test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options

How about Fixing Sci and Eng instead of nerfing Tac.

ssbn655ssbn655 Member Posts: 1,894 Arc User
I see a lot of Nerf Tac threads of late and pretty much ZERO on a better solution. Fix Sci so they have Better procs to Sci Ability. Longer System Debuffs, Faster Shield Heals and stronger Shields, Stronger and longer ranged Control ability. Add a higher debuff chance to thier weapons and make those debuffs both harder to disperse and longer lasting. When your target has no shields why does your DPs really matter? Allow multiple debuffs to Sci Weapons with a player choice of what they are in charecter trait section. Example : Shield debuff Sci Capt. only skill 80% chance of reducing shields by 75% for 45 seconds with a cooldown to match Torp CD's. Shield removal when stacked with Shield debuff a 25% chance of removing targets shields for 3 minutes but increases chance of Shield debuff to 90% and debuff amount to 90%, when used alone a 80% chance of removing shields for 3 minutes. Buff shield power 75% chance of fully restoring shields on a crtical hit. Sensor enhancement 60% chance of the next 6 hits to be Criticals. First 3 critcal hits add a 33% chance each for Sensor enhancement to refresh. These alone would put Sci on a better footing. That said as far as raw Weapon damage goes Sci should NEVER have the same base line damage as Tac and Tac should never gain from the mentioned ideas. As they would be Career specfic traits.
Just ideas folks so lets put up some ideas that instead of nerfing one career buff the ones that need it.
«1

Comments

  • Options
    kyle223catkyle223cat Member Posts: 584 Arc User
    I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying, especially in the area about the shield debuff.
    da84303d8bc4080b9860968f634f98682215bbe5.gifv
  • Options
    nikeixnikeix Member Posts: 3,972 Arc User
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    How about "no".

    This.
  • Options
    dareaudareau Member Posts: 2,390 Arc User
    ssbn655 wrote: »
    When your target has no shields why does your DPs really matter?
    Ask Crystalline Entity and Borg Structures this question, they already have no shields... Oh, wait, they've answered. Be a Tac, you kill me faster.
    ssbn655 wrote: »
    Tac should never gain from the mentioned ideas.
    And herein lies the "root" of the issue, as it were.

    As long as Attack Pattern Alpha and Fire on my mark both enhance any source of damage, until such time as the Science Captain or the Engineer both get the same level of teamwide DPS bonus from two "Captain only" skills, Tactial > non-Tactical.

    And no amount of other balancing will ever fix this problem, because of this fact. Boost Exotic Damage? APA & FoMMed GW III > Sensor Scanned GW III or EPS-Boosted GW III.

    Traits aren't the answer - Conservation of Energy doesn't exactly boost exotic damage as much as APA and FoMM do, and worse, the trait's boost is magnified by APA/FoMM, so if it ever becomes "large enough", you'll run into a "nanny situation" - 4 Tacs "forced" to APA/FoMM support the Sci as he/she tears through the content with exotics, or the trait boosted engineer in whatever offensive manner you give the engineer...

    And if you give Science and Engineering APA and FoMM "equivalents"? Then APA and FoMM aren't "class exclusive anymore", is it?

    No, the answer is simple. Nerfing these two skills is the only answer, if you really want class-exclusiveness and "balance". There is no other way around it.
    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]
  • Options
    deadspacex64deadspacex64 Member Posts: 565 Arc User
    tactical officers SHOULD be stronger than eng or sci...cause well...TACTICAL. you know, warfare, combat, damage...tactics. they'e focused on fighting, not fixing stuff, not studying yet more stuff...just fighting. they are all entirely different fields of study. why should there be equality when they are clearly different with different focus on different disciplines.

    and tacs, you know, dedicated to killing stuffs...not the other 2.
    Dr. Patricia Tanis ~ "Bacon is for sycophants and products of incest."
    Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
  • Options
    sinn74sinn74 Member Posts: 1,149 Arc User
    tactical officers SHOULD be stronger than eng or sci...cause well...TACTICAL. you know, warfare, combat, damage...tactics. they'e focused on fighting, not fixing stuff, not studying yet more stuff...just fighting. they are all entirely different fields of study. why should there be equality when they are clearly different with different focus on different disciplines.

    and tacs, you know, dedicated to killing stuffs...not the other 2.

    Absolutely everyone in STO is "dedicated to killing stuffs."

  • Options
    jayceardenjaycearden Member Posts: 27 Arc User
    A science character played well, whatever weapons I use almost do not matter. Most of my damage is from exotic abilities, much of which bypasses shields. This is for both space and ground. Currently my science character puts out just as much damage as any of my tactical characters.
  • Options
    mirrorterranmirrorterran Member Posts: 423 Arc User
    tactical officers SHOULD be stronger than eng or sci...cause well...TACTICAL. you know, warfare, combat, damage...tactics. they'e focused on fighting, not fixing stuff, not studying yet more stuff...just fighting. they are all entirely different fields of study. why should there be equality when they are clearly different with different focus on different disciplines.

    and tacs, you know, dedicated to killing stuffs...not the other 2.

    That's all well and good except that the entire game is focused around dps. Optionals are based on how fast you "kill stuff" in many instances.

    Look at your own fleet roster and tell me if it is balanced. Probably a crapton of tacs right?
  • Options
    warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    What they really should do is turn tac/eng/sci into specializations, so everyone can stop whining about it.
  • Options
    narxes081206narxes081206 Member Posts: 84 Arc User
    warpangel wrote: »
    What they really should do is turn tac/eng/sci into specializations, so everyone can stop whining about it.
    Didn't they sort of do that with the revamp of the skill tree?
  • Options
    fluffymooffluffymoof Member Posts: 430 Arc User
    It's much much much MUCH easier to nerf than it is to fix. It's just how gaming works.
    One of the many Tellarite Goddesses of Beauty!

    If there are posts here that do not appeal to you, or opinions you disagree with, the best way to deal with that is to resist the urge to add comments. Instead, engage with the content you like! Don't feed the trolls!
  • Options
    cidjackcidjack Member Posts: 2,017 Arc User
    Great..more armchair developers!!!
    Armada: Multiplying fleet projects in need of dilithium by 13."
    95bced8038c91ec6f880d510e6fd302f366a776c4c5761e5f7931d491667a45e.jpgvia Imgflip Meme Generator
  • Options
    warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    warpangel wrote: »
    What they really should do is turn tac/eng/sci into specializations, so everyone can stop whining about it.
    Didn't they sort of do that with the revamp of the skill tree?
    No.
  • Options
    nikeixnikeix Member Posts: 3,972 Arc User
    warpangel wrote: »
    What they really should do is turn tac/eng/sci into specializations, so everyone can stop whining about it.

    Only minor, trifling detail there is it categorically fails to meet the goals.
    Choices should be meaningful – Anywhere the game gives you a choice, there should be no choice that you always take nor one you never take.

    Ensuring EVERYONE has the same ridonkulously overpowered ability is the polar opposite of having meaningful choices.


  • Options
    warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    nikeix wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    What they really should do is turn tac/eng/sci into specializations, so everyone can stop whining about it.

    Only minor, trifling detail there is it categorically fails to meet the goals.
    Choices should be meaningful – Anywhere the game gives you a choice, there should be no choice that you always take nor one you never take.

    Ensuring EVERYONE has the same ridonkulously overpowered ability is the polar opposite of having meaningful choices.
    Yes, well, that wasn't MY goal. As I said, I suggested it would put a stop to the pointless bickering over them. Which no amount of nerfing or "fixing" will ever do.

    If or how Cryptic does make the choice between them "meaningful" is their business and not of any special interest to me.
  • Options
    stee1maxstee1max Member Posts: 227 Arc User
    HOW ABOUT FIXING SCI AND ENG INSTEAD OF NERFING TAC.
    How about no?
    Every time I see a revamp it distinctively means nerfing and breaking the game down with more bugs and glitches.
  • Options
    nikeixnikeix Member Posts: 3,972 Arc User
    I'm sure the Devs are eager to replace their goals with yours ;). And why should they care about the pointless bickering? I'm sure 80% of the people engaged in it are already on 'permanent ignore' status over in the Cryptic offices. Forums like these support hidden-from-common-user tags quite nicely.

    That said, "Fixing" CAN reach the goals. The goal isn't to get rid of there being a 'best' choice. Its to change the menu from~

    Best
    Bad
    Worse

    to

    Best
    Really good
    Also Really good

    And sometimes that means the current Best is gonna get the nerf bat applied vigorously.
  • Options
    warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    edited February 2017
    nikeix wrote: »
    That said, "Fixing" CAN reach the goals. The goal isn't to get rid of there being a 'best' choice. Its to change the menu from~

    Best
    Bad
    Worse

    to

    Best
    Really good
    Also Really good

    And sometimes that means the current Best is gonna get the nerf bat applied vigorously.
    And if you're lucky, the new menu won't end up lookin like:

    Bad
    Worse
    Worst

    :p
    Because if the options are currently bad, nerfing the best isn't going to make the others any better.
  • Options
    vampeiyrevampeiyre Member Posts: 633 Arc User
    Because Science and Engineering isn't broke, Tactical is.

    No one is saying Tactical shouldn't do the most damage, merely that the margin of how much more they do than everyone else is laughable, and easily fixable. APA should only affect Tac abilities and weapon-based damage. They also have no business being able to tank they way they can with GDF, especially paired with Last Ditch Effort and Strategist/Threatening stance giving GDF/LDE an almost infinite uptime.

    Science is fine as-is.

    Engineering is fine on the ground. They're not "broken" in space, but their power management has been given to everyone else via Intelligence/OSS, and their tanking/resists/healing have been given to everyone else through a combination of Pilot, Strategist, GDF/LDE and things like various traits and consoles. So, they need some new "special sauce" or their tanking, healing, and taunt/aggro abilities need seriously pumped up.

    Maybe I take it for granted how obvious this seems to me since I've had a LTS since Beta, but I doubt there's anyone who plays the game a lot who will have a substantive disagreement with these points. Well, anyone who isn't a Tac trying to maintain their exploitative, unintended advantages anyway.
    "I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am."
  • Options
    gradiigradii Member Posts: 2,824 Arc User
    How about doing both? and yes engineering is broken, in particular I mean fabs. they've never been very useful and they're about to get worse.

    "He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
    Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
    he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
    In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
    He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
    He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
    He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
    He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
  • Options
    nikeixnikeix Member Posts: 3,972 Arc User
    warpangel wrote: »
    And if you're lucky, the new menu won't end up lookin like:

    Bad
    Worse
    Worst

    :p
    Because if the options are currently bad, nerfing the best isn't going to make the others any better.

    Wait, are Science and Engineer captains not able to complete content? Two out of three profession may seem 'bad' relative to the one-true-way-of-Tactical-Brokido, but NONE of them are bad relative to the content.
  • Options
    nikeixnikeix Member Posts: 3,972 Arc User
    gradii wrote: »
    How about doing both? and yes engineering is broken, in particular I mean fabs. they've never been very useful and they're about to get worse.

    Do you REALLY think the Devs went to the trouble of nerfing the interactions between multiple Engineer captains stacking constructs on a whim? Or is it more likely you think "they've never been very useful" because you just don't know how to abuse the living snot out of them?

    Seriously. They don't have the man hours to spare on hunting unicorns. Something in the metrics made that amongst THE highest priorities to get shut down.

  • Options
    vampeiyrevampeiyre Member Posts: 633 Arc User
    nikeix wrote: »
    gradii wrote: »
    How about doing both? and yes engineering is broken, in particular I mean fabs. they've never been very useful and they're about to get worse.

    Do you REALLY think the Devs went to the trouble of nerfing the interactions between multiple Engineer captains stacking constructs on a whim? Or is it more likely you think "they've never been very useful" because you just don't know how to abuse the living snot out of them?

    Seriously. They don't have the man hours to spare on hunting unicorns. Something in the metrics made that amongst THE highest priorities to get shut down.

    Indeed. As a Fabrication Engineer who has saved more than one team full of brain donors who had no business being in an Elite Queue with me, I can assure you they're quite useful if you have the know-how/specs/DOFFs to use them properly, without even resorting to the abuses that are being fixed.
    "I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am."
  • Options
    warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    nikeix wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    And if you're lucky, the new menu won't end up lookin like:

    Bad
    Worse
    Worst

    :p
    Because if the options are currently bad, nerfing the best isn't going to make the others any better.

    Wait, are Science and Engineer captains not able to complete content? Two out of three profession may seem 'bad' relative to the one-true-way-of-Tactical-Brokido, but NONE of them are bad relative to the content.
    You're the one who labeled them "bad":
    nikeix wrote: »
    Best
    Bad
    Worse

    to

    Best
    Really good
    Also Really good
    If the other options are NOT actually bad after all, then there's nothing but epeen-envy left to go on about.

    And as I recall I already called the whole issue pointless bickering, that would be best solved by letting the tac-wannabes play tac if they think it's the "one-true-way."
  • Options
    nimbullnimbull Member Posts: 1,564 Arc User
    edited February 2017
    The pecking order should really be:

    Science -> Engineering -> Tactical

    Science creates the technologies and is on the cutting edge.
    Engineering maintains the technologies and knows how to get more out of it not to mention helping science build the things that make new technologies with existing tech.
    Tactical reads the manual and goes "YARRR KIL STUFS!" till it breaks and then looks at the engineer and science guys with a tear like a kid with a broken toy.
    Green people don't have to be.... little.
  • Options
    nickcastletonnickcastleton Member Posts: 1,212 Arc User
    edited February 2017
    tactical officers SHOULD be stronger than eng or sci...cause well...TACTICAL. you know, warfare, combat, damage...tactics. they'e focused on fighting, not fixing stuff, not studying yet more stuff...just fighting. they are all entirely different fields of study. why should there be equality when they are clearly different with different focus on different disciplines.

    and tacs, you know, dedicated to killing stuffs...not the other 2.
    Once that was the point eng was supposed to be the tank sci crowd control with both having the option to heal yet since tact can take things down in seconds neither of them matter, the moment that happened it became all about dps.
    gradii wrote: »
    How about doing both? and yes engineering is broken, in particular I mean fabs. they've never been very useful and they're about to get worse.
    TRIBBLE i have been more than useful in fact more so than tact on ground, sure you have grenades and security escort but i have turret medical shield generators and 2 drones not to mention we can supply buffs to the party, my medic has saved more tactical s than i can count if anything id say ground is more balanced than space, space is just a steamy mess of dps


    0bzJyzP.gif





    "It appears we have lost our sex appeal, captain."- Tuvok
  • Options
    tobiashirttobiashirt Member Posts: 630 Arc User
    edited February 2017
    warpangel wrote: »
    What they really should do is turn tac/eng/sci into specializations, so everyone can stop whining about it.

    ....and which one would get picked more often? 3 guesses, and the first 2 don't count. What's generally regarded as one of the best specialization combos for damage now? Temporal/Strategist. The best skill tree distribution for damage at the high end? Sci or Tac ultimate, depending on your build and career. If they made the careers specializations, Temporal/Strategist would either change to Tac/Strat or stay the same if Tac was judged to not offer enough benefit.

    tl:dr It'd be like making all kit modules universal, people would just end up gravitating toward the 'best' configuration, with some deriding others for not adopting it
  • Options
    tobiashirttobiashirt Member Posts: 630 Arc User
    edited February 2017
    vampeiyre wrote: »
    Because Science and Engineering isn't broke, Tactical is.

    No one is saying Tactical shouldn't do the most damage, merely that the margin of how much more they do than everyone else is laughable, and easily fixable. APA should only affect Tac abilities and weapon-based damage. They also have no business being able to tank they way they can with GDF, especially paired with Last Ditch Effort and Strategist/Threatening stance giving GDF/LDE an almost infinite uptime.

    Science is fine as-is.

    Engineering is fine on the ground. They're not "broken" in space, but their power management has been given to everyone else via Intelligence/OSS, and their tanking/resists/healing have been given to everyone else through a combination of Pilot, Strategist, GDF/LDE and things like various traits and consoles. So, they need some new "special sauce" or their tanking, healing, and taunt/aggro abilities need seriously pumped up.

    Maybe I take it for granted how obvious this seems to me since I've had a LTS since Beta, but I doubt there's anyone who plays the game a lot who will have a substantive disagreement with these points. Well, anyone who isn't a Tac trying to maintain their exploitative, unintended advantages anyway.

    Bingo
  • Options
    vetteguy904vetteguy904 Member Posts: 3,857 Arc User
    A long time ago, in a galaxy not that fr away, there was a time when if you were not science, you were dead meat. it didn't matter how big and bad your tac was when Mr Sci was able to
    1. tear you apart with a grav well
    2. send your ship into fits with viral matrix or
    3. simply just shut you down with a crippling drain, waltz over and pound you to pieces.
    Sci got nerfed. maybe too much. Tac APA got boosted to effect everything. and now here we are 7 years later, and it's all still broken
    Spock.jpg

Sign In or Register to comment.