test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Official Feedback Thread for Skill Revamp (v3.0!)

2456712

Comments

  • afree100afree100 Member Posts: 332 Arc User
    edited March 2016
    In another thread I suggested removing the skill tree or making it give everything when reaching lvl 50/60. How about instead making it ship specific. Thus people could spec deeply into one build with no worries while still being able to use other builds how they want. And be able to make a PvP ship more easily. Though people would have to respec for all the ships they care about when a breaking change happens (or hopefully not if everything works out smoothly). Of course zen ships could be discarded and reclaimed perhaps resetting some implementations of this, though lock box/doff pack/lobi and free ships couldn't. Problem is PvP and PvE builds would still have to be totally different for the same ship class (e.g. Vesta, Ody) I am willing to spec for PvP only and thus still have decent stuff in PvE. But a lot of people aren't and they are much less likely to PvP as a result... A lot of them will get blown up more easily, be not as effective against other players no doubt about it. This is why I am not happy with those skills that enhance PvE experience but not PvP.

    To be continued.
    Starfleet M.A.C.O. KDF Honor Guard
  • nikeixnikeix Member Posts: 3,972 Arc User
    Having separate skill layouts is pretty much the only mechanical advantage a player with alts has during a given scenario. I make a new captain each time I settle on an endgame ship I want to fly.

    I understand the desire, but If you want multiple layouts per captain then I absolutely want genetic resequencers to unlock traits account-wide. I doubt either of us are gonna get what we want.
  • illcadiaillcadia Member Posts: 1,412 Bug Hunter
    You say the current structure forces threat tanks to make larger compromises - can you explain that statement in more detail? Tell me why/how Batteries are used by Tanks, in your experience.

    As a science captain who flies a science ship and relies heavily on hull and shield tanking, I go through an inordinate amount of batteries to maintain combat effectiveness. Given the choice between drawing additional threat, or being able to actually have engine/weapon power for longer than a couple seconds, I'll always choose the battery node, and just hope that my threatening stance is sufficient to draw enemies towards me.

    On my engineer character, who flies a cruiser and uses a tank, I have the engineer career space trait that boosts all subsystem power whenever I use a batter. Maintaining high subsystem power in all subsystems is important to him, because as an engineer he lacks any innate ability to debuff enemies or boost his own damage output, and making up for that with high power levels has always been the engineer paradigm. Unlike my sci character, the choice is harder here because threat is that much more important- if NPCs aren't focusing on me, then I'm not contributing to the fight.

    I agree however that encouraging/forcing a choice to encourage players to explore new build options is an important, valuable design goal, and I think for pretty much every other option, the new node setup is preferable to what we had before. But I think that it might be better to, say, have the following for Engineer Skill Tree:


    ENG 5 = Threat Control / Max Hull Capacity
    ENG 10 = Battery Expertise / Subsystem Repair

    With this setup, right off the bat we have a meaningful choice for player of all stripes- additional threat generation, or additional hull capacity. Additional hull capacity is *nice* not not always necessary. Ditto with additional threat, if you're a tank. The choice between the two is interesting because it discourages the long and tired zombie cruiser build setup, and encourages smart play. Because this is early in the tree, it also means that a player can weigh their choice based on the early utility of extra hull, versus the late game utility of extra threat.

    At the second node, we have another meaningful choice- battery expertise is useful to everyone- but so is subsystem repair. Both of these things are valuable, but more to different people. A tank probably doesn't value subsystem repair as highly as he does battery use- but an escort or a sci controller might look at subsystem repair as being something much more valuable than extra battery duration. In this way, the choice layout caters to various different builds, and still forces choices to promote new options- but doesn't do so *at cost* to the essential components
  • afree100afree100 Member Posts: 332 Arc User
    edited March 2016
    nikeix wrote: »
    Having separate skill layouts is pretty much the only mechanical advantage a player with alts has during a given scenario. I make a new captain each time I settle on an endgame ship I want to fly.

    I understand the desire, but If you want multiple layouts per captain then I absolutely want genetic resequencers to unlock traits account-wide. I doubt either of us are gonna get what we want.
    Well your desire takes a hit to money, mine takes a hit to databases. In the grand scheme of things my desire scrambles the money around but I don't think it would be a loss for Cryptic. Yours actually improves the database situation. Esp. since cryptic has there own in house database. With my idea: more data though other issues to consider (e.g. how the database caches, what the game engine and database puts where and when and how). RAM is a very limited resource for a game engine server, esp. that of an MMO. I am actually not a game developer though. I am a system programmer (kernel type stuff, actually a bit above that level). I am not a fan of databases.

    I am actually more (almost entirely) thinking of how it affects other players and PvP than I am of myself (of course PvP can definitely be contributed to thinking of myself).
    Starfleet M.A.C.O. KDF Honor Guard
  • nikeixnikeix Member Posts: 3,972 Arc User
    edited March 2016
    A couple reasons for the proposed swapping Hanger Health with Threat Control.

    1. Hanger health/hanger damage isn't a real choice. They're hangar pets: you can resummons them in seconds. Everyone flying a carrier WILL take the damage option. As long as they're in direct competition Hanger Damage will eclipse Hanger Health.
    2. Tougher hanger pets is very in-theme for Engineering. Threat control is very in-theme for Tactical. This placement will make sense to new players even before they learn the nuances of the game.
    3. The new arrangement is friendlier to outlier builds. Normally I'm all for sharpening the horns on every dilemma, but in this case making life easier for would-be tanks, and making a path available for full-carrier captains brings more variety to the game.
    4. I would rather have players encounter two "huh, that's an easy choice" decision points rather than one "OMG that's %(#!ing stupid!" choice. Namely: "Huh, I don't have a hanger so I guess I'll take this battery thing. I wonder what it does?" and "Huh, I don't have a hanger I guess I'll take this threat control thing. I wonder what it does?" vs. the current "Huh, I don't have a hanger, so both these choices suck. Dumb game... ((grumble-grumble))."

    Hope that makes more sense :smiley:.
  • afree100afree100 Member Posts: 332 Arc User
    edited March 2016
    Even assuming tankers have all the enemies attention all of the time. Unfortunately this game is not geared for tanks. In PvE if you have more than one it is absolutely pointless almost all the time. A lot of the time it is hard to get threat as a tank. In my opinion engineers should be more damage and external + self healing. With science as exotic + confuse + control etc and tacs damage. But tacs actually can tank rather well so everything is just so stuffed up. It would be nice if tac healing was nerfed. But then they couldn't enjoy science/engineering boff abilities and other things as much, things are just difficult... This is assuming cannons are actually good for PvE, which they currently are not.

    And in PvP it is even worse. Tankers get ignored. Well at least until the rest of the team is dead or if someone is feeling in the mood for a really really hard kill.

    But of course engineers do actually do a decent amount of damage as it stands atm, so its probably fine (Edit: for PvE, NOT PvP). Okay more than tac with cannons because of heavily imbalance towards beams. But still, atm that is nice for those players that use them. So the heavy imbalance has actually done a really nice thing for engineer players who look kinda look silly, turn slow with cannons (excluding those KDF cruisers).
    Post edited by afree100 on
    Starfleet M.A.C.O. KDF Honor Guard
  • borticuscrypticborticuscryptic Member Posts: 2,478 Cryptic Developer
    edited March 2016
    nikeix wrote: »
    ... if they are NOT going to work on ALL drain and control abilities but ONLY sci BO abilities, the text needs to be changed as it is pretty much gonna cause a huge rucus if you go live with what it says now and does what it does.

    They're meant to work with all appropriate activated abilities. You can help make this happen by listing the ones that don't trigger it as a bug, in the Bug Reports subforum. Thanks!

    What I mean by Activated Abilities... Drain Infection isn't meant to attach to PlasLeech because it is not activated, it just happens. But things like Energy Siphon, Tyken's Rift, Tachyon Beam, Charged Particle Burst - those are all meant to trigger it, as they are abilities that you activate.
    Jeremy Randall
    Cryptic - Lead Systems Designer
    "Play smart!"
  • mandoknight89mandoknight89 Member Posts: 1,687 Arc User
    A different issue: Shield Subsystem Performance is terrible. All of the "+3.2 power to one subsystem" skills are (and the +4.8 to two or +3 to all are maybe worth taking because they cover more than one system), but SSP is the easiest one to use as an example without going into engine mechanics and why SEP is even worse off. The tooltips and the revised Shield Hardness/Regeneration skills make it easy to follow:

    Each point of the Shield Hardness/Regen stat is equal to +0.2% resist and +0.1% regeneration/6sec (there's a typo in the description for Regen that says 1%, and some more in Hardness that doesn't reflect the recent change), respectively, regardless of your Shield Power level. Shield Power also increases these values at the same rate: +0.2% and +0.1% respectively per point of power.

    The final node of each of Shield Hardness and Shield Regeneration grant +15 to their stats. Shield Subsystem Performance grants +3.2 power, which is equivalent to +3.2 stat bonuses into each of Shield Hardness and Regeneration. Or in other words, SSP is only worth +6.4 stat points. Two skill points (Shield Hardness 1 and Shield Regen 1) are equivalent to +50 Shield Power.

    I would like to suggest another tweak to shield power scaling to slightly rebalance the issue: halve the strength of the Shield Hardness/Shield Regen stats, and increase Shield power scaling back to +0.25%/+0.125% Hardness/Regen per point. The numbers are still (relatively) clean, the value for buying the first two skills is the same at 100 Shield Power, and the impact of Shield power is still slightly lower than it currently is on Holodeck. Furthermore, the relative bonus of SSP is now +8/+8 Shield Hardness/Shield Regen, which makes it functionally about as valuable as either Hardness or Regen 3.
  • tunebreakertunebreaker Member Posts: 1,222 Arc User
    Is there still any hope for combining energy and projectile training skills?

    Also, have to agree with others. Hard choices are sometimes necessary, but "Threat Control vs Battery Expertise? CHOOSE WISELY!" is too evil.
    A bit disappointed to decided to remove Damage Resistance and Shield Hardness (especially the latter) from the choices, but oh well, I can live with that.
  • breadandcircusesbreadandcircuses Member Posts: 2,355 Arc User
    illcadia wrote: »
    You say the current structure forces threat tanks to make larger compromises - can you explain that statement in more detail? Tell me why/how Batteries are used by Tanks, in your experience.

    ...

    On my engineer character, who flies a cruiser and uses a tank, I have the engineer career space trait that boosts all subsystem power whenever I use a batter. Maintaining high subsystem power in all subsystems is important to him, because as an engineer he lacks any innate ability to debuff enemies or boost his own damage output, and making up for that with high power levels has always been the engineer paradigm. Unlike my sci character, the choice is harder here because threat is that much more important- if NPCs aren't focusing on me, then I'm not contributing to the fight.

    ...

    Currently, EPS Maniford Efficiency overall has been either bugged or nerfed (not sure which since I haven't seen an official comment on the lack of scaling). I say "overall" because the unmodified duration has been bumped up to 15 secs, yet that duration no longer scales at all with Batteries... which means that the duration for all of my Engineers has been cut by 20-25%, since I no longer have a means of improving it on those characters through build or gear.

    So, depending on whether bug or nerf, EPS Manifold Efficiency may not be a consideration as far as Tanking. Not in a good way, mind you, but still...
    Ym9x9Ji.png
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    I do not like Geko ether.
    iconians wrote: »
    With each passing day I wonder if I stepped into an alternate reality. The Cubs win the world series. Donald Trump is President. Britain leaves the EU. STO gets a dedicated PvP season. Engineers are "out of control" in STO.​​
  • afree100afree100 Member Posts: 332 Arc User
    edited March 2016
    I should note my shield regen stuff is based on holodeck, everything else I stated should be same on tribble/holodeck except maybe EPS which I have little idea about. Still patching tribble. Last time I saw the revamp on tribble (few weeks ago) I thought those power levels were underwhelming aswell... 1 Idea: How about making them change the multiplier/s of effectiveness of power levels on stuff. Engineer is already really good at high power levels, why not make it better... BTW I don't have an engineer, only tacs and science. Eng is not so great in space, esp. in PvP. Eng needs more effectiveness with the high power levels if it is to actually do well with high power levels.

    Or you could make those skills give bonus effects for power levels. Because engineer at times can get really high power levels, there is little point in specing in something with minor benefit that you can already get some of the time. The High power levels captain ability that eng has can already get high power levels... That makes the captain ability seem less powerful relative to not having it active...
    Starfleet M.A.C.O. KDF Honor Guard
  • afree100afree100 Member Posts: 332 Arc User
    edited March 2016
    I am also worried about the cooldown on boff ones and how there effectiveness will change (for the worse) in the future... Or with those boffs, or devices, or doffs, and stuff.

    Also some of the choice ones are a bit imbalanced. Crtd wins every time (at least for most things). The hanger 10% damage instead of 10% hull is better too I think. The stealth ones are in a good position I think. I have no idea about the subsystem offline vs hull capacity. I also don't know about the hanger one, the 10% def and resistance, may or may not be weak. Maybe split the bonus 5% hull from coordination protocols to defence coordination, I don't know. Nitpick: Also the description of Coordination Protocols and Defence Coordination says fully team which is not the best grammer. I personally do not care really, though others I think will.

    The new hanger skills are probably fine. My earlier comments were referring to the old ones. Except for PvP, not that useful there I think.

    Oh yes and definitely projectile and energy skills should be merged. Please please please.

    Edit: But those are all of my concerns. But I am esp. worried how the skill system (both before and after this revamp) affects PvP negatively...
    Post edited by afree100 on
    Starfleet M.A.C.O. KDF Honor Guard
  • cryptkeeper0cryptkeeper0 Member Posts: 959 Arc User
    illcadia wrote: »
    You say the current structure forces threat tanks to make larger compromises - can you explain that statement in more detail? Tell me why/how Batteries are used by Tanks, in your experience.

    As a science captain who flies a science ship and relies heavily on hull and shield tanking, I go through an inordinate amount of batteries to maintain combat effectiveness. Given the choice between drawing additional threat, or being able to actually have engine/weapon power for longer than a couple seconds, I'll always choose the battery node, and just hope that my threatening stance is sufficient to draw enemies towards me.

    On my engineer character, who flies a cruiser and uses a tank, I have the engineer career space trait that boosts all subsystem power whenever I use a batter. Maintaining high subsystem power in all subsystems is important to him, because as an engineer he lacks any innate ability to debuff enemies or boost his own damage output, and making up for that with high power levels has always been the engineer paradigm. Unlike my sci character, the choice is harder here because threat is that much more important- if NPCs aren't focusing on me, then I'm not contributing to the fight.

    I agree however that encouraging/forcing a choice to encourage players to explore new build options is an important, valuable design goal, and I think for pretty much every other option, the new node setup is preferable to what we had before. But I think that it might be better to, say, have the following for Engineer Skill Tree:


    ENG 5 = Threat Control / Max Hull Capacity
    ENG 10 = Battery Expertise / Subsystem Repair

    With this setup, right off the bat we have a meaningful choice for player of all stripes- additional threat generation, or additional hull capacity. Additional hull capacity is *nice* not not always necessary. Ditto with additional threat, if you're a tank. The choice between the two is interesting because it discourages the long and tired zombie cruiser build setup, and encourages smart play. Because this is early in the tree, it also means that a player can weigh their choice based on the early utility of extra hull, versus the late game utility of extra threat.

    At the second node, we have another meaningful choice- battery expertise is useful to everyone- but so is subsystem repair. Both of these things are valuable, but more to different people. A tank probably doesn't value subsystem repair as highly as he does battery use- but an escort or a sci controller might look at subsystem repair as being something much more valuable than extra battery duration. In this way, the choice layout caters to various different builds, and still forces choices to promote new options- but doesn't do so *at cost* to the essential components

    I disagree.. Hull cap is big in my builds as a engineering tank. I can easily repair subsystems with out that and battery is not very helpful to my build, sure it's some what useful in maintaining power but it's not ground breaking. But getting my hull to the highest it can be helps against burst builds. I think choosing between hull cap and threat is bad. Threat and subsystem repair would be better.

  • sf911sf911 Member Posts: 284 Arc User
    Not a fan of having to choose between batteries and threat control. Hope that gets revised.
  • pottsey5gpottsey5g Member Posts: 3,773 Arc User
    Hull Penetration and Shield Penetration don’t mention they do not stack with other sources which could mean a lot of players waste up to 6 skillpoints on something that effectively isn’t doing anything. The text should mention it doesn’t stack with [PEN], or traits or other sources.



    • TAC 10 = Projectile Crit H / Projectile Crit D
    • TAC 15 = Energy Crit H / Energy Crit D

    Why have a setup that removes any meaningful choice and for many forcing us into a meaningless choice at one stage and useless choice at another stage? It’s frustrating for the players. For most players it’s either pick whichever options adds the most DPS at one stage then then pick randomly as the other stage as both add no DPS so effectively do nothing. The other group of players just pick which every adds the most DPS at both stages.

    Single weapon users are being punished with no useful option. Muti weapon users have no meaningful choice as its add a tiny bit of DPS or add a tiny bit more DPS which is no meaningful choice as you just pick the higher DPS one.

    Love the changes to hanger skills and some of the new skill text are much better.
  • illcadiaillcadia Member Posts: 1,412 Bug Hunter
    I disagree.. Hull cap is big in my builds as a engineering tank. I can easily repair subsystems with out that and battery is not very helpful to my build, sure it's some what useful in maintaining power but it's not ground breaking. But getting my hull to the highest it can be helps against burst builds. I think choosing between hull cap and threat is bad. Threat and subsystem repair would be better.

    Except that's exactly the sort of choice this is intended to be. It's intended to be meaningful- which is to say both options have meaning and make you think, rather than just being automatic cookie cutter whatever.

    With your example, your argument comes down to, if I'm reading this right 'I don't want to make meaningful choices, I don't like the choice that encourages me not to just check off all the ticks' and from the stated design goals of this skill revamp, 'that' is bad.

    If threat control gets swapped with hangar pet health of course this will all be moot, but until that's locked in, I really feel that my suggestion is worth a further look for the very reason that it does encourage more exploration of builds- by players old and new.

    Besides, from a tanking perspective, it's only 5% of base hull. You get more from rep traits, you get more from jevonite hardpoints, you get more from consoles. But if you've gotta, gotta have that extra hull, you can get it at the cost of a little itty bitty extra threat.

    But there's another thing you're missing here- and that's threat control isn't just extra threat. it's less threat when you don't have threatening stance active. That's huge for squishier players- and promotes, for those players, a meaningful choice. Extra hull is more survivability, sure, but so is a threat decrease. And 5% isn't that much extra, but -100 threat generation can be huge to the right builds.

    This really encourages diversity and experimentation for builds because the choice is meaningful without also being crippling. That's the stated design goal here.

    If you just want eazymode, then I can't really help you with that, maybe you should go argue that we shouldn't have trees and should just be able to pick whichever nodes we want at any level, idk.
  • tunebreakertunebreaker Member Posts: 1,222 Arc User
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    Hull Penetration and Shield Penetration don’t mention they do not stack with other sources which could mean a lot of players waste up to 6 skillpoints on something that effectively isn’t doing anything. The text should mention it doesn’t stack with [PEN], or traits or other sources.

    How did you reach that conclusion? My [pen] weapons display "Your weapons ignore 10 Damage Resistance rating" from skill, "All attacks with this weapon ignore 10 Armor Rating" from [pen] modifier and "+5% Armor Penetration" from EAP trait.
  • tunebreakertunebreaker Member Posts: 1,222 Arc User
    Also, I felt that compared to Holodeck, Gravity Well is working much slower in Tribble. While those purple thingies that come out from the center of the well and grab the enemies appear almost instantly, it takes several seconds before grabbed ships actually start moving towards the center of the well. In Holodeck, the whole process seems to be much faster.
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,961 Arc User
    The Kit Performance Skill tooltips are missing the numerical information - what skill bonus they grant and what the bonus does.
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • maelwy5maelwy5 Member Posts: 593 Arc User
    edited March 2016
    afree100 wrote: »
    Issue 2 EPS Benefiting DPS:

    [snipped]

    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.

    EPS doesn't by itself increase DPS.
    EPS reduces the time power takes to flow back into a subsystem.

    At base 100 EPS (0 EPS investment) you can transfer 5 power per second into a subsystem. With en extra +100 EPS, you can transfer 5 power per 0.5 seconds into a subsystem. Effectively doubling the rate of transfer.

    This makes absolutely no difference to your Damage output until you are OVERCAPPED on weapons power.

    (Note on "Overcapping": your Maximum weapons subsystem power setting is 125, and this is the number used for calculating weapon damage etc. but you can have a normally-unused pool of extra weapons power over and above that 125 via using power boosts such as EPTW)

    Whenever you start firing more than one energy weapon at a time, STO "locks away" the power used by that weapon. Once the weapon finishes firing, this locked-away power gets released back into your weapons subsystem. However during the weapon firing cycle whilst that power is locked away, if you are overcapped on weapons power then your overcapped "excess" power buffer is allowed to flow back into your Weapons Power at the rate defined by your EPS.

    Although this excess power will just be sitting in your Weapons Subsystem temporarily (until the original weapon finishes firing and releases the original "locked away" power) it'll still affect the power setting that your next weapon fires at. Which in turn will affect the damage done by that weapon.

    Without Overcap, one beam fired each second:
    0 Seconds: Beam 1 Fires at 125 Weapons Power. 10 Power is "Reserved"
    1 Seconds: Beam 2 Fires at 115 Weapons Power, 10 Power is "Reserved"
    2 Seconds: Beam 3 Fires at 105 Weapons Power, 10 Power is "Reserved"
    3 Seconds: Beam 4 Fires at 95 Weapons Power.
    4 Seconds: Beam 1 Finishes Firing. 10 Reserved Power is Released.
    5 Seconds: Beam 2 Finishes Firing. 10 Reserved Power is Released.
    6 Seconds: Beam 3 Finishes Firing. 10 Reserved Power is Released.
    7 Seconds: Beam 4 Finishes Firing.
    8 Seconds: [Cycle Starts Again]

    With an Overcap of at least 20 power, one beam fired each second: (Base EPS)
    0 Seconds: Beam 1 Fires at 125 Weapons Power. 10 Power is "Reserved". 5 Power flows back into Subsystem From Overcap
    1 Seconds: Beam 2 Fires at 120 Weapons Power, 10 Power is "Reserved". 5 Power flows back into Subsystem From Overcap
    2 Seconds: Beam 3 Fires at 115 Weapons Power, 10 Power is "Reserved". 5 Power flows back into Subsystem From Overcap
    3 Seconds: Beam 4 Fires at 110 Weapons Power. 5 Power flows back into Subsystem From Overcap
    4 Seconds: Beam 1 Finishes Firing. 10 Reserved Power is Released.
    5 Seconds: Beam 2 Finishes Firing. 10 Reserved Power is Released.
    6 Seconds: Beam 3 Finishes Firing. 10 Reserved Power is Released.
    7 Seconds: Beam 4 Finishes Firing.
    8 Seconds: [Cycle Starts Again]

    Note that in the second example, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th beam fired at considerably higher weapons power values than before. With +100EPS, instead of 5 power every second flowing back in, 5 power every 0.5 seconds would have flowed back in... effectively meaning that each beam would have fired at the maximum value of 125 Weapons Power.

    Obviously in real-game situations you're probably going to be triggering weapons a little faster than 1 beam every 1 second... but the basic idea is the same. More EPS means you can make use of more of your overcapped weapons power during your firing cycle.

    The upshot of all this is that with beams (which have a firing cycle of 4 seconds, then recharge for 1 second), you will have 4 seconds to transfer in as much overcapped power as you can during their firing cycle. For Cannons/Turrets (2 second firing cycle, 1 recharge) you will have 2 seconds. For DHCs (1 second firing cycle, 2 recharge) you will have only 1 second. The amount of overcapped power you can actually transfer into your weapons power subsystem during that time will depend on your EPS... or in other words, with more EPS you can make use of a higher weapons energy overcap.

    So under the incoming skill revamp:

    with 0 EPS investment:
    Beams Maximum Usable Overcap = 20 Power
    Cannons/Turrets Maximum Usable Overcap = 10 Power
    DHCs Maximum Usable Overcap = 5 Power

    with "EPS Flow" (+60% EPS):
    Beams Maximum Usable Overcap = 32 Power
    Cannons/Turrets Maximum Usable Overcap = 18 Power
    DHCs Maximum Usable Overcap = 8 Power

    with "EPS Flow" and "Improved EPS Flow" (+100% EPS):
    Beams Maximum Usable Overcap = 40 Power
    Cannons/Turrets Maximum Usable Overcap = 20 Power
    DHCs Maximum Usable Overcap = 10 Power


    The only outliers are things which ignore EPS and actually transfer raw energy into your subsystem at a different rate. An example of this is Plasmonic Leech, which adds energy directly into your Subsystems on each weapon cycle - any lingering overcap it helps to grant you will be affected by EPS as normal, but "new" energy will also top up your subsystem on each weapon cycle. (A ballpark figure for Leech in combat with +100 FlowCaps is +16 Power to each subsystem, with +2 of this power flowing in per weapons cycle. Effectively each of your energy weapons would fire at +2 power per weapon before EPS is even considered)

    Hopefully that clears some stuff up.
    Post edited by maelwy5 on
    [ <<<--- @Maelwys --->>> ]
  • iusassetiusasset Member Posts: 118 Arc User
    edited March 2016
    illcadia wrote: »
    You say the current structure forces threat tanks to make larger compromises - can you explain that statement in more detail? Tell me why/how Batteries are used by Tanks, in your experience.

    ...

    On my engineer character, who flies a cruiser and uses a tank, I have the engineer career space trait that boosts all subsystem power whenever I use a batter. Maintaining high subsystem power in all subsystems is important to him, because as an engineer he lacks any innate ability to debuff enemies or boost his own damage output, and making up for that with high power levels has always been the engineer paradigm. Unlike my sci character, the choice is harder here because threat is that much more important- if NPCs aren't focusing on me, then I'm not contributing to the fight.

    ...

    Currently, EPS Maniford Efficiency overall has been either bugged or nerfed (not sure which since I haven't seen an official comment on the lack of scaling). I say "overall" because the unmodified duration has been bumped up to 15 secs, yet that duration no longer scales at all with Batteries... which means that the duration for all of my Engineers has been cut by 20-25%, since I no longer have a means of improving it on those characters through build or gear.

    So, depending on whether bug or nerf, EPS Manifold Efficiency may not be a consideration as far as Tanking. Not in a good way, mind you, but still...

    Actually, last patch removed the interaction between EPS Manifold Efficiency and the Batteries skill, so that's WAI. The intention was so Engineers don't feel forced to take Batteries to improve their trait. It works as a buff to everyone who didn't skill into Batteries, and a nerf to those who used to run above 50 Skill Lvs, but I think it's a fair change overall.

    But just to bang on the Batteries drum a bit more, the real strength of the skill is in doubling the duration of the crafted consumables, which are very powerful, and useful for tanking and non-tanking builds alike. (I'll re-emphasize again that Threat Control is awesome both for the threat bonuses and the threat suppression (when stance is off); it's not just for tanks.)

    There are limited ways to duplicate the effects of Threat Control or Batteries elsewhere in the game (almost every other unlock can be picked up elsewhere, either in the skill tree proper, or through use of consoles), again, it's just a really devastating choice, and I don't see any reason why players shouldn't be able to have both?

    I like both of the proposed "simple" swaps: pairing TC and HHP actually makes a lot of sense, since those who want threat can still get a +HHP bonus from running Threat Stance, and those who *don't* get the choice of whether or not they'd rather rely on not getting hit (from not running Threat Stance) or just the flat added HHP for otherwise staying alive. It's a really interesting choice, and it brings back the Batteries/Subsystem Repair pairing that I also favor. And again, still sources of HHP in the skill tree proper as well as from consoles, etc.

    On the other hand, I can also see the argument for a hangar/threat control swap: not much more to add to what's already been said.
  • dragonsbrethrendragonsbrethren Member Posts: 1,854 Arc User
    edited March 2016
    I'm sold on this idea of pairing Threat Control with Hull Capacity. I could see forgoing Threat Control in favor of more HP on my "pug tanks" where Threatening Stance will be plenty to draw aggro anyway, but I never seem to have enough heals to keep myself alive. For a more dedicated tank, Threat Control is an obvious choice. For my other characters, it'd be hit and miss, for some I'd want the passive benefit from not having Threatening Stance active, for others, I really wouldn't want to reduce their threat, since a few hits in can be nice (when running Reciprocity, for example).

    -edit-

    Threat Control, not Stance. I know the difference, I swear :)
  • darkknightucfdarkknightucf Member Posts: 1,546 Media Corps
    edited March 2016
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    Hull Penetration and Shield Penetration don’t mention they do not stack with other sources which could mean a lot of players waste up to 6 skillpoints on something that effectively isn’t doing anything. The text should mention it doesn’t stack with [PEN], or traits or other sources.



    • TAC 10 = Projectile Crit H / Projectile Crit D
    • TAC 15 = Energy Crit H / Energy Crit D

    Why have a setup that removes any meaningful choice and for many forcing us into a meaningless choice at one stage and useless choice at another stage? It’s frustrating for the players. For most players it’s either pick whichever options adds the most DPS at one stage then then pick randomly as the other stage as both add no DPS so effectively do nothing. The other group of players just pick which every adds the most DPS at both stages.

    Single weapon users are being punished with no useful option. Muti weapon users have no meaningful choice as its add a tiny bit of DPS or add a tiny bit more DPS which is no meaningful choice as you just pick the higher DPS one.

    Love the changes to hanger skills and some of the new skill text are much better.

    Thanks, @pottsey5g for confirming what I suspected on the Shield/HullPen.

    As to the Tac10 & 15 choices: if the intent was for them to be hard choices for a hybrid build, at least make the critD values higher so that they will become hard choices. As it stands right now, critH is the only sensible option for both Projectile and Energy. Look at the existing console choices for an example of what players would have to choose from.

    Even then, if this was to 'encourage' people to use hybrid builds, I don't think this is the way to go about it. It's too small of a buff as-is, and it goes against what you already have in the Tac Tree of choosing between Energy and Kinetics (it *SHOULD* be Kinetics, and not Projectiles, right.... RIGHT!? ;) ).

    Consolidate the Starship Weapons Enhancements and add something else (see our suggestions in v2 of this thread), or make the changes that would feel both rewarding AND a meaningful choice.

    If you want to shift the meta, you're going to have to make a really big change that would allow for multiple viable & prosperous builds.
    @Odenknight | U.S.S. Challenger | "Remember The Seven"
    Fleet Defiant Kinetic Heavy Fire Support | Fleet Manticore Kinetic Strike Ship | Tactical Command Kinetic Siege Refit | Fleet Defiant Quantum Phase Escort | Fleet Valiant Kinetic Heavy Fire Support
    Turning the Galaxy-X into a Torpedo Dreadnought & torpedo tutorial, with written torpedo guide.
    "A good weapon and a great strategy will win you many battles." - Marshall
    I knew using Kinetics would be playing the game on hard mode, but what I didn't realize was how bad the deck is stacked against Kinetics.
  • ficasoczficasocz Member Posts: 25 Arc User
    You say the current structure forces threat tanks to make larger compromises - can you explain that statement in more detail? Tell me why/how Batteries are used by Tanks, in your experience.

    I am FED ENG TANK in Kobali samsar (prepraping for buy oddysey bundle ... maybe).
    Because FED ENG has low DPS (compared to ROM TAC), I have to use Battery - Energy Amplifier to increase DPS as much as possible to generate enough threat to be tank.

    And now of course I am using EPS manifold efficiency, which is affected by battery skill level on holodeck. (After revamp It will no longer be...)

    My opinion is, that all carriers (TAC,ENG,SCI) get new possibilities for example armor pen, etc, but ENG chars loose a much more than the others.

    Especially "Defense" skills. I can no longer have same skills I have on Holodeck. I would have to spend at least a half of skill points to get same hull/shield/ passive healing. And if I do it, my DPS will suffer a lot (compared to chars which spend skill points in TAC line)

    I can not say the numbers right now, but I assume that after skill revamp TACs will be boosted, SCI will remain same and ENG will be nerfed. (DEF or DPS)
  • kyle223catkyle223cat Member Posts: 584 Arc User
    edited March 2016
    afree100 wrote: »
    I should note my shield regen stuff is based on holodeck, everything else I stated should be same on tribble/holodeck except maybe EPS which I have little idea about. Still patching tribble. Last time I saw the revamp on tribble (few weeks ago) I thought those power levels were underwhelming aswell... 1 Idea: How about making them change the multiplier/s of effectiveness of power levels on stuff. Engineer is already really good at high power levels, why not make it better... BTW I don't have an engineer, only tacs and science. Eng is not so great in space, esp. in PvP. Eng needs more effectiveness with the high power levels if it is to actually do well with high power levels.

    Or you could make those skills give bonus effects for power levels. Because engineer at times can get really high power levels, there is little point in specing in something with minor benefit that you can already get some of the time. The High power levels captain ability that eng has can already get high power levels... That makes the captain ability seem less powerful relative to not having it active...

    Engineers are mostly tanks and healers in PvP, which we do pretty well at. However I do think that some, actually most of the engineering only abilities and traits need some kind of buff or improvement in some way. Right now there isn't a HUGE difference between the tanking/healing capability of an Engineer and a Science toon. Maybe some more power boosts and damage mitigation for Engineers would help make Engineers more distinguished in their role.
    da84303d8bc4080b9860968f634f98682215bbe5.gifv
  • kyle223catkyle223cat Member Posts: 584 Arc User
    edited March 2016
    afree100 wrote: »
    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.

    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).

    1. I use regenerative shields, at 130 shield power the regen value seen on the shield is buffed by like 320%. My assimilated shield says about 450 shield regen/6 seconds on the shield. 450x3.2= 1,440 shield regen/ 6 seconds and that's just from the shield alone, no other traits. And actually a lot of people use regenerative shields, especially healers in pvp.

    2. Neither Shield Regen or Hull Regen are useless. You just have to know how to buff it, just like with dps. On holodeck I can get almost 140% hull regeneration in combat with my crew dead and my shields regenerate at almost 3k shield regen/6 seconds per facing. That doesn't include the coalition starship tactics space trait which gives me 220 shield regen/1 seconds per facing.
    da84303d8bc4080b9860968f634f98682215bbe5.gifv
  • pottsey5gpottsey5g Member Posts: 3,773 Arc User
    edited March 2016
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    Hull Penetration and Shield Penetration don’t mention they do not stack with other sources which could mean a lot of players waste up to 6 skillpoints on something that effectively isn’t doing anything. The text should mention it doesn’t stack with [PEN], or traits or other sources.

    How did you reach that conclusion? My [pen] weapons display "Your weapons ignore 10 Damage Resistance rating" from skill, "All attacks with this weapon ignore 10 Armor Rating" from [pen] modifier and "+5% Armor Penetration" from EAP trait.
    I don't see any change in damage stacking up the traits, skills, PEN console and PEN mods and a dev confirmed it in the live stream Q&A.

    All the ability's apply to the target but they do not stack. It seems like the highest one overrides the rest. 5% is the same as -5 damage resistance. So you get 5% all the time from the EAP trait but when PEN triggers you only get an extra 5 for a total of 10 damage resistance. Effectively the EAP trait is making the PEN mod half as good as you are only gaining 5 damage resistance from PEN.

    EDIT: The new PEN skills are also making the PEN mod weapons worthless, if you have the skills that is. Never use PEN weapons with PEN skills.
    Post edited by pottsey5g on
Sign In or Register to comment.