One more time, there IS NO TRINITY IN STAR TREK. Nobody in a single movie, television episode, or novel acted as a "tank" or "healer" while someone else acted as a glass cannon damage dealer. It DID. NOT. HAPPEN. EVER. It's not part of Star Trek and it doesn't belong in a Star Trek game. That concept was developed for a ground-based fantasy game featuring knights and wizards and such, it has nothing whatsoever to do with a spacecraft combat game in general or Star Trek in particular.
The closest thing to roles you can get from the Star Trek IP is the formula some space games used where you have a "fragile speedster", "mighty glacier" and "middle ground", but that always worked in terms of speed vs toughness while damage output was mostly the same. And of course, the Defiant was hardly fragile was it? So, that's kind of a stretch. There were no carriers and especially no space wizard "science" vessels. Most ships were capital ships of various types designed to be self-sufficient, with some variation of course but for the most part there weren't a lot of segmented roles in Star Trek navies nor a lot of specialized ships. Where the game introduces them to add player variety it should be done in terms of what makes sense for a space navy, not what makes sense for a band of fantasy heroes in the magic middle ages.
im sorry but technally you are wrong. https://youtu.be/VoIFUJxJwcQ
sisko clearly calls for the galaxy to keep those destroyers distracted aka tank them.
Yes, "distracted", by giving them a reason to care about the presence of the Galaxies. IE: Shoot them before they kill us!
So explain why when they announced the retirement of previous event ships last summer and the initiation of a new currency for each event player feedback convinced them to initiate an account unlock system for event ships which was not part of the plan when they announced the "set in stone" new event ship system?[/quote]
Fear of Players leaving the game and not handing over money to them anymore would be me guess on the change of stance for the Event plan.
Events bring in a lot of money with Players short cutting the grind with lobi to Event tokens
IMO the only "trinity" that exists in STO is loosely based on the type of ship you choose- and then the rest is "garnish" depending on your career choice and/or trait combinations.
The lines get a little blurry here, but overall the result is you can hybridize your play with many combinations. I actually love the freedom this gives you- because you're not shoehorned into someone else's perspective of what you should be doing, but rather have the ability to choose for yourself.
That said, in many games I've played, some people feel as if they're "experts" on how others should play- and therefore feel qualified to pick and choose what someone else's "role" should be, which is how the "trinity" system got solidified into the MMO world. I've always respected those who wished to take the road less traveled- to explore options outside of what's defined for them. You know the types, the Wizard who chooses to wield two-handers, etc.
Why people are so stuck on the "pecking order" is beyond me- just because you have a conglomeration of people who hybridize doesn't mean it's total chaos, a good leader will know how to utilize the strengths of those within the team and manage a successful outcome. The attitudes of those who prefer "efficiency" feeling as if they're qualified to choose for everyone else are somewhat arrogant, IMO. Choose what you want for yourself- but respect that others may differ in opinion from yours. Otherwise, expect that you may get resistance and people won't respect your opinion, either. (you know, treat others the way you'd like to be treated)
PWE/Cryptic needs to be very careful how they proceed in changing this game in regard to career choices, ship types, "roles", etc. If they start shoehorning based on the "trends" rather than what makes this game overall successful and attractive, they may find it turning into just another carbon-copy clone and not so attractive anymore, IMO.
It's not you- it's me. I just need my space.
Being critical doesn't take skill. Being constructively critical- which is providing alternative solutions or suggestions to a demonstrated problem, however, does.
It is always a good idea to give feed-back as even if the content/update/revamp that is happening an you give feed-back is in it's last steps that feed-back can lead to adjusts/additions that are placed in later on. Just because input and fee-back is not implemented or changed immediately does not mean that the devs are not aware of it, and are not looking into if they can use this input/feed-back, as many times changes unless they are dire by the dev's own outlook can be fleshed out into more interesting content by waiting to use it till after the release.
An example of this would be how many of us including myself would love to see a carrier/hanger/separation-based talent tree added into the system that can actually make playing carriers more interesting an different than cruisers/escorts/science ships, while also allowing us to make our gimped (in our eyes) hanger/separation pets more competitive by placing point into this talent tree. Also this would allow the three other talent trees to focus on their specific niches, with only the bare-minimum number of hanger-pet based talent added to them to have good options for a captain wanting to specialize in using hanger/separation pets. Making it that by placing point into the carrier tree could unlock in the roots of it things such as improving the AI of your pets, as well as things like adding elements to the hanger-pet User-interface that would create a different playstyle for carrier captains. This type of change would need to be thought out an added later on, but without pointing out an advocating thru feed-back that such a system might be wanted by the player-base that uses such ships it might not even occur to them to look into it.
The main thing is that gdf and alpha is too powerful and that the other careers have nothing in comparison.
I'd give gdf to the engeneers and remove nadion inversion and add a skill thats like a toggle that decreases out dmg by 30% but add 3000% aggro and adds resis or whatever to allow for tanking mode.
What scis really need is a sci-version of alpha thats like +100% dmg for exotic dmg stuff and something that doubles/triples the duration of sci abilities like grav well or feedback pulse (without increasing shared/global cd).
That way finally the classes could do something the others cant and the eng CAN tank if he wants to even with tacs present that do loads more dps and the sci could have his dci stuff finally be a true source of dps/controle just in a sci way.
The main thing is that gdf and alpha is too powerful and that the other careers have nothing in comparison.
I'd give gdf to the engeneers and remove nadion inversion and add a skill thats like a toggle that decreases out dmg by 30% but add 3000% aggro and adds resis or whatever to allow for tanking mode.
What scis really need is a sci-version of alpha thats like +100% dmg for exotic dmg stuff and something that doubles/triples the duration of sci abilities like grav well or feedback pulse (without increasing shared/global cd).
That way finally the classes could do something the others cant and the eng CAN tank if he wants to even with tacs present that do loads more dps and the sci could have his dci stuff finally be a true source of dps/controle just in a sci way.
I can agree an honestly this would be a great time to put such things into the talent trees, and also actually work to balance out the appeal an strength of the three careers. To me things like a tanking-toggle i could see being in the engineering talent tree allowing all three od the careers to gain a tanking oriented ability, while having in the engineering career path bonuses you gain that buff the performance of the tanking toggle giving them an advantage.
OP, I would not worry about getting Cryptic to remove "Trinity" from STO because it was never really there to begin with.
"Trinity" never existed in STO even at launch. When you can take the "Damage Class" and stuff it into a much more survivable Cruiser, TAC Cruiser, the Glass Cannon case that necessitated a "Tank" didn't exist. When you can take the "Tank Class" and stuff it into a high powered Escort, that "Glass Cannon" of a ship all the sudden has huge survival benefits.
Early in this game's history, the Bird of Prey was the **only** ship with Universal BOFF stations. When Cryptic took the Bird of Prey's Universal BOFF stations and threw them out for everyone to use in other ships, that changed the dynamics of builds completely, further ensuring "Trinity" was merely an impediment in people's minds.
With all due respect I don't know who you are or what your testing methodology is.
It is all good, I don't care if you know me or my methods. I don't know you either, so we are even.
Except that it's not all good. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, so you should care, and you aren't 'even'. Stating that you don't care and making no effort to substantiate your claims makes them seem even more worthless.
So where is your proof then?
Um, what? I made no claims, unless you want me to give proof where burden of proof lies?
With all due respect I don't know who you are or what your testing methodology is.
It is all good, I don't care if you know me or my methods. I don't know you either, so we are even.
Except that it's not all good. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, so you should care, and you aren't 'even'. Stating that you don't care and making no effort to substantiate your claims makes them seem even more worthless.
I do not have to substantiate my "claims", they are fact, if you wish to verify them, you will have to log into Tribble yourself and see, or not and just wait until it goes live.
Burden of proof... This is not a courtroom, the only place where that is mandatory. How dare you anyway, what is wrong, I offended you? Because I do not know or care who you are? You are going to have to get over that. You think your post count means something? To me? hahahahahaha
You are a troll. I will not be replying further to you. All you want now is to puff up your post count by replying endlessly to my posts. I just came here to share with the OP what I had seen, what is fact, on the test server. I already did the legwork. Don't sit there doing nothing, not even willing to take the hour or so to download and patch the Tribble client and tell me that the burden of proof is on me. I already did enough. You want more you puffed-up ignorant fool? Do it your damn self. I have better things to do, I don't play with my food.
I am simply the person pointing out to you now, that your lunatic ravings speak more about who you are than anything I have to say
The main thing is that gdf and alpha is too powerful and that the other careers have nothing in comparison.
I'd give gdf to the engeneers and remove nadion inversion and add a skill thats like a toggle that decreases out dmg by 30% but add 3000% aggro and adds resis or whatever to allow for tanking mode.
What scis really need is a sci-version of alpha thats like +100% dmg for exotic dmg stuff and something that doubles/triples the duration of sci abilities like grav well or feedback pulse (without increasing shared/global cd).
That way finally the classes could do something the others cant and the eng CAN tank if he wants to even with tacs present that do loads more dps and the sci could have his dci stuff finally be a true source of dps/controle just in a sci way.
That's just forcing roles on to players through a choice made at the beginning of their career, rather than adopting a role through skill, gear, ship and Bridge Officer choices.
It seems odd that people can seemingly be both against content that requires (or at least encourages) the use of differing roles yet for enforcing strict roles on players based on their original career choice.
Right now an Engineering, Science or Tactical Captain can tank if they wish to, and if they have the ship and gear to do so, and each of their experiences will be a little different from one another's, variety being the spice of life. They can run an Exotic Damage boat, or they can run a straight up damage dealing beam boat. They can run a Damage / Support ship, or a Debuff / Damage ship, and each of them brings their own strengths.
Advocating for careers to be given a strict label, "you're the only one that can tank, your skills lay in exotic damage and woe betide if you Captain a ship with few Science powers" just goes against the ethos of Starfleet and the game, really.
So yeah. I'm all for content that encourages people to use differing roles, think and work together. That, if you like, is the "trinity" the game needs, not arbitrary labels that put you in a box.
The main thing is that gdf and alpha is too powerful and that the other careers have nothing in comparison.
I'd give gdf to the engeneers and remove nadion inversion and add a skill thats like a toggle that decreases out dmg by 30% but add 3000% aggro and adds resis or whatever to allow for tanking mode.
What scis really need is a sci-version of alpha thats like +100% dmg for exotic dmg stuff and something that doubles/triples the duration of sci abilities like grav well or feedback pulse (without increasing shared/global cd).
That way finally the classes could do something the others cant and the eng CAN tank if he wants to even with tacs present that do loads more dps and the sci could have his dci stuff finally be a true source of dps/controle just in a sci way.
That's just forcing roles on to players through a choice made at the beginning of their career, rather than adopting a role through skill, gear, ship and Bridge Officer choices.
It seems odd that people can seemingly be both against content that requires (or at least encourages) the use of differing roles yet for enforcing strict roles on players based on their original career choice.
Right now an Engineering, Science or Tactical Captain can tank if they wish to, and if they have the ship and gear to do so, and each of their experiences will be a little different from one another's, variety being the spice of life. They can run an Exotic Damage boat, or they can run a straight up damage dealing beam boat. They can run a Damage / Support ship, or a Debuff / Damage ship, and each of them brings their own strengths.
Advocating for careers to be given a strict label, "you're the only one that can tank, your skills lay in exotic damage and woe betide if you Captain a ship with few Science powers" just goes against the ethos of Starfleet and the game, really.
So yeah. I'm all for content that encourages people to use differing roles, think and work together. That, if you like, is the "trinity" the game needs, not arbitrary labels that put you in a box.
The Trinity is a great gaming concept! Unfortunately, it doesn't really work. :P Which is to say, MMOs don't really work: Trinity relies on team work, yet everyone wants to be their own Kirk(ette) too. That's not ego per se, or being asocial. People generally don't mind being part of a team, but also want to be completely self-sufficient, for when that team is unavailable, or for when they come from work, and just want to pew-pew a bit. Game designers know this, of course. So they primarily design games to be the latter: a game where you are encouraged to play with others, but still can be solo if you want to. This, in turn, makes it so that a true Trinity can never be enforced -- only nudged towards.
To me things like a tanking-toggle i could see being in the engineering talent tree allowing all three od the careers to gain a tanking oriented ability,
Everybody gets Threatening Stance in 11.5, and there is a skill track pick to improve both the addition and negation of threat.
while having in the engineering career path bonuses you gain that buff the performance of the tanking toggle giving them an advantage.
And we're back to "one career, potentially chosen years ago, should have a huge advantage over the other careers!"
I can understand the thinking that Tac Captain abilities are somewhat more easily viewed as being superior to the other careers, but the solution isn't exclusivity.
the game the way it is Punishes you for being diverse , if your not a top DPS player your not doing it right , a determent to your team ETC . there is no reason to play any other way , there is no reward from the game for not playing that DPS build . while i play but not falling into that total DPS stigma , my builds are ,more DPS heavy then they should be IMO . the content is designed for the easiest way possible DPS which is a sad sad thing .
All this wouldn't be such a regularily recurring discussion if we had the option to buy a career change token.
I suspect that lots of Science players would realise the errors of their ways and become Tactical officers if this were the case.
Hahah, if that was possible, if they want a truly effective Exotic Damage build for PVE, TAC Captain is the only right answer SCI Captains have no place in a Science Vessel (my first reply in this particular thread). If they want a captain to be better in other Science heavy build styles, then still, a SCI Captain is no better than a TAC or an ENG one.
Now, if we were talking PVP, that's a completely different story. SCI Captains rule there. But that is a very, very niche part of the game now.
while having in the engineering career path bonuses you gain that buff the performance of the tanking toggle giving them an advantage.
And we're back to "one career, potentially chosen years ago, should have a huge advantage over the other careers!"
I can understand the thinking that Tac Captain abilities are somewhat more easily viewed as being superior to the other careers, but the solution isn't exclusivity.
Why should each career not have things they are better at than the other careers? As long as you make the advantage they gain not so over-powered that it eclipses the other careers in the same area, but makes them perform these areas they excel in higher to be noticeable degree. A tactical officer is good with weapons, tactics, and fighting, but that does not always translate to actually knowing how to use the ship's innate pros an cons to improve the ship's ability to take punishment, while a engineering officer is just that someone who studies largely how things are built an operate an so would be able to use the ship's advantages to improve their survivability via their training better than any other career. The bonus gained from such a bonus is an incentive to go tanking on a engineering officer as they excel in it, but does not stop either a tactical or science officer from taking points into the engineering tree to work as a tank, give them some bonuses that work around improving their own methods of tanking using what makes sense for them. Such as that tactical officers gaining improved defensive bonuses from their attack patterns while using the tanking toggle, than going science that while they have some crowd controlling or de-buffing abilities active they gain different bonuses to themselves that are geared towards how they normally would tank. Each of these could use vastly different method of tanking, even using abilities that the other two use, but they also have their own niche style that is where they excel in. Even looking at each career you can see that each already is skewed towards certain things an roles, but that each can fill the other two roles if need be via boff an an console layouts, but their performance in that area is not going to be nearly as impressive as a science or tactical officer would be.
Comments
My character Tsin'xing
So explain why when they announced the retirement of previous event ships last summer and the initiation of a new currency for each event player feedback convinced them to initiate an account unlock system for event ships which was not part of the plan when they announced the "set in stone" new event ship system?[/quote]
Fear of Players leaving the game and not handing over money to them anymore would be me guess on the change of stance for the Event plan.
Events bring in a lot of money with Players short cutting the grind with lobi to Event tokens
The lines get a little blurry here, but overall the result is you can hybridize your play with many combinations. I actually love the freedom this gives you- because you're not shoehorned into someone else's perspective of what you should be doing, but rather have the ability to choose for yourself.
That said, in many games I've played, some people feel as if they're "experts" on how others should play- and therefore feel qualified to pick and choose what someone else's "role" should be, which is how the "trinity" system got solidified into the MMO world. I've always respected those who wished to take the road less traveled- to explore options outside of what's defined for them. You know the types, the Wizard who chooses to wield two-handers, etc.
Why people are so stuck on the "pecking order" is beyond me- just because you have a conglomeration of people who hybridize doesn't mean it's total chaos, a good leader will know how to utilize the strengths of those within the team and manage a successful outcome. The attitudes of those who prefer "efficiency" feeling as if they're qualified to choose for everyone else are somewhat arrogant, IMO. Choose what you want for yourself- but respect that others may differ in opinion from yours. Otherwise, expect that you may get resistance and people won't respect your opinion, either. (you know, treat others the way you'd like to be treated)
PWE/Cryptic needs to be very careful how they proceed in changing this game in regard to career choices, ship types, "roles", etc. If they start shoehorning based on the "trends" rather than what makes this game overall successful and attractive, they may find it turning into just another carbon-copy clone and not so attractive anymore, IMO.
Being critical doesn't take skill. Being constructively critical- which is providing alternative solutions or suggestions to a demonstrated problem, however, does.
An example of this would be how many of us including myself would love to see a carrier/hanger/separation-based talent tree added into the system that can actually make playing carriers more interesting an different than cruisers/escorts/science ships, while also allowing us to make our gimped (in our eyes) hanger/separation pets more competitive by placing point into this talent tree. Also this would allow the three other talent trees to focus on their specific niches, with only the bare-minimum number of hanger-pet based talent added to them to have good options for a captain wanting to specialize in using hanger/separation pets. Making it that by placing point into the carrier tree could unlock in the roots of it things such as improving the AI of your pets, as well as things like adding elements to the hanger-pet User-interface that would create a different playstyle for carrier captains. This type of change would need to be thought out an added later on, but without pointing out an advocating thru feed-back that such a system might be wanted by the player-base that uses such ships it might not even occur to them to look into it.
I'd give gdf to the engeneers and remove nadion inversion and add a skill thats like a toggle that decreases out dmg by 30% but add 3000% aggro and adds resis or whatever to allow for tanking mode.
What scis really need is a sci-version of alpha thats like +100% dmg for exotic dmg stuff and something that doubles/triples the duration of sci abilities like grav well or feedback pulse (without increasing shared/global cd).
That way finally the classes could do something the others cant and the eng CAN tank if he wants to even with tacs present that do loads more dps and the sci could have his dci stuff finally be a true source of dps/controle just in a sci way.
I can agree an honestly this would be a great time to put such things into the talent trees, and also actually work to balance out the appeal an strength of the three careers. To me things like a tanking-toggle i could see being in the engineering talent tree allowing all three od the careers to gain a tanking oriented ability, while having in the engineering career path bonuses you gain that buff the performance of the tanking toggle giving them an advantage.
"Trinity" never existed in STO even at launch. When you can take the "Damage Class" and stuff it into a much more survivable Cruiser, TAC Cruiser, the Glass Cannon case that necessitated a "Tank" didn't exist. When you can take the "Tank Class" and stuff it into a high powered Escort, that "Glass Cannon" of a ship all the sudden has huge survival benefits.
Early in this game's history, the Bird of Prey was the **only** ship with Universal BOFF stations. When Cryptic took the Bird of Prey's Universal BOFF stations and threw them out for everyone to use in other ships, that changed the dynamics of builds completely, further ensuring "Trinity" was merely an impediment in people's minds.
Um, what? I made no claims, unless you want me to give proof where burden of proof lies?
I am simply the person pointing out to you now, that your lunatic ravings speak more about who you are than anything I have to say
That's just forcing roles on to players through a choice made at the beginning of their career, rather than adopting a role through skill, gear, ship and Bridge Officer choices.
It seems odd that people can seemingly be both against content that requires (or at least encourages) the use of differing roles yet for enforcing strict roles on players based on their original career choice.
Right now an Engineering, Science or Tactical Captain can tank if they wish to, and if they have the ship and gear to do so, and each of their experiences will be a little different from one another's, variety being the spice of life. They can run an Exotic Damage boat, or they can run a straight up damage dealing beam boat. They can run a Damage / Support ship, or a Debuff / Damage ship, and each of them brings their own strengths.
Advocating for careers to be given a strict label, "you're the only one that can tank, your skills lay in exotic damage and woe betide if you Captain a ship with few Science powers" just goes against the ethos of Starfleet and the game, really.
So yeah. I'm all for content that encourages people to use differing roles, think and work together. That, if you like, is the "trinity" the game needs, not arbitrary labels that put you in a box.
The Trinity is a great gaming concept! Unfortunately, it doesn't really work. :P Which is to say, MMOs don't really work: Trinity relies on team work, yet everyone wants to be their own Kirk(ette) too. That's not ego per se, or being asocial. People generally don't mind being part of a team, but also want to be completely self-sufficient, for when that team is unavailable, or for when they come from work, and just want to pew-pew a bit. Game designers know this, of course. So they primarily design games to be the latter: a game where you are encouraged to play with others, but still can be solo if you want to. This, in turn, makes it so that a true Trinity can never be enforced -- only nudged towards.
Everybody gets Threatening Stance in 11.5, and there is a skill track pick to improve both the addition and negation of threat.
And we're back to "one career, potentially chosen years ago, should have a huge advantage over the other careers!"
I can understand the thinking that Tac Captain abilities are somewhat more easily viewed as being superior to the other careers, but the solution isn't exclusivity.
Probably anyone who rolled a KDF or Rom science toon lol
I'm proud of being a KDF Sci and out-performing a heck of a lot of Tac Captains. Consider it the game's hard mode.
Hahah, if that was possible, if they want a truly effective Exotic Damage build for PVE, TAC Captain is the only right answer
Now, if we were talking PVP, that's a completely different story. SCI Captains rule there. But that is a very, very niche part of the game now.
Why should each career not have things they are better at than the other careers? As long as you make the advantage they gain not so over-powered that it eclipses the other careers in the same area, but makes them perform these areas they excel in higher to be noticeable degree. A tactical officer is good with weapons, tactics, and fighting, but that does not always translate to actually knowing how to use the ship's innate pros an cons to improve the ship's ability to take punishment, while a engineering officer is just that someone who studies largely how things are built an operate an so would be able to use the ship's advantages to improve their survivability via their training better than any other career. The bonus gained from such a bonus is an incentive to go tanking on a engineering officer as they excel in it, but does not stop either a tactical or science officer from taking points into the engineering tree to work as a tank, give them some bonuses that work around improving their own methods of tanking using what makes sense for them. Such as that tactical officers gaining improved defensive bonuses from their attack patterns while using the tanking toggle, than going science that while they have some crowd controlling or de-buffing abilities active they gain different bonuses to themselves that are geared towards how they normally would tank. Each of these could use vastly different method of tanking, even using abilities that the other two use, but they also have their own niche style that is where they excel in. Even looking at each career you can see that each already is skewed towards certain things an roles, but that each can fill the other two roles if need be via boff an an console layouts, but their performance in that area is not going to be nearly as impressive as a science or tactical officer would be.
We have a winner.
see this is something i would pay for :P