I may have confused you Lucho on my thread. Aux does effect the Siphon Duration.
I said Aux does not effect Siphon, as I was under the impression the Aux will now be Affecting ES effectiveness, which may not be the case, as it may stay the way it is on holo
We still have the issue of Tachy beam and Siphon both having way lower number in Tribble.
So @crytpic@borticuscryptic PLEASE remove the unlock system for Training Manuals so that only the Carrer and Rank depends, many people struggle to farm some ec to gear up, there is really no need to punish them even more with that change. THX.
While I can say that we'll be examining everyone's feedback on the Training Unlocks in more detail, I can also safely say that we won't be moving to a Career+Rank requirement. It is entirely by-design that different Captains will have access to different Training, based on their Skill Choices. Always has been, and will continue to be so.
Perhaps it should change along with everything else....
I may have confused you Lucho on my thread. Aux does effect the Siphon Duration.
I said Aux does not effect Siphon, as I was under the impression the Aux will now be Affecting ES effectiveness, which may not be the case, as it may stay the way it is on holo
We still have the issue of Tachy beam and Siphon both having way lower number in Tribble.
Yes that is correct
"Frankly, not sure why you're on a one man nerf campaign. "
I'm not certain this is the right place to be trying to argue against a meta-game that is just as much a result of community peer pressure as it is of the current combat design. You can succeed perfectly well at the majority of STO's content, and earn progression towards nearly every reward in the game, without dealing >10k DPS.
Jeremy Randall
Cryptic - Lead Systems Designer
"Play smart!"
Choice is important. Without consequence, those choices are meaningless. Choices where the outcome/decision are different depending on outside influences are even more powerful and important to a progression system such as this one.
Without choices that mean anything, the entirety of the system may as well not exist. "If everyone is special, nobody is."
You might disagree with the choices we're asking you to make, but I hope you can at least understand the reason that they are there.
The question is, will these "New Choices" You are asking us to make, drive more players away, than bring new players in?
At this point in the games history, doing anything that drives ANY players away, does not seem like a wise decision. (IMHO)
<shrug>
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
i really really dont want sound disrespectfull towards anyone, and try to understand the reasons...but in this case its just that i cant see any logical reason for a) why it was / will be changed like this in the first place and b ) what the issue is to not just alter it, so we are not negatively affected.
Do we ask for something that we dont have right now anyway? no we dont, all that is asked for is dont take away what we allready have, thats more than reasonable i think, i say it again and again, i have my dedicited eng/tac/sci crafters (1 each) chars who are skilled to be able to craft every single manual in their own carrers, are they overpowered? is there any issue with that? if so i dont see it, it is a perfectly working system so, why break it??? why do suddenly i have to have 6 more characters to craft the other stuff that now us locked away for whatever reasons???
I want to understand, i want to see your point, but please excuse me cause i dont, its just mind-boggling......
True alters don't have a "main". Account wide unlocks for all unique event and mission rewards!!
I'm not certain this is the right place to be trying to argue against a meta-game that is just as much a result of community peer pressure as it is of the current combat design. You can succeed perfectly well at the majority of STO's content, and earn progression towards nearly every reward in the game, without dealing >10k DPS.
This ^^
"Frankly, not sure why you're on a one man nerf campaign. "
Choice is important. Without consequence, those choices are meaningless. Choices where the outcome/decision are different depending on outside influences are even more powerful and important to a progression system such as this one.
Without choices that mean anything, the entirety of the system may as well not exist. "If everyone is special, nobody is."
You might disagree with the choices we're asking you to make, but I hope you can at least understand the reason that they are there.
The problem is at some stages the choices are meaningless as the choice is useless ability A that does nothing or useless ability B that does nothing. At those points there is no progression, no choice without consequence you may as well just have no choice when both choices do nothing of use. The suggestion we made turns the choices from a meaningless choice to a useful choice. (this is in reference to the energy and projectile choices). Surly you can understand how it is frustrating to be forced into taking one of two options knowing that both options do nothing to the build. A simple swap around means no one ends up having to take a choice that is useless.
Also the choices should fit into the theme of the character class. At one point you have what to me looks like an Eng choice in the sci tree and sci choice in the Eng tree. See my last feedback post.
Could we have some feedback on how it appears as though as damage boosts to Kinetic ground weapons have vanished in the new skill tree. Is this just a text bug? I went from +99 skills to my Kinetic ground weapons in the old tree to 0 in the new tree.
I'm not certain this is the right place to be trying to argue against a meta-game that is just as much a result of community peer pressure as it is of the current combat design.
You brought up the point of choices. There are non to make, even less so in the current system. Whatever precipitates the current meta, it will not change with or without the skill tree and will leave most players without any meaningfull choice.
You can succeed perfectly well at the majority of STO's content, and earn progression towards nearly every reward in the game, without dealing >10k DPS.
It will just take you thrice as long ...
What you could do is move away from the diminishing returns style of the skill tree. This would make players whos spread more or less equally into every category less of a jack-of-all-trades, while still giving them more flexible gameplay choice (at least without the need to constantly respec). This way you could even introduce an ultimate ability tailored to that playstyle (maybe a team oriented one, but without the option to improve it).
The suggestion we made turns the choices from a meaningless choice to a useful choice. (this is in reference to the energy and projectile choices).
I completely disagree, and am frankly a bit surprised that nobody else is so far seeing the opposite side of this.
If a player isn't using Projectiles, then maybe unlocking a choice between two different improvements to that mechanic might make them think about changing that external choice. Similarly, if somebody is using only Energy Weapons, then being asked to choose which aspect of that system they want to improve is exactly the sort of choice-with-consequences that generates a sense of agency and meaningfulness within that choice.
Conversely, if they were split up into two nodes of "Projectile vs. Energy" then guess which ones would be meaninglessly ignored by the majority of the playerbase.
Jeremy Randall
Cryptic - Lead Systems Designer
"Play smart!"
So just a quick question for @borticuscryptic. Was the intent of this new system to allow us to replicate our current builds (within a margin of error) or choose a totally new one? This will help in how I test my builds once character transfer returns.
As for what I've tested so far I do agree the pet buff should be moved to the end of the nodes they give little to no boost/buff so early in the selection tree.
Also is there a window/tab where I can see the points I have in particular skill/powers, like the Skill-Based Stats pull down now?
I am concerned about the complete removal of in-combat regeneration in ground.
Instead of completely removing it, could we have it like in space? Which I believe is a percentage of full (out-of-combat) regen.
I'm not certain this is the right place to be trying to argue against a meta-game that is just as much a result of community peer pressure as it is of the current combat design. You can succeed perfectly well at the majority of STO's content, and earn progression towards nearly every reward in the game, without dealing >10k DPS.
but your forgetting the end game , you NEED to do >10k which to be honest is what you get too in a short period of time . you look at the higher tier missions from delta rising and above , someone doing <5K will struggle in the Lvl 55+ content ive seen it with new players you see they need help in this mission or that ,now i have no issue doing this content alone , and im by no means a 30K+dps player . then there is the REP system queues , in order to do advanced you need at least that 10k or close to it . if you go in with a group under that you wont be able to do most content and succeed in getting the drops your looking for .
so dont tell me that you can succeed in the game with the below the meta dps . cuz you really cant .
I am concerned about the complete removal of in-combat regeneration in ground.
Instead of completely removing it, could we have it like in space? Which I believe is a percentage of full (out-of-combat) regen.
I personally feel the way it works on Holodeck right now is fine as is, removing it in combat severely damages survivability options in a build.
Ten soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head. - Euripides
I no longer do any Bug Hunting work for Cryptic. I may resume if a serious attempt to fix the game is made.
I am concerned about the complete removal of in-combat regeneration in ground.
Instead of completely removing it, could we have it like in space? Which I believe is a percentage of full (out-of-combat) regen.
I'm investigating this. There shouldn't be as drastic a difference as players are seeing, and I'm pretty certain this is a bug.
Jeremy Randall
Cryptic - Lead Systems Designer
"Play smart!"
I am concerned about the complete removal of in-combat regeneration in ground.
Instead of completely removing it, could we have it like in space? Which I believe is a percentage of full (out-of-combat) regen.
I'm investigating this. There shouldn't be as drastic a difference as players are seeing, and I'm pretty certain this is a bug.
It says under the Ground Skills that health regeneration is reduced to 0 in combat, if its not intentional it kind of looks like it is from that. Just saying.
Ten soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head. - Euripides
I no longer do any Bug Hunting work for Cryptic. I may resume if a serious attempt to fix the game is made.
The suggestion we made turns the choices from a meaningless choice to a useful choice. (this is in reference to the energy and projectile choices).
I completely disagree, and am frankly a bit surprised that nobody else is so far seeing the opposite side of this.
If a player isn't using Projectiles, then maybe unlocking a choice between two different improvements to that mechanic might make them think about changing that external choice. Similarly, if somebody is using only Energy Weapons, then being asked to choose which aspect of that system they want to improve is exactly the sort of choice-with-consequences that generates a sense of agency and meaningfulness within that choice.
Conversely, if they were split up into two nodes of "Projectile vs. Energy" then guess which ones would be meaninglessly ignored by the majority of the playerbase.
Would it not make more sense to lessen the bonus, and have it apply just to all weapons? I think the majority will still disregard one flavor of weapons or the other (likely torpedoes), since it still saves them skill points to do so.
I may be in the minority on this, but I think merging the weapon types (and maybe decreasing the bonus, as a result) early on would go further to accomplish what you're saying.
@borticuscryptic, can you explain the rationale behind the spread of BOFF manual recipe unlocks?
Why are there tactical BOFF power recipes contingent upon leveling science and/or engineering powers, of which most tactical players will never reach (without blowing ZEN on respecs)? (The same goes for the other two professions, of course.)
The suggestion we made turns the choices from a meaningless choice to a useful choice. (this is in reference to the energy and projectile choices).
I completely disagree, and am frankly a bit surprised that nobody else is so far seeing the opposite side of this.
If a player isn't using Projectiles, then maybe unlocking a choice between two different improvements to that mechanic might make them think about changing that external choice. Similarly, if somebody is using only Energy Weapons, then being asked to choose which aspect of that system they want to improve is exactly the sort of choice-with-consequences that generates a sense of agency and meaningfulness within that choice.
Conversely, if they were split up into two nodes of "Projectile vs. Energy" then guess which ones would be meaninglessly ignored by the majority of the playerbase.
The problem is the game is setup for the most part so it’s best to use projectiles only or energy only and mixing is bad.
In your system that means anyone playing like this ends up at a stage where there only choice is useless. Where is the “choice-with-consequences that generates a sense of agency and meaningfulness within that choice.” In the stage where the only choice is uselessness? A meaningful choice is all good but not if it means at another stage you end up with a useless choice. It feels to me like your only looking at the positive stage and not looking at the impact of the negative stage for single weapon use players. To me making choice A meaningful by making choice B useless is not a good trade off.
What about a compromise. Have a choice that boosts both energy and projectile Crit chance. Then have the 2nd option that boosts both energy and projectiles in a different way, repeat for the crit serv passive. That way we have two stages that fits your requirements of “choice-with-consequences that generates a sense of agency and meaningfulness “ and at the same time the players are not forced into a meaningless choice at a different stage that is frustrating and does nothing.
Wouldn't it be better to say have a choice between 1% crit to energy and projectiles or 5% damage to energy and projectiles. (as an example I am not saying those are the best numbers) That to me makes a good choice without running into the problems of a useless choice at another stage.
EDIT2: Or you do 1% crit to energy and projectiles or 5% to hull and shield heal. My goal is only to avoid as a player hitting a stage where the only choice is bad. I would prefer it if all choices had a meaningful choice. Right now when I hit the energy choice I feel like I have no meaningful choice.
The suggestion we made turns the choices from a meaningless choice to a useful choice. (this is in reference to the energy and projectile choices).
I completely disagree, and am frankly a bit surprised that nobody else is so far seeing the opposite side of this.
If a player isn't using Projectiles, then maybe unlocking a choice between two different improvements to that mechanic might make them think about changing that external choice. Similarly, if somebody is using only Energy Weapons, then being asked to choose which aspect of that system they want to improve is exactly the sort of choice-with-consequences that generates a sense of agency and meaningfulness within that choice.
Conversely, if they were split up into two nodes of "Projectile vs. Energy" then guess which ones would be meaninglessly ignored by the majority of the playerbase.
I agree with you, Borticus. But the other thing is that feeling of being forced to choose something that you will not use. And that point is what kept me from responding, for I was trying to find a solution to that issue. I have made one suggestion, but have not seen anyone even note that I said anything, let alone if the idea was good, bad or even doable.
I'm not certain this is the right place to be trying to argue against a meta-game that is just as much a result of community peer pressure as it is of the current combat design. You can succeed perfectly well at the majority of STO's content, and earn progression towards nearly every reward in the game, without dealing >10k DPS.
Will the advanced/elite queues be rebalanced?
Fate - protects fools, small children, and ships named Enterprise Will Riker
Member Access Denied Armada!
My forum single-issue of rage: Make the Proton Experimental Weapon go for subsystem targetting!
It says under the Ground Skills that health regeneration is reduced to 0 in combat, if its not intentional it kind of looks like it is from that. Just saying.
That was my understanding as well and the reason I posted.
So if everyone is worried about the node selection. Would it be possible to just make the nodes open and the choices available like traits are now. Unlock a node get a choice from the list, this way it doesn't matter when a node is unlock as we get a choice of power to slot. Or does this lead to OP builds?
I completely disagree, and am frankly a bit surprised that nobody else is so far seeing the opposite side of this.
If a player isn't using Projectiles, then maybe unlocking a choice between two different improvements to that mechanic might make them think about changing that external choice. Similarly, if somebody is using only Energy Weapons, then being asked to choose which aspect of that system they want to improve is exactly the sort of choice-with-consequences that generates a sense of agency and meaningfulness within that choice.
Conversely, if they were split up into two nodes of "Projectile vs. Energy" then guess which ones would be meaninglessly ignored by the majority of the playerbase.
I agree with this choice, but I'd like it moved up a bit on the unlocks: Hangar bonus unlocks are irrelevant for new players until they get into the Admiral levels, but while leveling, torpedoes can actually be really good since the stacking bonuses to power management and damage output that make all-energy builds strong aren't all in place yet.
I've written up a series of longer posts detailing the new system (to get the numbers out there as a reference for people not logged into Tribble) and my thoughts about it on Reddit here. TL;DR: I, for one, like the way your system is set up and most of how it's ordered (Lieutenant skills are simple, straightforward, and always useful, and the mechanical complexity grows from there, which is what you want in a skill system), and the additions of the new skills have me pondering which skills from my old build are ones I should reduce (or maybe cut entirely?) to make way for the new ones. I do think that a couple unlocks should be looked at, though (there's a bug on Eng 20 where one is immediately chosen as soon as you would get the choice), the Engineering Ultimate needs serious buffs unless there's hidden factors I'm not aware of, and the dots marking the Ultimates themselves on the unlock bars should be bigger, since the eye is naturally drawn to the unlocks immediately afterward (the choices of buffs to the Ultimate), skipping over the Ultimate itself.
The problem is the game is setup for the most part so it’s best to use projectiles only or energy only and mixing is bad.
Just gonna say, I've never seen a good torpedo build with no energy weapons.
But I do kinda agree with the sentiment. I get where Borticus is coming from with this, trying to encourage torpedo use, but I feel making the bonus apply to both weapon types and offering something else for players who don't build around weapon crits (uhh...do they exist?) might be a better choice. If I want to make an all energy build, the Torpedo crit buffs aren't a choice, they're pointless. Honestly, I see the best option for encouraging torpedo use be to remove choice entirely and just offer buffs to all weapon types.
Just a quick idea of how this could work with some poorly thought out proposals:
* Weapon Crit Chance
* Improved weapon base damage
* Weapon Crit Severity
* Additional, direct to hull weapon damage
I'm not certain this is the right place to be trying to argue against a meta-game that is just as much a result of community peer pressure as it is of the current combat design. You can succeed perfectly well at the majority of STO's content, and earn progression towards nearly every reward in the game, without dealing >10k DPS.
One may be able to succeed and progress without dealing >10k DPS, but is it fun? No, not really.
The problem is the game is setup for the most part so it’s best to use projectiles only or energy only and mixing is bad.
Just gonna say, I've never seen a good torpedo build with no energy weapons.
But I do kinda agree with the sentiment. I get where Borticus is coming from with this, trying to encourage torpedo use, but I feel making the bonus apply to both weapon types and offering something else for players who don't build around weapon crits (uhh...do they exist?) might be a better choice. If I want to make an all energy build, the Torpedo crit buffs aren't a choice, they're pointless. Honestly, I see the best option for encouraging torpedo use be to remove choice entirely and just offer buffs to all weapon types.
Just a quick idea of how this could work with some poorly thought out proposals:
* Weapon Crit Chance
* Improved weapon base damage
* Weapon Crit Severity
* Additional, direct to hull weapon damage
It does seem most people favor energy only builds but there are a fair few good torpedo builds without energy weapons. Either way the current new skill choices seem to go directly against the reasons Borticus gave us for those choices.
P.S I don't build around weapon crits, I build around boosting the minimum/lowest damage. If its a choice I skip crit which lowers my max damage in exchange for boosting my minimum damage.
The problem is the game is setup for the most part so it’s best to use projectiles only or energy only and mixing is bad.
Just gonna say, I've never seen a good torpedo build with no energy weapons.
But I do kinda agree with the sentiment. I get where Borticus is coming from with this, trying to encourage torpedo use, but I feel making the bonus apply to both weapon types and offering something else for players who don't build around weapon crits (uhh...do they exist?) might be a better choice. If I want to make an all energy build, the Torpedo crit buffs aren't a choice, they're pointless. Honestly, I see the best option for encouraging torpedo use be to remove choice entirely and just offer buffs to all weapon types.
Just a quick idea of how this could work with some poorly thought out proposals:
* Weapon Crit Chance
* Improved weapon base damage
* Weapon Crit Severity
* Additional, direct to hull weapon damage
You offer that choice above, people will figure out which one of the two is the most beneficial and go for it always so it stops being a choice.
@borticuscryptic
First I'll preface by saying, I don't understand why there are Tactical Unlocks in the science tree, etc. Does this mean my Science character can craft them at the proper expenditure or is that not the case and my TAC has to spend 17 points in SCIENCE skills to make BFAW3? If my Science can actually MAKE the tactical manual since I have the requisite points in the skill, then no real harm is done. IF I can't make ALL the TAC manuals with my tac without spending significant points in ALL the trees (and currently you cannot spend 22 points in each tree) then you're not following one of your own guidelines that you stated at the start. That we won't lose anything. To me, this is a loss of something I've been able to do since the beginning of the game, have my characters be able to train ALL of their career skills which by trading and training a fleeties BOff (old way) or via manuals (new way).
Now, I think I have a way for this to work that'll still require investment and make sense for people.
Move the training manual creation to the R&D system. For example move the BFAW to the Beams R&D. Rank 1 unlocks at 10, Rank 2 Unlocks at 15 Rank 3 unlocks at 20 not only is this fairly intuitive, it gives a reason for having a Rank 20 R&D skill.
Anyway -- I'm some sure people hate it, but maybe not.
Formerly Known as Protector from June 2008 to June 20, 2012
Please enable us to buy a token with Zen to faction change a 25th Century FED to a TOS FED.
@borticuscryptic
First I'll preface by saying, I don't understand why there are Tactical Unlocks in the science tree, etc. Does this mean my Science character can craft them at the proper expenditure or is that not the case and my TAC has to spend 17 points in SCIENCE skills to make BFAW3? If my Science can actually MAKE the tactical manual since I have the requisite points in the skill, then no real harm is done. IF I can't make ALL the TAC manuals with my tac without spending significant points in ALL the trees (and currently you cannot spend 22 points in each tree) then you're not following one of your own guidelines that you stated at the start. That we won't lose anything. To me, this is a loss of something I've been able to do since the beginning of the game, have my characters be able to train ALL of their career skills which by trading and training a fleeties BOff (old way) or via manuals (new way).
Now, I think I have a way for this to work that'll still require investment and make sense for people.
Move the training manual creation to the R&D system. For example move the BFAW to the Beams R&D. Rank 1 unlocks at 10, Rank 2 Unlocks at 15 Rank 3 unlocks at 20 not only is this fairly intuitive, it gives a reason for having a Rank 20 R&D skill.
Anyway -- I'm some sure people hate it, but maybe not.
So @crytpic@borticuscryptic PLEASE remove the unlock system for Training Manuals so that only the Carrer and Rank depends, many people struggle to farm some ec to gear up, there is really no need to punish them even more with that change. THX.
While I can say that we'll be examining everyone's feedback on the Training Unlocks in more detail, I can also safely say that we won't be moving to a Career+Rank requirement. It is entirely by-design that different Captains will have access to different Training, based on their Skill Choices. Always has been, and will continue to be so.
I think they want classes to be interdependent in some way or another. Training of manuals being one of those.
Comments
We still have the issue of Tachy beam and Siphon both having way lower number in Tribble.
Perhaps it should change along with everything else....
Yes that is correct
Cryptic - Lead Systems Designer
"Play smart!"
The question is, will these "New Choices" You are asking us to make, drive more players away, than bring new players in?
At this point in the games history, doing anything that drives ANY players away, does not seem like a wise decision. (IMHO)
<shrug>
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Do we ask for something that we dont have right now anyway? no we dont, all that is asked for is dont take away what we allready have, thats more than reasonable i think, i say it again and again, i have my dedicited eng/tac/sci crafters (1 each) chars who are skilled to be able to craft every single manual in their own carrers, are they overpowered? is there any issue with that? if so i dont see it, it is a perfectly working system so, why break it??? why do suddenly i have to have 6 more characters to craft the other stuff that now us locked away for whatever reasons???
I want to understand, i want to see your point, but please excuse me cause i dont, its just mind-boggling......
This ^^
Also the choices should fit into the theme of the character class. At one point you have what to me looks like an Eng choice in the sci tree and sci choice in the Eng tree. See my last feedback post.
Could we have some feedback on how it appears as though as damage boosts to Kinetic ground weapons have vanished in the new skill tree. Is this just a text bug? I went from +99 skills to my Kinetic ground weapons in the old tree to 0 in the new tree.
You brought up the point of choices. There are non to make, even less so in the current system. Whatever precipitates the current meta, it will not change with or without the skill tree and will leave most players without any meaningfull choice.
It will just take you thrice as long ...
What you could do is move away from the diminishing returns style of the skill tree. This would make players whos spread more or less equally into every category less of a jack-of-all-trades, while still giving them more flexible gameplay choice (at least without the need to constantly respec). This way you could even introduce an ultimate ability tailored to that playstyle (maybe a team oriented one, but without the option to improve it).
I completely disagree, and am frankly a bit surprised that nobody else is so far seeing the opposite side of this.
If a player isn't using Projectiles, then maybe unlocking a choice between two different improvements to that mechanic might make them think about changing that external choice. Similarly, if somebody is using only Energy Weapons, then being asked to choose which aspect of that system they want to improve is exactly the sort of choice-with-consequences that generates a sense of agency and meaningfulness within that choice.
Conversely, if they were split up into two nodes of "Projectile vs. Energy" then guess which ones would be meaninglessly ignored by the majority of the playerbase.
Cryptic - Lead Systems Designer
"Play smart!"
As for what I've tested so far I do agree the pet buff should be moved to the end of the nodes they give little to no boost/buff so early in the selection tree.
Also is there a window/tab where I can see the points I have in particular skill/powers, like the Skill-Based Stats pull down now?
Instead of completely removing it, could we have it like in space? Which I believe is a percentage of full (out-of-combat) regen.
STO Screenshot Archive
so dont tell me that you can succeed in the game with the below the meta dps . cuz you really cant .
I personally feel the way it works on Holodeck right now is fine as is, removing it in combat severely damages survivability options in a build.
I'm investigating this. There shouldn't be as drastic a difference as players are seeing, and I'm pretty certain this is a bug.
Cryptic - Lead Systems Designer
"Play smart!"
It says under the Ground Skills that health regeneration is reduced to 0 in combat, if its not intentional it kind of looks like it is from that. Just saying.
Would it not make more sense to lessen the bonus, and have it apply just to all weapons? I think the majority will still disregard one flavor of weapons or the other (likely torpedoes), since it still saves them skill points to do so.
I may be in the minority on this, but I think merging the weapon types (and maybe decreasing the bonus, as a result) early on would go further to accomplish what you're saying.
Why are there tactical BOFF power recipes contingent upon leveling science and/or engineering powers, of which most tactical players will never reach (without blowing ZEN on respecs)? (The same goes for the other two professions, of course.)
In your system that means anyone playing like this ends up at a stage where there only choice is useless. Where is the “choice-with-consequences that generates a sense of agency and meaningfulness within that choice.” In the stage where the only choice is uselessness? A meaningful choice is all good but not if it means at another stage you end up with a useless choice. It feels to me like your only looking at the positive stage and not looking at the impact of the negative stage for single weapon use players. To me making choice A meaningful by making choice B useless is not a good trade off.
What about a compromise. Have a choice that boosts both energy and projectile Crit chance. Then have the 2nd option that boosts both energy and projectiles in a different way, repeat for the crit serv passive. That way we have two stages that fits your requirements of “choice-with-consequences that generates a sense of agency and meaningfulness “ and at the same time the players are not forced into a meaningless choice at a different stage that is frustrating and does nothing.
Wouldn't it be better to say have a choice between 1% crit to energy and projectiles or 5% damage to energy and projectiles. (as an example I am not saying those are the best numbers) That to me makes a good choice without running into the problems of a useless choice at another stage.
EDIT2: Or you do 1% crit to energy and projectiles or 5% to hull and shield heal. My goal is only to avoid as a player hitting a stage where the only choice is bad. I would prefer it if all choices had a meaningful choice. Right now when I hit the energy choice I feel like I have no meaningful choice.
I agree with you, Borticus. But the other thing is that feeling of being forced to choose something that you will not use. And that point is what kept me from responding, for I was trying to find a solution to that issue. I have made one suggestion, but have not seen anyone even note that I said anything, let alone if the idea was good, bad or even doable.
KDF: Dahar Master Kan (Borg Klingon Tactical)::Dahar Master Torc (Alien Science)::Dahar Master Sisteric (Gorn Engineer)
RR-Fed: Citizen Sirroc (Romulan Science)::Fleet Admiral Grell (Alien Engineer)
RR-KDF: Fleet Admiral Zemo (Reman Tactical)::Fleet Admiral Xinatek (Reman Science)::Fleet Admiral Bel (Alien Engineer)
TOS-Fed: Fleet Admiral Katem (Andorian Tactical)::Lieutenant Commander Straad (Vulcan Engineer)
Dom-Fed: Dan'Tar (Jem'Hadar Science)
Dom-KDF: Kamtana'Solan (Jem'Hadar Science)
CoHost of Tribbles in Ecstasy (Zombee)
Will the advanced/elite queues be rebalanced?
Member Access Denied Armada!
My forum single-issue of rage: Make the Proton Experimental Weapon go for subsystem targetting!
That was my understanding as well and the reason I posted.
STO Screenshot Archive
I agree with this choice, but I'd like it moved up a bit on the unlocks: Hangar bonus unlocks are irrelevant for new players until they get into the Admiral levels, but while leveling, torpedoes can actually be really good since the stacking bonuses to power management and damage output that make all-energy builds strong aren't all in place yet.
I've written up a series of longer posts detailing the new system (to get the numbers out there as a reference for people not logged into Tribble) and my thoughts about it on Reddit here. TL;DR: I, for one, like the way your system is set up and most of how it's ordered (Lieutenant skills are simple, straightforward, and always useful, and the mechanical complexity grows from there, which is what you want in a skill system), and the additions of the new skills have me pondering which skills from my old build are ones I should reduce (or maybe cut entirely?) to make way for the new ones. I do think that a couple unlocks should be looked at, though (there's a bug on Eng 20 where one is immediately chosen as soon as you would get the choice), the Engineering Ultimate needs serious buffs unless there's hidden factors I'm not aware of, and the dots marking the Ultimates themselves on the unlock bars should be bigger, since the eye is naturally drawn to the unlocks immediately afterward (the choices of buffs to the Ultimate), skipping over the Ultimate itself.
Just gonna say, I've never seen a good torpedo build with no energy weapons.
But I do kinda agree with the sentiment. I get where Borticus is coming from with this, trying to encourage torpedo use, but I feel making the bonus apply to both weapon types and offering something else for players who don't build around weapon crits (uhh...do they exist?) might be a better choice. If I want to make an all energy build, the Torpedo crit buffs aren't a choice, they're pointless. Honestly, I see the best option for encouraging torpedo use be to remove choice entirely and just offer buffs to all weapon types.
Just a quick idea of how this could work with some poorly thought out proposals:
* Weapon Crit Chance
* Improved weapon base damage
* Weapon Crit Severity
* Additional, direct to hull weapon damage
One may be able to succeed and progress without dealing >10k DPS, but is it fun? No, not really.
P.S I don't build around weapon crits, I build around boosting the minimum/lowest damage. If its a choice I skip crit which lowers my max damage in exchange for boosting my minimum damage.
You offer that choice above, people will figure out which one of the two is the most beneficial and go for it always so it stops being a choice.
First I'll preface by saying, I don't understand why there are Tactical Unlocks in the science tree, etc. Does this mean my Science character can craft them at the proper expenditure or is that not the case and my TAC has to spend 17 points in SCIENCE skills to make BFAW3? If my Science can actually MAKE the tactical manual since I have the requisite points in the skill, then no real harm is done. IF I can't make ALL the TAC manuals with my tac without spending significant points in ALL the trees (and currently you cannot spend 22 points in each tree) then you're not following one of your own guidelines that you stated at the start. That we won't lose anything. To me, this is a loss of something I've been able to do since the beginning of the game, have my characters be able to train ALL of their career skills which by trading and training a fleeties BOff (old way) or via manuals (new way).
Now, I think I have a way for this to work that'll still require investment and make sense for people.
Move the training manual creation to the R&D system. For example move the BFAW to the Beams R&D. Rank 1 unlocks at 10, Rank 2 Unlocks at 15 Rank 3 unlocks at 20 not only is this fairly intuitive, it gives a reason for having a Rank 20 R&D skill.
Anyway -- I'm some sure people hate it, but maybe not.
Please enable us to buy a token with Zen to faction change a 25th Century FED to a TOS FED.
He made his reply earlier:
I think they want classes to be interdependent in some way or another. Training of manuals being one of those.
| USS Curiosity - Pathfinder | USS Rift - Eternal |
The Science Ship Build Thread - Share your Sci Ship builds here!