buff in the current tree for pets, so by spending the points to gain the same build on the standard escort, even though he wont gain anything for the pets.. he still isn't loosing out compared to his old build, he just isnt gaining anything either.. is that how you are seeing it too? or am i missing something?
Since neither of you seem to have read what I said:
As I said, pet skills have no place in the SKILL trees, they are too specialized for a tree that's otherwise fairly broad. They should instead have their own dedicated SPEC tree. It should be a choice between Intel, Command, Pilot, and Hangar, not between hangar pets and otherwise more useful skills.
Maybe I worded some of the other stuff wrong, idk, but when you get down to it that is the basis for my feelings on this. Hangar pets do not belong in the skill trees ... they are one of the only skills that have no benefit at all for the majority of builds (others may be sub-optimal, but most still DO something no matter who uses it). Pets could definitely use some love, but that should be in the form of a spec tree.
I could suggest alternative skills (increased weapon rate of fire skills, increased firing arc skills, etc), but ultimately this feedback comes too late in the dev cycle so this won't change.
I would not say that pet-buffing skills of varying types an styles can't be part of the skill tree, but that their should be enough variety in the early tiers that such specialized choices are not mandatory to be taken. I would say that the starting choices should have about three to five options, which would give you a good broad set of choices to make, or that these very specialized options being higher up in the tree. Though i can agree that making hanger pets part of a more specialized tree maybe called carrier that would work around improving an developing your hanger/separation pet's performance, while also having to sacrifice some of your main ship's power to boost the power of your hanger-pets an even improve your ability to control an use these pets is a nice idea that could be done maybe in a fallow-up release/update.
im loving how most of the criticism seems to be purely anecdotal comments with no actual specifics other than.. i cant do what i can do now, and that apparently, stuff that is wanted, is buried behind other stuff.
the odds are, that the majority of players currently complaining, have done little more than log into tribble, look at the new ui, and as soon as they couldn't see what they wanted right of the bat, or discovered that they had to make some 'either/or' decisions between favourable options, immediately decided.. fail system! i bet most couldn't even quote values, or the difference in stat weights between the old and the new. yet they can already decide its carp!!
those interested in actually testing are doing just that.. trying the system out, collecting data, and making proper comparisons. its far too early to be throwing dummies, toys and other collective guff, from the buggy.
My complaint IS legit. Currently, my tac can freely switch between a T6 Akira and a T6 Prometheus (2 of my all time favorite ship designs) and be at peak efficiency regardless without doing a respec. In the new system, hanger pets now have a several skills of their own, so to do what I currently do I would have to respec every time I switch ships.
I realize this was shown to us waaaay to far in development to change, but IMHO hangar pets don't belong in the skill tree, they belong in their own dedicated Spec tree. One change they COULD make to -somewhat- alleviate the problem would be to make separation pets get at least a partial bonus from the hangar pet skills, but that wouldn't help everyone in my position, only those who switch between a carrier and a separation ship.
Again I'm not saying I should be able to fly escorts and sci ships or any other crazy TRIBBLE with the same build, but one build shouldn't have a problem handling two escorts.
I think your only choice really is, do you want to buff your pets and have wasted skills when you fly the Prometheus or do you want your pets to be the same as they are now (no buff/ no nerf) and not have wasted skills while flying the Promethius? I think it's pretty obvious that you're trying to get both buffed pets and not wasted skills which is why I'm having trouble following your argument.
Because you're over simplifying the argument. The point is, on live my one set of skills puts both my Akira and my Prometheus at max capabilities, whereas the new skill tree puts one or the other at less than peak effectiveness no matter what I do.
As I said, pet skills have no place in the SKILL trees, they are too specialized for a tree that's otherwise fairly broad. They should instead have their own dedicated SPEC tree. It should be a choice between Intel, Command, Pilot, and Hangar, not between hangar pets and otherwise more useful skills.
And don't let me get started on how the tier 1 tactical unlock gives you the choice of buffing pets or stealth, two things many, many players don't have any use for at all ...
Could you post your current skill build on holodeck? That might help me understand you. I still think if you build for a standard escort it will work with both ships. The choice between stealth and pets is lame but doesn't cost any skill points.
im loving how most of the criticism seems to be purely anecdotal comments with no actual specifics other than.. i cant do what i can do now, and that apparently, stuff that is wanted, is buried behind other stuff.
the odds are, that the majority of players currently complaining, have done little more than log into tribble, look at the new ui, and as soon as they couldn't see what they wanted right of the bat, or discovered that they had to make some 'either/or' decisions between favourable options, immediately decided.. fail system! i bet most couldn't even quote values, or the difference in stat weights between the old and the new. yet they can already decide its carp!!
those interested in actually testing are doing just that.. trying the system out, collecting data, and making proper comparisons. its far too early to be throwing dummies, toys and other collective guff, from the buggy.
My complaint IS legit. Currently, my tac can freely switch between a T6 Akira and a T6 Prometheus (2 of my all time favorite ship designs) and be at peak efficiency regardless without doing a respec. In the new system, hanger pets now have a several skills of their own, so to do what I currently do I would have to respec every time I switch ships.
I realize this was shown to us waaaay to far in development to change, but IMHO hangar pets don't belong in the skill tree, they belong in their own dedicated Spec tree. One change they COULD make to -somewhat- alleviate the problem would be to make separation pets get at least a partial bonus from the hangar pet skills, but that wouldn't help everyone in my position, only those who switch between a carrier and a separation ship.
Again I'm not saying I should be able to fly escorts and sci ships or any other crazy TRIBBLE with the same build, but one build shouldn't have a problem handling two escorts.
I think your only choice really is, do you want to buff your pets and have wasted skills when you fly the Prometheus or do you want your pets to be the same as they are now (no buff/ no nerf) and not have wasted skills while flying the Promethius? I think it's pretty obvious that you're trying to get both buffed pets and not wasted skills which is why I'm having trouble following your argument.
Because you're over simplifying the argument. The point is, on live my one set of skills puts both my Akira and my Prometheus at max capabilities, whereas the new skill tree puts one or the other at less than peak effectiveness no matter what I do.
As I said, pet skills have no place in the SKILL trees, they are too specialized for a tree that's otherwise fairly broad. They should instead have their own dedicated SPEC tree. It should be a choice between Intel, Command, Pilot, and Hangar, not between hangar pets and otherwise more useful skills.
And don't let me get started on how the tier 1 tactical unlock gives you the choice of buffing pets or stealth, two things many, many players don't have any use for at all ...
Could you post your current skill build on holodeck? That might help me understand you. I still think if you build for a standard escort it will work with both ships. The choice between stealth and pets is lame but doesn't cost any skill points.
yeah im a little lost here too, as it stand there is no buff in the current tree for pets, so by spending the points to gain the same build on the standard escort, even though he wont gain anything for the pets.. he still isn't loosing out compared to his old build, he just isnt gaining anything either.. is that how you are seeing it too? or am i missing something?
Since neither of you seem to have read what I said:
As I said, pet skills have no place in the SKILL trees, they are too specialized for a tree that's otherwise fairly broad. They should instead have their own dedicated SPEC tree. It should be a choice between Intel, Command, Pilot, and Hangar, not between hangar pets and otherwise more useful skills.
Maybe I worded some of the other stuff wrong, idk, but when you get down to it that is the basis for my feelings on this. Hangar pets do not belong in the skill trees ... they are one of the only skills that have no benefit at all for the majority of builds (others may be sub-optimal, but most still DO something no matter who uses it). Pets could definitely use some love, but that should be in the form of a spec tree.
I could suggest alternative skills (increased weapon rate of fire skills, increased firing arc skills, etc), but ultimately this feedback comes too late in the dev cycle so this won't change.
My complaint IS legit. Currently, my tac can freely switch between a T6 Akira and a T6 Prometheus (2 of my all time favorite ship designs) and be at peak efficiency regardless without doing a respec. In the new system, hanger pets now have a several skills of their own, so to do what I currently do I would have to respec every time I switch ships.
As I said, pet skills have no place in the SKILL trees, they are too specialized for a tree that's otherwise fairly broad. They should instead have their own dedicated SPEC tree. It should be a choice between Intel, Command, Pilot, and Hangar, not between hangar pets and otherwise more useful skills.
But why? Hangars are more or less a ship categories "primary weapon", as are energy weapons, torpedoes or exotic. You can go hybrid or specialized but not have everything. From what you wrote it sounds like you want a "perfect" escort skllset AND a "perfect" carrier skillset when currently there is no carrier skillset. You can retain your perfect escort skillset but if you want the new carrier skills you need to split. The Akira isn't a escort, it's a hybrid. So you either stay escort or go hybrid but wanting both is a bit unreasonable.
EDIT: Maybe I get you wrong and I'm sorry if this the case. But it sounds like you want to min-max two different ship classes. And that's not how min-maxing works.
Post edited by angrytarg on
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
im loving how most of the criticism seems to be purely anecdotal comments with no actual specifics other than.. i cant do what i can do now, and that apparently, stuff that is wanted, is buried behind other stuff.
the odds are, that the majority of players currently complaining, have done little more than log into tribble, look at the new ui, and as soon as they couldn't see what they wanted right of the bat, or discovered that they had to make some 'either/or' decisions between favourable options, immediately decided.. fail system! i bet most couldn't even quote values, or the difference in stat weights between the old and the new. yet they can already decide its carp!!
those interested in actually testing are doing just that.. trying the system out, collecting data, and making proper comparisons. its far too early to be throwing dummies, toys and other collective guff, from the buggy.
My complaint IS legit. Currently, my tac can freely switch between a T6 Akira and a T6 Prometheus (2 of my all time favorite ship designs) and be at peak efficiency regardless without doing a respec. In the new system, hanger pets now have a several skills of their own, so to do what I currently do I would have to respec every time I switch ships.
I realize this was shown to us waaaay to far in development to change, but IMHO hangar pets don't belong in the skill tree, they belong in their own dedicated Spec tree. One change they COULD make to -somewhat- alleviate the problem would be to make separation pets get at least a partial bonus from the hangar pet skills, but that wouldn't help everyone in my position, only those who switch between a carrier and a separation ship.
Again I'm not saying I should be able to fly escorts and sci ships or any other crazy TRIBBLE with the same build, but one build shouldn't have a problem handling two escorts.
I think your only choice really is, do you want to buff your pets and have wasted skills when you fly the Prometheus or do you want your pets to be the same as they are now (no buff/ no nerf) and not have wasted skills while flying the Promethius? I think it's pretty obvious that you're trying to get both buffed pets and not wasted skills which is why I'm having trouble following your argument.
Because you're over simplifying the argument. The point is, on live my one set of skills puts both my Akira and my Prometheus at max capabilities, whereas the new skill tree puts one or the other at less than peak effectiveness no matter what I do.
As I said, pet skills have no place in the SKILL trees, they are too specialized for a tree that's otherwise fairly broad. They should instead have their own dedicated SPEC tree. It should be a choice between Intel, Command, Pilot, and Hangar, not between hangar pets and otherwise more useful skills.
And don't let me get started on how the tier 1 tactical unlock gives you the choice of buffing pets or stealth, two things many, many players don't have any use for at all ...
Could you post your current skill build on holodeck? That might help me understand you. I still think if you build for a standard escort it will work with both ships. The choice between stealth and pets is lame but doesn't cost any skill points.
im loving how most of the criticism seems to be purely anecdotal comments with no actual specifics other than.. i cant do what i can do now, and that apparently, stuff that is wanted, is buried behind other stuff.
the odds are, that the majority of players currently complaining, have done little more than log into tribble, look at the new ui, and as soon as they couldn't see what they wanted right of the bat, or discovered that they had to make some 'either/or' decisions between favourable options, immediately decided.. fail system! i bet most couldn't even quote values, or the difference in stat weights between the old and the new. yet they can already decide its carp!!
those interested in actually testing are doing just that.. trying the system out, collecting data, and making proper comparisons. its far too early to be throwing dummies, toys and other collective guff, from the buggy.
My complaint IS legit. Currently, my tac can freely switch between a T6 Akira and a T6 Prometheus (2 of my all time favorite ship designs) and be at peak efficiency regardless without doing a respec. In the new system, hanger pets now have a several skills of their own, so to do what I currently do I would have to respec every time I switch ships.
I realize this was shown to us waaaay to far in development to change, but IMHO hangar pets don't belong in the skill tree, they belong in their own dedicated Spec tree. One change they COULD make to -somewhat- alleviate the problem would be to make separation pets get at least a partial bonus from the hangar pet skills, but that wouldn't help everyone in my position, only those who switch between a carrier and a separation ship.
Again I'm not saying I should be able to fly escorts and sci ships or any other crazy TRIBBLE with the same build, but one build shouldn't have a problem handling two escorts.
I think your only choice really is, do you want to buff your pets and have wasted skills when you fly the Prometheus or do you want your pets to be the same as they are now (no buff/ no nerf) and not have wasted skills while flying the Promethius? I think it's pretty obvious that you're trying to get both buffed pets and not wasted skills which is why I'm having trouble following your argument.
Because you're over simplifying the argument. The point is, on live my one set of skills puts both my Akira and my Prometheus at max capabilities, whereas the new skill tree puts one or the other at less than peak effectiveness no matter what I do.
As I said, pet skills have no place in the SKILL trees, they are too specialized for a tree that's otherwise fairly broad. They should instead have their own dedicated SPEC tree. It should be a choice between Intel, Command, Pilot, and Hangar, not between hangar pets and otherwise more useful skills.
And don't let me get started on how the tier 1 tactical unlock gives you the choice of buffing pets or stealth, two things many, many players don't have any use for at all ...
Could you post your current skill build on holodeck? That might help me understand you. I still think if you build for a standard escort it will work with both ships. The choice between stealth and pets is lame but doesn't cost any skill points.
yeah im a little lost here too, as it stand there is no buff in the current tree for pets, so by spending the points to gain the same build on the standard escort, even though he wont gain anything for the pets.. he still isn't loosing out compared to his old build, he just isnt gaining anything either.. is that how you are seeing it too? or am i missing something?
Since neither of you seem to have read what I said:
As I said, pet skills have no place in the SKILL trees, they are too specialized for a tree that's otherwise fairly broad. They should instead have their own dedicated SPEC tree. It should be a choice between Intel, Command, Pilot, and Hangar, not between hangar pets and otherwise more useful skills.
Maybe I worded some of the other stuff wrong, idk, but when you get down to it that is the basis for my feelings on this. Hangar pets do not belong in the skill trees ... they are one of the only skills that have no benefit at all for the majority of builds (others may be sub-optimal, but most still DO something no matter who uses it). Pets could definitely use some love, but that should be in the form of a spec tree.
I could suggest alternative skills (increased weapon rate of fire skills, increased firing arc skills, etc), but ultimately this feedback comes too late in the dev cycle so this won't change.
My complaint IS legit. Currently, my tac can freely switch between a T6 Akira and a T6 Prometheus (2 of my all time favorite ship designs) and be at peak efficiency regardless without doing a respec. In the new system, hanger pets now have a several skills of their own, so to do what I currently do I would have to respec every time I switch ships.
And yet that's not the post you quoted in the post I just replied to, the post you quoted had the exact text I pointed out, that you seemingly failed to read.
So far the biggest issues I can see is, Science has been nerfed to TRIBBLE due to the Aux changes; the Stealth or pet choice is very odd and sector space travel is back to being slower
My complaint IS legit. Currently, my tac can freely switch between a T6 Akira and a T6 Prometheus (2 of my all time favorite ship designs) and be at peak efficiency regardless without doing a respec. In the new system, hanger pets now have a several skills of their own, so to do what I currently do I would have to respec every time I switch ships.
Then you are doing something that is wrong. And like I say in the reply directly below you do not need to spend points in the hangar pet node under Admiral tier to unlock the tactical ultimate passive skill. What I gather from your reply you are trying to emulate your current build (which gains nothing from hangar pets because such skills do not exist currently), and still reap the benefits of the newly addition of hangar pet enhancing skills. There is a very simple solution to this. Simply create a universal build without putting points into the hangar pet node under Admiral tier. That way you have a build that works with practically most of your ships unless you are going specifically for engineer and science. With that build construction can play both your Akira and Prometheus and get pretty must most out of them without having to respec. But if you want to reap the benefits of the hangar pet enhancing skills as well you have to make your choices.
And if you are complaining about the first unlockable passive on the bar... Well, you cannot expect to make 100% useful choices. I am glad they are forcing you to choose at least some. We cannot have it all and I wouldn't want it any other way.
I would not say that pet-buffing skills of varying types an styles can't be part of the skill tree, but that their should be enough variety in the early tiers that such specialized choices are not mandatory to be taken. I would say that the starting choices should have about three to five options, which would give you a good broad set of choices to make, or that these very specialized options being higher up in the tree. Though i can agree that making hanger pets part of a more specialized tree maybe called carrier that would work around improving an developing your hanger/separation pet's performance, while also having to sacrifice some of your main ship's power to boost the power of your hanger-pets an even improve your ability to control an use these pets is a nice idea that could be done maybe in a fallow-up release/update.
If I remember correctly the tactical pet oriented skill nodes are in the last tier, namely Admiral. So you do not have access to them in the early tiers?
As for the first tactical bar skill where you have to switch between stealth and hangar. Well, it is not as if they are game breaking or crucial for that matter. The bonuses they add are pretty minor and I think they intended it to be that way. They are less impactful than the unlocking of the actual skill nodes in the skill tree. As for the bar passives, the only one that truly matters is the ultimate passive one.
Besides, to get the tactical ultimate passive you do not have to spend points in the admiral hangar skill node. Instead you can go with accuracy in the second tier and you will still accumulate the necessary skill requirement to unlock the ultimate passive skill.
im loving how most of the criticism seems to be purely anecdotal comments with no actual specifics other than.. i cant do what i can do now, and that apparently, stuff that is wanted, is buried behind other stuff.
the odds are, that the majority of players currently complaining, have done little more than log into tribble, look at the new ui, and as soon as they couldn't see what they wanted right of the bat, or discovered that they had to make some 'either/or' decisions between favourable options, immediately decided.. fail system! i bet most couldn't even quote values, or the difference in stat weights between the old and the new. yet they can already decide its carp!!
those interested in actually testing are doing just that.. trying the system out, collecting data, and making proper comparisons. its far too early to be throwing dummies, toys and other collective guff, from the buggy.
My complaint IS legit. Currently, my tac can freely switch between a T6 Akira and a T6 Prometheus (2 of my all time favorite ship designs) and be at peak efficiency regardless without doing a respec. In the new system, hanger pets now have a several skills of their own, so to do what I currently do I would have to respec every time I switch ships.
I realize this was shown to us waaaay to far in development to change, but IMHO hangar pets don't belong in the skill tree, they belong in their own dedicated Spec tree. One change they COULD make to -somewhat- alleviate the problem would be to make separation pets get at least a partial bonus from the hangar pet skills, but that wouldn't help everyone in my position, only those who switch between a carrier and a separation ship.
Again I'm not saying I should be able to fly escorts and sci ships or any other crazy TRIBBLE with the same build, but one build shouldn't have a problem handling two escorts.
I think your only choice really is, do you want to buff your pets and have wasted skills when you fly the Prometheus or do you want your pets to be the same as they are now (no buff/ no nerf) and not have wasted skills while flying the Promethius? I think it's pretty obvious that you're trying to get both buffed pets and not wasted skills which is why I'm having trouble following your argument.
Because you're over simplifying the argument. The point is, on live my one set of skills puts both my Akira and my Prometheus at max capabilities, whereas the new skill tree puts one or the other at less than peak effectiveness no matter what I do.
As I said, pet skills have no place in the SKILL trees, they are too specialized for a tree that's otherwise fairly broad. They should instead have their own dedicated SPEC tree. It should be a choice between Intel, Command, Pilot, and Hangar, not between hangar pets and otherwise more useful skills.
And don't let me get started on how the tier 1 tactical unlock gives you the choice of buffing pets or stealth, two things many, many players don't have any use for at all ...
Could you post your current skill build on holodeck? That might help me understand you. I still think if you build for a standard escort it will work with both ships. The choice between stealth and pets is lame but doesn't cost any skill points.
im loving how most of the criticism seems to be purely anecdotal comments with no actual specifics other than.. i cant do what i can do now, and that apparently, stuff that is wanted, is buried behind other stuff.
the odds are, that the majority of players currently complaining, have done little more than log into tribble, look at the new ui, and as soon as they couldn't see what they wanted right of the bat, or discovered that they had to make some 'either/or' decisions between favourable options, immediately decided.. fail system! i bet most couldn't even quote values, or the difference in stat weights between the old and the new. yet they can already decide its carp!!
those interested in actually testing are doing just that.. trying the system out, collecting data, and making proper comparisons. its far too early to be throwing dummies, toys and other collective guff, from the buggy.
My complaint IS legit. Currently, my tac can freely switch between a T6 Akira and a T6 Prometheus (2 of my all time favorite ship designs) and be at peak efficiency regardless without doing a respec. In the new system, hanger pets now have a several skills of their own, so to do what I currently do I would have to respec every time I switch ships.
I realize this was shown to us waaaay to far in development to change, but IMHO hangar pets don't belong in the skill tree, they belong in their own dedicated Spec tree. One change they COULD make to -somewhat- alleviate the problem would be to make separation pets get at least a partial bonus from the hangar pet skills, but that wouldn't help everyone in my position, only those who switch between a carrier and a separation ship.
Again I'm not saying I should be able to fly escorts and sci ships or any other crazy TRIBBLE with the same build, but one build shouldn't have a problem handling two escorts.
I think your only choice really is, do you want to buff your pets and have wasted skills when you fly the Prometheus or do you want your pets to be the same as they are now (no buff/ no nerf) and not have wasted skills while flying the Promethius? I think it's pretty obvious that you're trying to get both buffed pets and not wasted skills which is why I'm having trouble following your argument.
Because you're over simplifying the argument. The point is, on live my one set of skills puts both my Akira and my Prometheus at max capabilities, whereas the new skill tree puts one or the other at less than peak effectiveness no matter what I do.
As I said, pet skills have no place in the SKILL trees, they are too specialized for a tree that's otherwise fairly broad. They should instead have their own dedicated SPEC tree. It should be a choice between Intel, Command, Pilot, and Hangar, not between hangar pets and otherwise more useful skills.
And don't let me get started on how the tier 1 tactical unlock gives you the choice of buffing pets or stealth, two things many, many players don't have any use for at all ...
Could you post your current skill build on holodeck? That might help me understand you. I still think if you build for a standard escort it will work with both ships. The choice between stealth and pets is lame but doesn't cost any skill points.
yeah im a little lost here too, as it stand there is no buff in the current tree for pets, so by spending the points to gain the same build on the standard escort, even though he wont gain anything for the pets.. he still isn't loosing out compared to his old build, he just isnt gaining anything either.. is that how you are seeing it too? or am i missing something?
Since neither of you seem to have read what I said:
As I said, pet skills have no place in the SKILL trees, they are too specialized for a tree that's otherwise fairly broad. They should instead have their own dedicated SPEC tree. It should be a choice between Intel, Command, Pilot, and Hangar, not between hangar pets and otherwise more useful skills.
Maybe I worded some of the other stuff wrong, idk, but when you get down to it that is the basis for my feelings on this. Hangar pets do not belong in the skill trees ... they are one of the only skills that have no benefit at all for the majority of builds (others may be sub-optimal, but most still DO something no matter who uses it). Pets could definitely use some love, but that should be in the form of a spec tree.
I could suggest alternative skills (increased weapon rate of fire skills, increased firing arc skills, etc), but ultimately this feedback comes too late in the dev cycle so this won't change.
My complaint IS legit. Currently, my tac can freely switch between a T6 Akira and a T6 Prometheus (2 of my all time favorite ship designs) and be at peak efficiency regardless without doing a respec. In the new system, hanger pets now have a several skills of their own, so to do what I currently do I would have to respec every time I switch ships.
And yet that's not the post you quoted in the post I just replied to, the post you quoted had the exact text I pointed out, that you seemingly failed to read.
Ok...
Well, now you know what I was responding to. I'm genuinely trying to help you. I don't see a reason to need a skill change when changing your ships. If you're having trouble figuring out your build, just post your current build and I'm sure I can help you. Like I've said before, one does not have to take the carrier buffs in the tac tree since pets are not getting a nerf.
For the hangar pet buffs in the tac tree? Personally it doesn't bother me. It will make me have some tough choices on a few of my characters since most carriers are science ships. I do like the idea of having a carrier specialization, but I think having both the pet buffs in the tac tree and a carrier specialization would be much better than just having a carrier specialization.
If it is PVP we are talking about then I am glad it is getting less love. I never liked MMOs that get changed in favor of PVP. It was long overdue.
Are you kidding me? If there's ONE SINGLE ASPECT of STO that's gotten NO LOVE/BEEN 100% ABANDONED by the STO Dev team from practically day one, it's the PvP aspect of this game.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
That's a stupid argument, it's a game not a damn physical chemistry book it isn't supposed to be difficult to figure out!
I hear what you're saying, but the new tree forces you to take worthless things in order to get at the things you want and need. The current system might be overly complicated for the tastes of some people, but it allows you far greater flexibility. There's always some way to put the points into something useful under the current system, and that's just not true of the new tree.
Again, the tree seems to have been designed by someone who doesn't play the game very much or very well, and therefore doesn't really understand what we do and how we do it.
Then again, the above is just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
Personally I always felt forced to take useless things under the current system, just to unlock the next tier of skills, and it almost always required a respec when I got to level 50 just to get my skills into a useful form.
By all means provide some examples. My current Build on Holodeck is not flooded with choices that I dont need or want. Its streamlined and placed in things that will benefit me. Even if the choice is not a blatantly obvious one.
For the hangar pet buffs in the tac tree? Personally it doesn't bother me. It will make me have some tough choices on a few of my characters since most carriers are science ships. I do like the idea of having a carrier specialization, but I think having both the pet buffs in the tac tree and a carrier specialization would be much better than just having a carrier specialization.
I can agree it would be nice to have both with that you have the carrier tree that buffs varying aspects of your hanger/separation pets, things like improving their AI, performance of the pets, or even gaining access to a User-interface that allows you to give them more specific commands like when an what abilities to use (like the boff ground UI kinda). While you would also have talents in the three other trees that could give you different buffs based on their specific things of that career, such as your pets gaining a percentage of your bonuses gained via console slotted in that career's console slot (engineering, tactial, science), maybe gaining buffs to power levels, and even higher shield hp would be within reason as well, but honestly would need to see what others think a hanger/separation pet should get from a talent in the other three trees if we had a carrier tree. Also I am using "hanger/separation" most as that hanger pets and separation pets are both in bad shape an could use help, but also they both do fall under the idea of a pet you gain the use of as a trade off in your main ship's power.
If it is PVP we are talking about then I am glad it is getting less love. I never liked MMOs that get changed in favor of PVP. It was long overdue.
Are you kidding me? If there's ONE SINGLE ASPECT of STO that's gotten NO LOVE/BEEN 100% ABANDONED by the STO Dev team from practically day one, it's the PvP aspect of this game.
So far the biggest issues I can see is, Science has been nerfed to TRIBBLE due to the Aux changes; the Stealth or pet choice is very odd and sector space travel is back to being slower
Not that I disagree, but could you please be specific about the Aux changes?
So far the biggest issues I can see is, Science has been nerfed to TRIBBLE due to the Aux changes; the Stealth or pet choice is very odd and sector space travel is back to being slower
Not that I disagree, but could you please be specific about the Aux changes?
The actual feedback thread has more numbers from folks but for example:
Live
(206 partg/epg skill, 129 aux power)
920 Tyken’s Rift 2
1256 Destabilizing Resonance Beam 2
1421 Gravity Well 3
1280 Tractor Beam Repulsors 1
So far the biggest issues I can see is, Science has been nerfed to TRIBBLE due to the Aux changes; the Stealth or pet choice is very odd and sector space travel is back to being slower
Not that I disagree, but could you please be specific about the Aux changes?
The actual feedback thread has more numbers from folks but for example:
Live
(206 partg/epg skill, 129 aux power)
920 Tyken’s Rift 2
1256 Destabilizing Resonance Beam 2
1421 Gravity Well 3
1280 Tractor Beam Repulsors 1
This x1,000. Also drain abilities like Energy Siphon and Tachyon Beam have been reduced in effectiveness because of the changes to aux power, both in terms of drain potential and duration on the part of Energy Siphon.
On an added note, ground captain abilities (Target Optics, Strike Team, Neural Neutralizer, Cover Shield, etc.) have lost a lot of their effectiveness because there are no longer any ground skills that boost them. The way it is on Holodeck right now the same skills that boost kit abilities also affect captain abilities, now only kit abilities are boosted.
Borticus responded to this in the P1 podcast. He said some powers had additional scaling so when they changed aux, it had unintended changes to some powers. I think we should think of this as a bug and report any power that's not scaling well rather than screaming nerf like some others are now posting.
Borticus responded to this in the P1 podcast. He said some powers had additional scaling so when they changed aux, it had unintended changes to some powers. I think we should think of this as a bug and report any power that's not scaling well rather than screaming nerf like some others are now posting.
then maybe they should respond in the actual feedback thread about it....
Borticus responded to this in the P1 podcast. He said some powers had additional scaling so when they changed aux, it had unintended changes to some powers. I think we should think of this as a bug and report any power that's not scaling well rather than screaming nerf like some others are now posting.
then maybe they should respond in the actual feedback thread about it....
totally agree. although they're better than the past, communication isn't cryptic's strong point.
I would not say that pet-buffing skills of varying types an styles can't be part of the skill tree, but that their should be enough variety in the early tiers that such specialized choices are not mandatory to be taken. I would say that the starting choices should have about three to five options, which would give you a good broad set of choices to make, or that these very specialized options being higher up in the tree. Though i can agree that making hanger pets part of a more specialized tree maybe called carrier that would work around improving an developing your hanger/separation pet's performance, while also having to sacrifice some of your main ship's power to boost the power of your hanger-pets an even improve your ability to control an use these pets is a nice idea that could be done maybe in a fallow-up release/update.
If I remember correctly the tactical pet oriented skill nodes are in the last tier, namely Admiral. So you do not have access to them in the early tiers?
As for the first tactical bar skill where you have to switch between stealth and hangar. Well, it is not as if they are game breaking or crucial for that matter. The bonuses they add are pretty minor and I think they intended it to be that way. They are less impactful than the unlocking of the actual skill nodes in the skill tree. As for the bar passives, the only one that truly matters is the ultimate passive one.
Besides, to get the tactical ultimate passive you do not have to spend points in the admiral hangar skill node. Instead you can go with accuracy in the second tier and you will still accumulate the necessary skill requirement to unlock the ultimate passive skill.
Yeah if we are talking these are in the final or second to final line of choices that to me atleast is too high, and I would xsee these kept to about the lower-middle part of the tree with two options that are not hanger-pet oriented in the same line, but this just my opinion mind you.
Now for my own way of looking at things is as fallows, and looking at it from a more hanger-pet using carrier player; I would want to see hanger-pet talent options in each tree with them buffing/improving aspects of the pet's that suit this career's style in a general way, while having any extremely high talents in a career-tree (say admiral) that are hanger-pet based giving powerful yet career focused bonuses that tempt hanger-pet using players to specilize in that tree over spending in others to buff other aspects from their trees. I mean a carrier captain can be tactical, engineering, science oriented, or even abit of all of them wihtout much focus into any one of the over the others. As such why not have options in each that show-case this an give broader choices an play elements. Hell you could go so far as make it that each career could have a talent that buffs a specific type of hanger-pet that is more the style of that career, such as tactical having fighters, science having shuttles, engineering having drones and/or frigates.
It is good though that there is more than enough talents in the tree to get the ultimate without filling out the tee fully, as i hated that fact in other talent tree systems, feeling that you should have 1.5 to almost double the choices in talent to the cap of points you can put into that talent tree. Mostly as than you can make enough options an choices as well as build variants to give flexibility in the system to allow many different players to make builds that suit their own style.
Are you kidding me? If there's ONE SINGLE ASPECT of STO that's gotten NO LOVE/BEEN 100% ABANDONED by the STO Dev team from practically day one, it's the PvP aspect of this game.
You're kidding right one of my favorite classes Science was practically ruined because PVP complained it was OP. So your argument holds no water with me. Within one week after a certain thread everything was cut in half in terms of damage anything exotic particle and graviton took a major hit. This was a few years back but I bet if I wanted to I could find that exact thread and then the patch notes a week later.
The problem with PVP in this game is there is no PVP gear. If you had separate gear for PVP and PVE both sides would be happy SWTOR does this and it seems to be working. Trying to balance only one set of gear for two aspects of a game is hard to do and you end up with forum threads like this. PVP seems like it gets no love because no one really plays it so why invest time and money into an aspect of the game that is dying. And before you say there are plenty of people that play PVP then why do I have to wait ten minutes to que up for a match. PVP is in a downward trend because the newer players want to play the content instead of duking it out with each other.
There was a time when PVP was actually fun but the trend has been more towards PVE and this is not the only MMO to do that. To be honest PVP in this type of game is silly but it was added to appease both crowds. Any lore heavy game like STO and SWTOR PVP is really pointless you play the game for the story and content. Every MMO I have played has always trended towards PVE because that's where the meat of the game is story and end game content.
Are you kidding me? If there's ONE SINGLE ASPECT of STO that's gotten NO LOVE/BEEN 100% ABANDONED by the STO Dev team from practically day one, it's the PvP aspect of this game.
The problem with PVP in this game is there is no PVP gear. If you had separate gear for PVP and PVE both sides would be happy SWTOR does this and it seems to be working. Trying to balance only one set of gear for two aspects of a game is hard to do and you end up with forum threads like this. PVP seems like it gets no love because no one really plays it so why invest time and money into an aspect of the game that is dying. And before you say there are plenty of people that play PVP then why do I have to wait ten minutes to que up for a match. PVP is in a downward trend because the newer players want to play the content instead of duking it out with each other.
Not disagreeing with you largely as I agree unless we see more players pvping, which a more balanced field of power would help imo, that it is not worthwhile in the larger picture to develope more for it. But to me content specific gear never makes sense at all as a mob an player still in the setting are basically the same, while making abilities in the game have two sets of values that correspond to one of the two forms of content (pve or pvp) seems a better option. Since than you buff or nerf the specific value that corresponds to the content it is op/broken/weak in, but leave the other content's value unchanged, thus isolating the two forms of content from each other without the need of two forms of gear. This has been done before such as with having one set of damage and duration of abilities when affecting a npc, while than having another set that is used when targeting/used on a player character. THis type of revamp might take more time an effort, but in the end would make balancing much easier an less jarring overall an would end up being better off choice in the end.
If it is PVP we are talking about then I am glad it is getting less love. I never liked MMOs that get changed in favor of PVP. It was long overdue.
Are you kidding me? If there's ONE SINGLE ASPECT of STO that's gotten NO LOVE/BEEN 100% ABANDONED by the STO Dev team from practically day one, it's the PvP aspect of this game.
No, I am not shitting you. In my personal opinion PVP should be banned and outlawed. It is an epidemic and a virus that has been allowed to take root in many games regardless of genres, and it has ruined many potential titles such as Destiny, Halo and many more.
Balancing two vastly different gameplay styles to one another is a moot and futile exercise. Anyone encouraging it should be thrown into the pit (lol). But seriously, it has never worked in any game and it probably never will. You cannot balance PVE and PVP because the idea and intention behind the two are vastly different. Things that may work splendidly in PVE may not work at all in PVP, and then the developer may attempt balancing it toward PVP and consequently totally ruining how it works in PVE.
I am glad the new skill revamp seems to be focusing more on application for PVE. Now, if we do want something applicable for PVP they should not involve the current revamped skill system. Instead they should create a different PVP skill system with its own set of parameters and different yields intended to balance "players against players".
Comments
This is a terrible argument. You're losing nothing now because the hangar pet skills simply don't exist. And said pets are not going to be nerfed either. You could continue in the exact same way post-revamp. So you certainly don't "have to respec every time you switch ships".
As an option, I see no compelling reason why pet buffs shouldn't have to share the same resources as other methods of attack, in the tactical skill tree.
I was very much against this whole revamp until I played with it some. Granted it needs tweaking it should work out pretty well if they listen to the feedback. A new spec tree is way overdue and I think "Hangar" is not a bad idea at all.
Since neither of you seem to have read what I said:
Maybe I worded some of the other stuff wrong, idk, but when you get down to it that is the basis for my feelings on this. Hangar pets do not belong in the skill trees ... they are one of the only skills that have no benefit at all for the majority of builds (others may be sub-optimal, but most still DO something no matter who uses it). Pets could definitely use some love, but that should be in the form of a spec tree.
I could suggest alternative skills (increased weapon rate of fire skills, increased firing arc skills, etc), but ultimately this feedback comes too late in the dev cycle so this won't change.
I was responding to this:
But why? Hangars are more or less a ship categories "primary weapon", as are energy weapons, torpedoes or exotic. You can go hybrid or specialized but not have everything. From what you wrote it sounds like you want a "perfect" escort skllset AND a "perfect" carrier skillset when currently there is no carrier skillset. You can retain your perfect escort skillset but if you want the new carrier skills you need to split. The Akira isn't a escort, it's a hybrid. So you either stay escort or go hybrid but wanting both is a bit unreasonable.
EDIT: Maybe I get you wrong and I'm sorry if this the case. But it sounds like you want to min-max two different ship classes. And that's not how min-maxing works.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
And yet that's not the post you quoted in the post I just replied to, the post you quoted had the exact text I pointed out, that you seemingly failed to read.
That's OK, most of it will be ignored anyway...
Kind of like your claim right there. Seeing lots of posts on the tribble forums with detailed break downs of issues.
And if you are complaining about the first unlockable passive on the bar... Well, you cannot expect to make 100% useful choices. I am glad they are forcing you to choose at least some. We cannot have it all and I wouldn't want it any other way.
If I remember correctly the tactical pet oriented skill nodes are in the last tier, namely Admiral. So you do not have access to them in the early tiers?
As for the first tactical bar skill where you have to switch between stealth and hangar. Well, it is not as if they are game breaking or crucial for that matter. The bonuses they add are pretty minor and I think they intended it to be that way. They are less impactful than the unlocking of the actual skill nodes in the skill tree. As for the bar passives, the only one that truly matters is the ultimate passive one.
Besides, to get the tactical ultimate passive you do not have to spend points in the admiral hangar skill node. Instead you can go with accuracy in the second tier and you will still accumulate the necessary skill requirement to unlock the ultimate passive skill.
Ok...
Well, now you know what I was responding to. I'm genuinely trying to help you. I don't see a reason to need a skill change when changing your ships. If you're having trouble figuring out your build, just post your current build and I'm sure I can help you. Like I've said before, one does not have to take the carrier buffs in the tac tree since pets are not getting a nerf.
For the hangar pet buffs in the tac tree? Personally it doesn't bother me. It will make me have some tough choices on a few of my characters since most carriers are science ships. I do like the idea of having a carrier specialization, but I think having both the pet buffs in the tac tree and a carrier specialization would be much better than just having a carrier specialization.
Are you kidding me? If there's ONE SINGLE ASPECT of STO that's gotten NO LOVE/BEEN 100% ABANDONED by the STO Dev team from practically day one, it's the PvP aspect of this game.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
By all means provide some examples. My current Build on Holodeck is not flooded with choices that I dont need or want. Its streamlined and placed in things that will benefit me. Even if the choice is not a blatantly obvious one.
I can agree it would be nice to have both with that you have the carrier tree that buffs varying aspects of your hanger/separation pets, things like improving their AI, performance of the pets, or even gaining access to a User-interface that allows you to give them more specific commands like when an what abilities to use (like the boff ground UI kinda). While you would also have talents in the three other trees that could give you different buffs based on their specific things of that career, such as your pets gaining a percentage of your bonuses gained via console slotted in that career's console slot (engineering, tactial, science), maybe gaining buffs to power levels, and even higher shield hp would be within reason as well, but honestly would need to see what others think a hanger/separation pet should get from a talent in the other three trees if we had a carrier tree. Also I am using "hanger/separation" most as that hanger pets and separation pets are both in bad shape an could use help, but also they both do fall under the idea of a pet you gain the use of as a trade off in your main ship's power.
Hey now! The guy needs a scapegoat of some sort!
Not that I disagree, but could you please be specific about the Aux changes?
The actual feedback thread has more numbers from folks but for example:
Live
(206 partg/epg skill, 129 aux power)
920 Tyken’s Rift 2
1256 Destabilizing Resonance Beam 2
1421 Gravity Well 3
1280 Tractor Beam Repulsors 1
13,000+ Hazard Emitters 1 w/99 hull repair skill
Tribble
(201 partg/epg skill, 125 aux power)
467 Tyken’s Rift 2
1089 Destabilizing Resonance Beam 2
1473 Gravity Well 3
1154 Tractor Beam Repulsors 1
7,000+ Hazard Emitters 1 w/100 hull repair skill
On an added note, ground captain abilities (Target Optics, Strike Team, Neural Neutralizer, Cover Shield, etc.) have lost a lot of their effectiveness because there are no longer any ground skills that boost them. The way it is on Holodeck right now the same skills that boost kit abilities also affect captain abilities, now only kit abilities are boosted.
then maybe they should respond in the actual feedback thread about it....
totally agree. although they're better than the past, communication isn't cryptic's strong point.
Yeah if we are talking these are in the final or second to final line of choices that to me atleast is too high, and I would xsee these kept to about the lower-middle part of the tree with two options that are not hanger-pet oriented in the same line, but this just my opinion mind you.
Now for my own way of looking at things is as fallows, and looking at it from a more hanger-pet using carrier player; I would want to see hanger-pet talent options in each tree with them buffing/improving aspects of the pet's that suit this career's style in a general way, while having any extremely high talents in a career-tree (say admiral) that are hanger-pet based giving powerful yet career focused bonuses that tempt hanger-pet using players to specilize in that tree over spending in others to buff other aspects from their trees. I mean a carrier captain can be tactical, engineering, science oriented, or even abit of all of them wihtout much focus into any one of the over the others. As such why not have options in each that show-case this an give broader choices an play elements. Hell you could go so far as make it that each career could have a talent that buffs a specific type of hanger-pet that is more the style of that career, such as tactical having fighters, science having shuttles, engineering having drones and/or frigates.
It is good though that there is more than enough talents in the tree to get the ultimate without filling out the tee fully, as i hated that fact in other talent tree systems, feeling that you should have 1.5 to almost double the choices in talent to the cap of points you can put into that talent tree. Mostly as than you can make enough options an choices as well as build variants to give flexibility in the system to allow many different players to make builds that suit their own style.
You're kidding right one of my favorite classes Science was practically ruined because PVP complained it was OP. So your argument holds no water with me. Within one week after a certain thread everything was cut in half in terms of damage anything exotic particle and graviton took a major hit. This was a few years back but I bet if I wanted to I could find that exact thread and then the patch notes a week later.
The problem with PVP in this game is there is no PVP gear. If you had separate gear for PVP and PVE both sides would be happy SWTOR does this and it seems to be working. Trying to balance only one set of gear for two aspects of a game is hard to do and you end up with forum threads like this. PVP seems like it gets no love because no one really plays it so why invest time and money into an aspect of the game that is dying. And before you say there are plenty of people that play PVP then why do I have to wait ten minutes to que up for a match. PVP is in a downward trend because the newer players want to play the content instead of duking it out with each other.
There was a time when PVP was actually fun but the trend has been more towards PVE and this is not the only MMO to do that. To be honest PVP in this type of game is silly but it was added to appease both crowds. Any lore heavy game like STO and SWTOR PVP is really pointless you play the game for the story and content. Every MMO I have played has always trended towards PVE because that's where the meat of the game is story and end game content.
^^^^^^^^^
This
It's pretty much this hard to keep just one timeline intact. ♪
Not disagreeing with you largely as I agree unless we see more players pvping, which a more balanced field of power would help imo, that it is not worthwhile in the larger picture to develope more for it. But to me content specific gear never makes sense at all as a mob an player still in the setting are basically the same, while making abilities in the game have two sets of values that correspond to one of the two forms of content (pve or pvp) seems a better option. Since than you buff or nerf the specific value that corresponds to the content it is op/broken/weak in, but leave the other content's value unchanged, thus isolating the two forms of content from each other without the need of two forms of gear. This has been done before such as with having one set of damage and duration of abilities when affecting a npc, while than having another set that is used when targeting/used on a player character. THis type of revamp might take more time an effort, but in the end would make balancing much easier an less jarring overall an would end up being better off choice in the end.
Balancing two vastly different gameplay styles to one another is a moot and futile exercise. Anyone encouraging it should be thrown into the pit (lol). But seriously, it has never worked in any game and it probably never will. You cannot balance PVE and PVP because the idea and intention behind the two are vastly different. Things that may work splendidly in PVE may not work at all in PVP, and then the developer may attempt balancing it toward PVP and consequently totally ruining how it works in PVE.
I am glad the new skill revamp seems to be focusing more on application for PVE. Now, if we do want something applicable for PVP they should not involve the current revamped skill system. Instead they should create a different PVP skill system with its own set of parameters and different yields intended to balance "players against players".