Shield and armor penetration. But mostly shield penetration. Shields are useless now and in Star Trek they were the primary defense, or so I was led to believe.
People seem to use the term differently on these forums. The correct definition from its economic roots (absolute gain per investment needs to be diminishing), which, apart from some caps, consoles don't have. And the way that five +10% consoles do stack up to +50% instead of +61%, thus making the last console +7% (of previous value) only. Which may be an issue, but shouldn't be called diminishing returns.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
Because if someone is playing the game by themselves then why can't they have potent weapons/power?
And any answer that invloves "because in PvE people who are OP kill the bad guys faster and don't give other players a chance" seems silly and doesnt quite fly with me.
Because if someone is playing the game by themselves then why can't they have potent weapons/power?
And any answer that invloves "because in PvE people who are OP kill the bad guys faster and don't give other players a chance" seems silly and doesnt quite fly with me.
I don't know where the concept comes from, I do know that what's OP in PvP differs from what's OP in PvE many times in this game. Both are imbalanced, the difference is NPC's can't complain about it.
Because if someone is playing the game by themselves then why can't they have potent weapons/power?
And any answer that invloves "because in PvE people who are OP kill the bad guys faster and don't give other players a chance" seems silly and doesnt quite fly with me.
Anything that's clearly not balanced is OP imo.
And balance matters for both PvP and PvE. It's a misconception to think that some sort of balance is not important in PvE, it may be less important but it should definitely be there to some degree.
To give just one example: the battlezones. I've seen someone shoot away a significant part of a V-rex within one second, with what seems to have been the Boolean gun.
Because if someone is playing the game by themselves then why can't they have potent weapons/power?
And any answer that invloves "because in PvE people who are OP kill the bad guys faster and don't give other players a chance" seems silly and doesnt quite fly with me.
Anything that's clearly not balanced is OP imo.
And balance matters for both PvP and PvE. It's a misconception to think that some sort of balance is not important in PvE, it may be less important but it should definitely be there to some degree.
To give just one example: the battlezones. I've seen someone shoot away a significant part of a V-rex within one second, with what seems to have been the Boolean gun.
Isn't this subjective though? I think it would be awesome to have a one shot one kill weapon. I guess alot of people disagree. It it should be a special weapon, not common or easy.
It sounds like it boils down to, how many shots do you think should kill TRIBBLE? Not too little and not too many....subjective.
Sources of stuff that has complete shield penetration (temporal powers, embassy consoles, etc) It'd be change, more than nerf, maybe reducing instances of 100% to 50% or 80%. In an ideal world...
I agree, or give us some consoles, powers or traits that we can use to resist the effects.
Isn't this subjective though?
I think it would be awesome to have a one shot one kill weapon. I guess alot of people disagree. It it should be a special weapon, not common or easy.
It sounds like it boils down to, how many shots do you think should kill ****? Not too little and not too many....subjective.
If you're in a single player environment, like a mission, sure, having a one shot weapon isn't the end of the world in most cases. Having a one shot weapon leads to issues in any content where there is more than one person participating, both PvE and PvP.
"How many shots it takes to kill something" shouldn't be subjective and up to the players because we have people like you saying, "TRIBBLE, just give PvE players one weapon slot and a weapon that kills things in like 4 hits". It should be based on math set by the developer, taking into account the item level, type, upgrades, all bonuses possible, and have a hard limit.
The same could be said about those claiming that nothing needs to be corrected - if you need OP stuff and an 'I win' button to perform well, you're not that good.
Oh and btw, some of us who think there's overpowered stuff in the game are none of the things you described; those people also exist.
Anyway, shall we try to reply without all the name calling?
I would nerf Tac captain powers to affect Weapons Damage ONLY.
Right now abilities like APA, Tactical Fleet and Go Down Fighting cause an excessive power gap because it buffs not just weapons and primary attack powers, but all secondary damage sources as well, such as embassy consoles, traits and specialization perks as well.
If this change were made it wouldn't magically solve all the power creep in the game, but it would go a long way to leveling the playing field, and still keep Tactical captains as the kings of weapon based DPS, while science captains would actually get to be the best scientists like they are supposed to.
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid." - Q
1. Fleet Embassy "plasma exploder" consoles: These consoles are now unique/one-per-ship. Excess consoles may be returned to the vendor to refund the fleet credits/dilithium originally spent on them.
Why: Because number of science console slots being such a dominant factor in where a ship places for DPS potential as a directed energy damage build is silly, unintuitive, and pretty much lorebreaking. Reputation consoles are limited to one-per-ship. These should have been too.
2. Beam: Fire at Will: Each additional hit on the same target during a firing cycle receives a cumulative -20% damage penalty (i.e. second hit does 80% damage, third does 60%, fourth does 40%, etc.). Attacks with B:FAW suffer -20% accuracy against fighters and destructible torpedoes.
Why: Having one skill be a best or near-best go to option in 99% of the content renders a huge number of other options inferior. It saps the game of variety. In particular it squats over and takes a dump on Beam Overload, which should be a superior choice for single enemy encounters and isn't. This one skill has massively warped the play space and it is the pointed end of the spear for power creep when there's so many other skills you can say "well this needs a buff because it so under performs compared to BFAW..." The second half of my proposed nerf addresses the fact that not only is BFAW an overwhelmingly great tool for damage, it also provides a huge defensive benefit shooting down incoming projectiles and clearing effects like the Tholian energy ball. BFAW should stay the premier weapon boost for target rich environments, but it needs to be less useful against 1-2 targets and it needs to not be so strong defensively.
I would nerf Tac captain powers to affect Weapons Damage ONLY.
Right now abilities like APA, Tactical Fleet and Go Down Fighting cause an excessive power gap because it buffs not just weapons and primary attack powers, but all secondary damage sources as well, such as embassy consoles, traits and specialization perks as well.
If this change were made it wouldn't magically solve all the power creep in the game, but it would go a long way to leveling the playing field, and still keep Tactical captains as the kings of weapon based DPS, while science captains would actually get to be the best scientists like they are supposed to.
That seems like a great way to start shaving down the "Tac Captains, the Master Race" issue STO has going.
Whatever lame mechanic that allows for "final fantasy" levels of numerical differences between "low level" and "high level". One does not need to put out twice the "recommended" DPS of an entire "team" SINGLEHANDEDLY.
To wit, if 5x 10k DPS ships are "necessary" to beat ISA or CCA, then one player doesn't need to be doing 100k (which is twice what the entire team's 50k is...)
I can see a highly optimized build, combined with "skill", otherwise known as the excruciating, exacting path to fly the mission and the optimal times to press the buttons - taking a ship up to, say, 20k, but not 100k...
Close this disparity between the "high end" and "average", and we could have a game again...
Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
I checked, the Boolean Cannon is the "Khannon". Khannon meaning Khan's Cannon, the big **** mini- gun thing Khan had in STID. The weapon's description states it is a ship weapon modified to be man- portable, intensely powerful, and able to used for melee. Matches up exactly.
It also is very slow firing.. and is not near the DPS monster that some in here try to pretend it is.. it hits hard and then has a long cool down before it fires again.. in that cool down other weapons can for 2 or 3 times doing the same damage.. if someone is massively doing damage its because they debuffed the hell out of that target to get that damage... so what really needs nerfing the gun or the debuffs... or peoples whining at things they don't seem to grasp.
I'd be careful about basing balance changes based on a number generated from a single queue. 500k in ISA does not mean 500k elsewhere. In fact, 500k in ISA was only done by a carefully pre-planned run with a dedicated team helping the said player reach that number.
I'm now thinking nerfs are not needed given the direction Cryptic is starting to take with their newer queues, most of which do not really cater to DPS:
The Tzenkethi Front - Doesn't really require high DPS but is more reliant on coordination and crowd control.
Gravity Kills - Again, high DPS ships doesn't matter here. Control, aggro management and speed work better here.
Days of Doom - Another non-DPS map. This relies more on team effort and speed.
Battle of Procyon 5 - You can try to DPS spam the map but it would only result in more spawn spam. Aggro management, control and speed are the focus once again.
It's only in the older queues where the DPS disparity can be obvious. And most of the maps people cite here are done in "Advanced" difficulty. I'd say bring in the Elites. I believe the Tzenkethi Front and Gravity Kills STFs are moving in the right direction (less reliance on timegates) and both would reward good team effort well.
A few months ago I would agree that some nerfs are needed, but now I am leaning more towards buffing Science and Engineering captains a bit to bring them closer to Tactical captains in terms of performance.
^ This.
Truth is nothing needs nerfing. Those calling for nerfing are : 1 To lazy to upgrade things to match those that stomp them or out DPS them.
2 Jealous cry babies who missed events or sales to get the really cool stuff
3 Cry baby snowflakes who demand everyone be the same no body get ahead by hard work or effort becasue damn it it's not fair becasue I have (Excuse of the week) that keeps me from getting the stuff.
4 Players who can't be bothered to learn the game and how to equip a ship
5 Couldn't put in minimal effort for whatever lame **** excuse they have to improve themselves.
There are more besides these.
The same could be said about those claiming that nothing needs to be corrected - if you need OP stuff and an 'I win' button to perform well, you're not that good.
Oh and btw, some of us who think there's overpowered stuff in the game are none of the things you described; those people also exist.
Anyway, shall we try to reply without all the name calling?
So you are complaining about players like me who spent time and money upgrading everything to epic are OPed and need Nerfing. You want to penalize them for being better and drag them down to your level. Yeah thats fair right? You want to punish people who have spent hundreds if not thousands in hard cash on ships, gear, keys, subscriptions and so on. In your vision of how the game should be nobody is better then someone else or deserves better gear then you. Yeah great idea on how to kill a game. Face facts in the game just like life there are people who are smarter, richer, sexier and have better toys then you. "Whaa it's not fair that player ABC does XXXXX dps and I do only xx dps so nerf them or give me the ship they took the time to run the event to get them becasue I am a fragile cupcake with low self worth and can't stand anyone being better then me. "
Another thing snowflake you assume that folks with the top tier gear need it to win. LMAO. I worked to get that gear to see what my ships could do not because I need a "I win" button. I really feel you have issues with folks who take time and effort to get ahead not only in the game but life as well and out perform you. So much so you feel the only way to feel good is to punish them. Yeah got news for you there is always someone better then you period.
I would nerf Tac captain powers to affect Weapons Damage ONLY.
Right now abilities like APA, Tactical Fleet and Go Down Fighting cause an excessive power gap because it buffs not just weapons and primary attack powers, but all secondary damage sources as well, such as embassy consoles, traits and specialization perks as well.
If this change were made it wouldn't magically solve all the power creep in the game, but it would go a long way to leveling the playing field, and still keep Tactical captains as the kings of weapon based DPS, while science captains would actually get to be the best scientists like they are supposed to.
That seems like a great way to start shaving down the "Tac Captains, the Master Race" issue STO has going.
The lack of players in the most engaging PvE content this game has to offer leads me to believe that not nerfs are needed but rather more buffs are in order, a lot more buffs.
In my opinion every piece of nonsense should be buffed in fashion that it can keep up with the stuff that is now considered good.
That way the average STO Joe would be good by accident and could easily keep up with those players who actually are.
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
Comments
People seem to use the term differently on these forums. The correct definition from its economic roots (absolute gain per investment needs to be diminishing), which, apart from some caps, consoles don't have. And the way that five +10% consoles do stack up to +50% instead of +61%, thus making the last console +7% (of previous value) only. Which may be an issue, but shouldn't be called diminishing returns.
Because if someone is playing the game by themselves then why can't they have potent weapons/power?
And any answer that invloves "because in PvE people who are OP kill the bad guys faster and don't give other players a chance" seems silly and doesnt quite fly with me.
I don't know where the concept comes from, I do know that what's OP in PvP differs from what's OP in PvE many times in this game. Both are imbalanced, the difference is NPC's can't complain about it.
Anything that's clearly not balanced is OP imo.
And balance matters for both PvP and PvE. It's a misconception to think that some sort of balance is not important in PvE, it may be less important but it should definitely be there to some degree.
To give just one example: the battlezones. I've seen someone shoot away a significant part of a V-rex within one second, with what seems to have been the Boolean gun.
Couldn't have said it better myself, nicely done!
I think it would be awesome to have a one shot one kill weapon. I guess alot of people disagree. It it should be a special weapon, not common or easy.
It sounds like it boils down to, how many shots do you think should kill TRIBBLE? Not too little and not too many....subjective.
I agree, or give us some consoles, powers or traits that we can use to resist the effects.
If you're in a single player environment, like a mission, sure, having a one shot weapon isn't the end of the world in most cases. Having a one shot weapon leads to issues in any content where there is more than one person participating, both PvE and PvP.
"How many shots it takes to kill something" shouldn't be subjective and up to the players because we have people like you saying, "TRIBBLE, just give PvE players one weapon slot and a weapon that kills things in like 4 hits". It should be based on math set by the developer, taking into account the item level, type, upgrades, all bonuses possible, and have a hard limit.
The same could be said about those claiming that nothing needs to be corrected - if you need OP stuff and an 'I win' button to perform well, you're not that good.
Oh and btw, some of us who think there's overpowered stuff in the game are none of the things you described; those people also exist.
Anyway, shall we try to reply without all the name calling?
Lol no idea. It's fun though.
Right now abilities like APA, Tactical Fleet and Go Down Fighting cause an excessive power gap because it buffs not just weapons and primary attack powers, but all secondary damage sources as well, such as embassy consoles, traits and specialization perks as well.
If this change were made it wouldn't magically solve all the power creep in the game, but it would go a long way to leveling the playing field, and still keep Tactical captains as the kings of weapon based DPS, while science captains would actually get to be the best scientists like they are supposed to.
1. Fleet Embassy "plasma exploder" consoles: These consoles are now unique/one-per-ship. Excess consoles may be returned to the vendor to refund the fleet credits/dilithium originally spent on them.
Why: Because number of science console slots being such a dominant factor in where a ship places for DPS potential as a directed energy damage build is silly, unintuitive, and pretty much lorebreaking. Reputation consoles are limited to one-per-ship. These should have been too.
2. Beam: Fire at Will: Each additional hit on the same target during a firing cycle receives a cumulative -20% damage penalty (i.e. second hit does 80% damage, third does 60%, fourth does 40%, etc.). Attacks with B:FAW suffer -20% accuracy against fighters and destructible torpedoes.
Why: Having one skill be a best or near-best go to option in 99% of the content renders a huge number of other options inferior. It saps the game of variety. In particular it squats over and takes a dump on Beam Overload, which should be a superior choice for single enemy encounters and isn't. This one skill has massively warped the play space and it is the pointed end of the spear for power creep when there's so many other skills you can say "well this needs a buff because it so under performs compared to BFAW..." The second half of my proposed nerf addresses the fact that not only is BFAW an overwhelmingly great tool for damage, it also provides a huge defensive benefit shooting down incoming projectiles and clearing effects like the Tholian energy ball. BFAW should stay the premier weapon boost for target rich environments, but it needs to be less useful against 1-2 targets and it needs to not be so strong defensively.
That seems like a great way to start shaving down the "Tac Captains, the Master Race" issue STO has going.
To wit, if 5x 10k DPS ships are "necessary" to beat ISA or CCA, then one player doesn't need to be doing 100k (which is twice what the entire team's 50k is...)
I can see a highly optimized build, combined with "skill", otherwise known as the excruciating, exacting path to fly the mission and the optimal times to press the buttons - taking a ship up to, say, 20k, but not 100k...
Close this disparity between the "high end" and "average", and we could have a game again...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Alright, let's buff the NPC's across the board then, and give most of them FBP as well.
It also is very slow firing.. and is not near the DPS monster that some in here try to pretend it is.. it hits hard and then has a long cool down before it fires again.. in that cool down other weapons can for 2 or 3 times doing the same damage.. if someone is massively doing damage its because they debuffed the hell out of that target to get that damage... so what really needs nerfing the gun or the debuffs... or peoples whining at things they don't seem to grasp.
I'd be careful about basing balance changes based on a number generated from a single queue. 500k in ISA does not mean 500k elsewhere. In fact, 500k in ISA was only done by a carefully pre-planned run with a dedicated team helping the said player reach that number.
I'm now thinking nerfs are not needed given the direction Cryptic is starting to take with their newer queues, most of which do not really cater to DPS:
It's only in the older queues where the DPS disparity can be obvious. And most of the maps people cite here are done in "Advanced" difficulty. I'd say bring in the Elites. I believe the Tzenkethi Front and Gravity Kills STFs are moving in the right direction (less reliance on timegates) and both would reward good team effort well.
A few months ago I would agree that some nerfs are needed, but now I am leaning more towards buffing Science and Engineering captains a bit to bring them closer to Tactical captains in terms of performance.
| USS Curiosity - Pathfinder | USS Rift - Eternal |
The Science Ship Build Thread - Share your Sci Ship builds here!
So you are complaining about players like me who spent time and money upgrading everything to epic are OPed and need Nerfing. You want to penalize them for being better and drag them down to your level. Yeah thats fair right? You want to punish people who have spent hundreds if not thousands in hard cash on ships, gear, keys, subscriptions and so on. In your vision of how the game should be nobody is better then someone else or deserves better gear then you. Yeah great idea on how to kill a game. Face facts in the game just like life there are people who are smarter, richer, sexier and have better toys then you. "Whaa it's not fair that player ABC does XXXXX dps and I do only xx dps so nerf them or give me the ship they took the time to run the event to get them becasue I am a fragile cupcake with low self worth and can't stand anyone being better then me. "
Another thing snowflake you assume that folks with the top tier gear need it to win. LMAO. I worked to get that gear to see what my ships could do not because I need a "I win" button. I really feel you have issues with folks who take time and effort to get ahead not only in the game but life as well and out perform you. So much so you feel the only way to feel good is to punish them. Yeah got news for you there is always someone better then you period.
I remember not to long ago Sci was king.
In my opinion every piece of nonsense should be buffed in fashion that it can keep up with the stuff that is now considered good.
That way the average STO Joe would be good by accident and could easily keep up with those players who actually are.
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.