test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Official Feedback Thread for Skill Revamp (v3.0!)
borticuscryptic
Member Posts: 2,478 Cryptic Developer
Here are the most recent Patch Notes: http://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline#/discussion/1213358/tribble-maintenance-and-release-notes-march-23-2016
Let's keep the feedback train rolling - CHOO CHOOOOOoooooo!
Let's keep the feedback train rolling - CHOO CHOOOOOoooooo!
Jeremy Randall
Cryptic - Lead Systems Designer
"Play smart!"
Cryptic - Lead Systems Designer
"Play smart!"
0
Comments
This is misguided at best and directly harms people threat tanking. It's clear to see that the either / or choices are something that you're struggling with, and you just can't decide where to put threat, now that you've moved it out of Tactical.
Engineering, though? That makes no sense at all. +Threat is the opposite of Stealth, and Stealth is the province of the Sci trees. Embassy consoles that adjust threat are Science consoles. Should it not then follow that an either / or choice involving Threat should be a straightforward Threat / Stealth choice and located at either the 5 or 10 point choice in Science?
I can see both sides. But this was based directly on the apparent player preferences.
Cryptic - Lead Systems Designer
"Play smart!"
However, the either / or choices up until this point seemed to be aimed to give the players a choice between something nice, or something else quite nice, thus avoiding falling into the trap of the old either / or choice in the rep system. Now, however, you're putting in a choice which will force threat tanks (especially Romulan and KDF threat tanks who wish to fly faction-native ships) to make much larger compromises.
If, as you say, the overwhelming wish of the player base is that Threat should be in Engineering, then I at least hope you look at the choices given and amend them. These are perks meant to reward the players for investing in the tree, but right now that choice feels like a punishment.
Thanks for your time!
(Tough choices are good choices, I support this.)
Cryptic - Lead Systems Designer
"Play smart!"
Assuming the Skill Unlocks are final (i.e., no more adding/removing), I think I'd favor this progression:
ENG 5 = Subsystem Repair / Battery Expertise
ENG 10 = Max Hull Capacity / Max Shield Capacity (although I thought Damage Resistance was fine here)
ENG 15 = Engine Power / Shield Power
ENG 20 = Aux Power / Weapon Power
SCI 5 = Transwarp Recharge / Sector Space Travel
SCI 10 = Threat Control / Control Resistance
SCI 15 = Stealth / Perception
SCI 20 = Energy Drain Resistance / Shield Drain Resistance
Alternate Sci tree:
SCI 5 = Transwarp Recharge / Sector Space Travel
SCI 10 = Threat Control / Stealth
SCI 15 = Control Resistance / Perception
SCI 20 = Energy Drain Resistance / Shield Drain Resistance
TAC 5 = Accuracy / Defense
TAC 10 = Hangar Health / Hangar Damage
TAC 15 = Projectile CrtH / Projectile CrtD
TAC 20 = Energy CrtH / Energy CrtD
So let me explicate some of the logic here:
1. Threat Control vs Battery is an absolutely devastating choice; I actually think it might be the most "punishing" choice in the entire tree as it currently stands. There's no real give or take here, the way there is with other choices. It's particularly contrasted with other choices that look really easy: Control Resistance vs Perception, Max Shield Capacity vs Stealth, and Max Hull Capacity vs Subsystem Repair. I think the alternatives I've set up above are a little tougher; at least, I think the choices are a bit closer.
2. Control Resistance vs Threat Control might seem weird, but I'm not totally sure what's left to contrast Threat with (if you take away Stealth, at least), and I guess you can sort of rationalize this choice as one's ability to resist others' control effects, or the ability to impose your own control effects, if indirectly (after all, threat mechanics - at their core - are about manipulating the actions of other players). (In fact, the more I think about that choice, the more fitting it seems, to me.) The alternative (Threat Control vs Stealth) is a nice give-or-take (the latter is of particular interest to PvP players, the former to PvE), but I prefer the Stealth vs Perception give-or-take (do you choose to boost your ability to Stealth, or your ability to pierce other players'/entities' Stealth?). And I put Threat Control in the Science tree, generally, since right now the only real sources of Threat manipulation (aside from Cruisers' Attract Fire) appear on Science consoles (+/- Threat consoles), and I think (again) that Threat pairs most naturally (and sensibly) with two Science skills, Stealth or Control Resistance (and as an example of Control gameplay more generally). I know a lot of people think Threat and Engineering have natural synergy (and there's certainly a sense in which that's true), I think it's worth highlighting that Threat Control is as valuable for the Threat reduction granted from that Skill for the non-Tanks, as much as the bonus is valuable for the Tanks. In that sense, I thought it was actually perfect in the Tactical tree, but I guess I was in the minority there (putting it back at Tac 10 would also be fine, in my opinion, if you could find something Tactical to pair it with).
3. Other ideas that may or may not make sense would be finding a way to contrast Subsystem Repair with Energy Drain Resistance (do you choose to resist Disables or Drains?), but that leaves Battery (again) as this weird outlier. I appreciate that it's tough finding some way to pair it in a meaningful (but not "punishing") way.
4. Hangar Health / Damage being so low is...it's kind of weird. They're not the sorts of things that have wide applicability, and it doesn't make sense for that to be the first choice leveling players get considering Hangar gameplay is literally an end game mechanic (all Carriers unlock at Lv 40 or above, as does Fleet Support). But I also appreciate that players might not want to invest heavily in the Tactical Tree bonuses (were it just up to me, personally, I'd put it all the way at 20).
Anyway, these were my initial, first impression thoughts. A lot of interesting changes in the latest patch notes. I really like the changes to the Coordination skills - they definitely have a lot more applicability now. Going to be interesting to see how Scramble Sensor works after the changes - I guess it makes sense that it's decoupled from Aux (I don't think Jam Sensors is coupled with it? Maybe it is, and I just never noticed, I don't use Jam Sensors really at all).
Apologies for the double-post, but I missed the string as I was typing my first response.
Let's see. You've got Reactive Armor Catalysts and Hull Patch as nice durabiltiy consumables that tanks love (especially the former); you have Energy Amplifiers as a fantastic damage bonus (in fact, I invested in Batteries initially largely to maximize the duration of this damage bonus), and Exotic Particle Flood pairs quite nicely with Feedback Pulse (which shines brightest on builds with a lot of threat) - with sufficient skill in Batteries, you can get Exotic Particle Flood to match (or exceed) the duration of your Feedback Pulses (and the Tractor Beam Repulser drag, which is another power favored by tanks, since it lets you grapple foes).
Those are the big, obvious ones, at least.
On the whole I'm pleased. I like the stealth vs. shield cap a lot as it comes early enough to be exciting to non-Feds while leveling up, but gives ships unable to cloak a tasty non-choice. In the same spirit I have only one request:
Swap Threat Control & Hangar Health.
Do that and I'm ready to call it golden
Does this address the other feedback in this thread? Cause other issues?
Cryptic - Lead Systems Designer
"Play smart!"
Yeah, we had it all the way at 20, it sucked. I would've been happy with it at 10, 15 would definitely be pushing it, and 20 was just unacceptable with how many science carriers there are.
It's a two part compromise, thanks to the dual nature of the Threat Control perk in that it enhances both +th and -th depending on the toggle.
As a tank, especially as one known for flying unconventional ships (I'm presently flying a Hazari Destroyer and managing to get over 90% of all attacks in an ISA aimed at me with zero deaths among the team) I can't get enough of Reactive Armor Catalysts. They're wonderful, and they really help me survive when I take on more than I should. I'm also using a lot of Energy Amplifiers to keep up my damage output and maintain my threat, as I lack Attract Fire in both my Warbird tanks and my fun projects like this.
As I'm alternating when each type is on cooldown I'm using 4-5 batteries every ISA when tanking. More in longer content like the Battle Of Korfez.
On the DPS side of things the choice is to either take that much needed enhanced threat reduction, or to hamper the benefit that batteries give. As a DPS Sci Captain in my Paradox I can't function without a Tank on my wing to take the threat away from me, and even inexperienced but well geared tanks can struggle to keep aggro. The Threat control pick was going to be a godsend for her, as now I could assist my team mates even more by generating much less threat.
However, now that threat reduction is going to come at the cost of not being able to properly take advantage of the Energy Amplifier / Exotic Flood batteries I use so much (and in Hive Elite, Reactive Armor Catalysts), which is going to hurt a lot.
On top of that, I like to be versatile with my play so I'm going to want to take the Threat Control pick with the Sci character too for when she's taking a turn at Tanking, meaning no matter what I'm going to be stuck with lacklustre, sub-par batteries.
So, both tanking and damage dealing roles rely heavily on the benefits from each of these options, and forcing a "one or the other" choice seems, as one other poster put it, cruel.
Causes other issues, what if I want to tank in a Flight Deck/Command Cruiser? Now I can't buff my pets' health. If I'm not tanking, I can buff their health and their damage, which I don't think you want given the energy/projectiles crit discussion in the earlier thread.
But please value @iusasset's opinions on tank stuff more than mine
Always a noble goal
Now that I've noticed it I literally cannot unsee it. Please. Double please. Pretty please
Actually... that really does solve the issue. It's a solution so simple I didn't see it at all.
It allows Carrier focused players to keep their focus on their pets without making a large compromise, and it allows players focused on Tanking and their own ship's damage output to do their thing without making a large compromise.
Bravo nikeix.
I should say "No" just because this request is so far off-topic from the thread...
Cryptic - Lead Systems Designer
"Play smart!"
If you're tanking why are your pets being hit? Control the aggro and they shouldn't need +health
Actually, looking at it again it would make the choice between threat control and hangar damage. If you've chosen to tank, maybe you shouldn't have high damage pets as part of your Damage contribution?
As to getting both hangar benefits, to do so you lose batteries and threat control - both significant sacrifices. It could contribute to a truly separate "full-carrier" play style.
Haha, fair point
(Edit: AOE entities like gravity wells aside)
Still has the issue with getting both health and damage, though. I mean, I'm fine with that, but I'd also be fine with changing the critical unlocks up.
((twitch)) That's ((twitch)) fair. ((twitch))
A one-node skill tree bonus isn't much different from an Unlock except for the relative opportunity costs, though I'd rather the Full Impulse shunt was also up against something like Subsystem Repair instead of Threat Control...
Threat Control is just a really hard one to place, since it needs to have a viable alternative option that doesn't feel like it's punishing tanks. Stealth was too niche, and Batteries are too good for ships with a high number of Device slots. At least the Threatening Stance itself isn't part of the unlock.
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)
This was an interesting compromise idea, yeah. When @Mandoknight89 and I were bouncing ideas off one another earlier, I think we agreed that Shunt vs Repair could be an interesting choice. Still means you need to reshuffle for TC, but...
As for the Threat Control vs Pet Skills debate, I can see the value in selecting between improving your ship and your pets, and allowing someone to double-down in either direction. Might not be the direction I'd personally move in, myself - it might make those choices too "easy" for a lot of people. I guess I don't have a strong opinion either way?
That's just my opinion anyway, and I know it's waaaay too late in development for a change like that.
I do like some of the implications of this change: like the rest of the skill revamp, it would mean that you could choose to keep your current setup that's focused on your own ship, or you could sacrifice current performance parameters to try a new setup that wasn't previously available.
I'm all for simpler choices this late in the development & feedback process!
But yes, as I discussed with @iusasset elsewhere to me this would make it a choice between enhancing your pets or enhancing your ship, with two opportunities to do so. If inclined a player can choose to focus all on pets, all on the the ship or a balanced mix of the two.
I like the dual sides to the threat control skill can we have that expanded to other things in game that modify threat like the dominion duty officer and the embassy consoles? Being able to control your threat throughout the fight is a great new mechanic and with the new Strategist spec it becomes even more integral to strategic fighting. Having threat modifying skills increase or decrease threat at the same time makes them far more useful for players I think.
Your hangers either die or they don't. And a lot of things that damage hangers esp. in PvP are hull hitting (e.g. tractor beam repulsors). At the low end I don't think some hangers even have shields (can't quite remember been years since I checked). I don't even bother getting higher rarity pets if all they have is shields. It is too minor a bonus to benefit anything. Even if that were doubling of shields I severely doubt it would even be close to worth it. Bonus hull would be much more likely to be useful, but it would have to be a lot more than 10%.
Issue 2 EPS Benefiting DPS:
I have read a lot about EPS benefitting DPS. For several hours I tested on holodeck about a week ago with Dual Heavy Cannons and Turrets in a highly controlled PvP environment (me shooting another account where they just specialization proc about the same each run) did that ~5-10times with and without 3xEPS Consoles (mk xii rare eps accelerator or something like that from exchange (the eps only with no other benefits ones)) + red matter capacitor. The statistical variance in weapons fire (or other factors) (after taking into account the parsers logged crit hit chance) was varying by something like 20% of total damage done before kill each time. And yes I was same distance from enemy each time and at 125 weapons power (exactly that, if I take my weapon power from 100 to 90 my actual weapon power is 115). Though near as I could tell there wasn't an increase in damage with EPS. I think my EPS skill went from ~200 to ~400 or ~100 to ~400 (can't remember) with the consoles. Though I read that massive gains in damage are possible with EPS from experienced players that I trust so I don't know who to believe. They say that Dual Heavy Cannons don't benefit as much as beams though so I don't know. People have been wrong about stuff before so...
Of course if I can't tell if EPS gives bonus damage or not, how are (Edit: most) players expected to do the same? Please either change/remove/eps or its damage enhancing ability (if it even exists as I wasn't able to find it). Or clarify in the description that it dosen't enhance damage if it truely dosen't. Some people seem to think over 10% increases (perhaps quite a bit more) in actual damage output are possible with this making it a rather large deal.
So basically weapon power drains instantly and regens after a certain time period instantly. But eps apparently recharges the weapon power in the time period before the regen. I notice that if I am firing weapons: power recharges from full impulse at the same rate as if the weapons weren't firing. Leading me to believe there actually is a damage increase from this. Though the fact my tests weren't able to find it is weird.
Of course the EPS given by the skill systems isn't THAT large, but this is definately worth checking out.
Issue 3 Shield Regen is pretty much useless:
This gives a minor shield heal every six seconds. On my character this is about 250 (with MACO Shields). I think this is times the shield facing so thats 166 shield heal a second. Something like double that for regenerative shields (which no one uses), esp. not in PvP. Given the fact that there are a lot of shield heals in the game. Shield Capacity is way way more useful (esp. in PvP where a key tactic is hit the enemy fast and hard and not care about damage done to them outside of that period)). In PvE regen is also useless. Regen enhancing consoles are worthless for anybody, no matter what. It would help if this was removed from the game or changed significantly as it is a trap for newbies. I came into the game liking regen, had to change that once I learned how this game worked... In my little newbie voice I was telling everyone how awesome regen was, when it was actually pretty much useless.
Edit: Also newbies don't redistribute their shields and often don't use tac team so shield regen would not regen 3 or so shield faces for a lot of the time, making it much much less useful for them.
Edit: I started adding stuff below
Issue 4 Hull Regen, I don't know but I would look into this, I think its pretty useless too, at least without some enhancing stuff that is found in game (though I have a feeling it dosen't change things by much).
Issue 5 10% hanger damage not really useful in PvP:
This one is not that big a deal but +10% hanger damage in PvP is not very useful. Most benefit from pets in PvP is stuff like tractor beam, viral matrix, aceton beam, siphon drones, etc... In PvE hmm I don't know, sounds about right maybe. But remember, every single thing that is hard to change AND not good in PvP and good in PvE is bad for PvP. People do no t like to change these things just so they can PvP (unfortunately).
Threat Gen and Batteries:
This is almost useless in PvP. You can easily change batteries and avoid it. Again PvE only without benefitting PvP is bad. You can use the damage batteries for spike without this, might be a little better with, probably not worth it though. The more science like and defensive batteries in PvP would still benefit though. I am not sure if feedback pulse needs the battery to be on for the entire duration. For (most if not all) aux powers if you use an aux battery to increase power levels the aux abilities only are affected by the power level of aux at the instant they are activated. For the duration after this instant the aux power could be 1 for all you care as long as you aren't using other science abilities during that time. This makes aux batteries on an escort really really really nice for healing. Bwah ha ha.
To be continued...