Folks, would it be possible that you quote some of Felisean’s, Hellspawny’s and my earlier posts in this thread? Spawny is the talented player who set the current record with his engineering toon and Feli and I played supportive roles in that run.
I’m really afraid he can’t read us while you got him to respond to your posts. Perhaps it is not a matter of comprehension but only the ill ability to read some postsers due to vanilla.
If a SCI is on rank 1 and an ENG is on rank 2 and a TAC is on rank 3, why is the TAC than still the best?
On record runs countless things have to work right; both for the pilot who sets the record as well for the team that offers the support. Flocki, Spawny and Marcus are all outstanding players, the best PvEer you will find this game.
Nevertheless, on the few runs we/they did, the sum of the action of all participants simply worked out better for the engineer and the sci. Trust me, it is only a matter of time until we see a perfect tac record and your faith in this class will be restored.
to expand on what @peterconnorfirst said averages are what you use because it eliminates random chance from corrupting the results
I'll give an example to explain what I mean, I play a fire mage in WoW, if the things go just perfectly I can pull DPS figures so high that I'll have worry about pulling aggro (aka I'll be doing more then 5 times the DPS the tank does). However it's extremely rare (as in practically never) for me to pull those DPS numbers as it demands a specific set variables I have no control over to go just right. Same with DPS in STO, you look at averages to remove the variables that aren't part of the career to give you a more realistic image of how things are rather then letting random chance to enforce our bias towards a certain result.
to nerf a career based on what the top 0.001% can do will only cause rage and valid accusations of favortism among those who are not part of the select few who made the peak DPS records.
downvote. if Sci and Engi are uber-powerful, make a sci or engi char. No, they'd rather sci and engi got nerfed to all the sci and engis have to make a tac char instead. Misery loves company I guess
LUKARI GUERILLA GARDENING MILITIA - Glowing fingers are Growing fingers!
He mistakenly thought because I had some name calling in my post that I would be easy picking or have less actualy content in my post. He is is one of those people with a small wee wee that can't handle that his favorite class isn't the best at EVERYTHING anymore and is now just only still the best class to use on average. I mean how low does your ego have to be to resort to something like this? If it wasn't so funny, I might actually feel sorry for him. But as requested...and I think these are the ones you wanted...
"Ego's" or size of "wee wee's" is irrelevant. Those have nothing to do DPS rankings and this topics.
Its getting funny how you trying to prove your point by saying averaging scores is the real benchmark. Well it isn't. By averaging scores of several runs from a certain class you also include not optimal runs.
The average of 5 almost perfect runs can for sure be higher then the average of 1 perfect run and 4 bad runs. In my opinion the higest score of a class counts as benchmark. Because that is the maximum score someone can get in that class untill that score gets beaten again.
So If SCI currently has the highest DPS score and is ranked number 1, then SCI is best in doing DPS.
If you then add suboptimal SCI run scores to create a lower avarage for the SCI class to make your point that TAC is better well, what does that say about wee wee's and ego's?
Very strange way to determine who's best. Glad they don't do that at other sports. The fact that SCI has highest DFPS atm, shows that when having a perfect run and SCI build, it scores a higher DPS then the best currently possible TAC.
So it is nonsence to add lower DPS scores from people who have not created a perfect build en did a perfect run and scored lower DPS, just to get a lower average DPS for a class.
downvote. if Sci and Engi are uber-powerful, make a sci or engi char. No, they'd rather sci and engi got nerfed to all the sci and engis have to make a tac char instead. Misery loves company I guess
You completely have missed my point. The revamp was done to balance the game. If done properly highest DPS scores of all classes should be the same (very close the same). Same for other parameters like survivability etc.
SCI en ENG are stronger now because TAC was nerved to much (else TAC would score the same as SCI, if it was balanced). I used the word nerf because if i would have said TAC be bit more powerfull, people would again complain about power creep.
Also some people say Rommies are overpowered. Well the SCI ranked number one is a FED.
Strathkin said it perfectly. The tacs on the table, on average, were more successful than any science or engineering builds, aside from extreme fringe cases.
I'd like to point out on my own that they are records. They keep track of the absolute highest anyone has ever gotten ever, regardless of any random external variables, which means that, on the off chance an engineer or science captain happened to get 100% crits for an entire game, it would still be counted.
This is why it's important to get a large sample size. The averages for the top scores on STO-league clearly show that tacticals are still miles ahead of everyone else.
And one more thing. I'd like to see these tables that OP is pointing to, because I haven't seen a single source aside from one that proves him wrong.
The average DPS of the TACs on the list is not the right measure. Maybe more TACs have done more runs. Maybe more TACs are better in min/maxing builds etc. In those cases average DPS of TACS will be higher. (And more TAC entries will be in the higher part of the list)
The list does show that SCI and ENG when proper min/maxed do more DPS then TACs. Their highscore is higher then the best TAC.
No. The list shows that one SCI and one ENG managed to do better than the best TAC at the moment. If you had it your way, there should always be a TAC at the top, and that's what I would call unbalanced.
No because then I would say nerf the TAC. Balanced means very very close the same DPS and survivability, etc.
If I were to make 3 toons, of each class, with the ezactly the same setup. The Tac would always come out at a higher overal dps. Period.
An engineer has no Attack Pattern Alpha, Go Down Fighting (Trait enhanced), Tactical Fleet and Fire on my Mark that add up to A LOT of damage that boosts Torp, Energy AND exotic damage. I have a Tac build which has exactly all those three things put together, and believe me the damage is far superior than any Engi or Sci would do on the same setup.
All the engineer has is the ability to boost his Power Levels and reduce weapon drain. It doesn't really add up to much.
Sci's feel more like some kind of Hybrid/Debuff class. Engineers more like tanks, while Tacticals specialize in raw damage at the cost of defense.
Just because some player has the highest DPS record on an Engi/Sci doesn't mean a damn thing (and I don't really care how he/she/it pulled it off either). Besides, I am utterly against nerfs of any kind, unless something is blatantly overpowered.
Furthermore, the DPS charts is the last thing I want to look at on how to measure the game, because although I have DPS-builds myself (it's not like there's any other way to play the game right now anyway, is there?), I was against the DPS-race mentality since day one, and still am against it. It dumbs down the game, and narrows everything to a singular cookie-cutter playstyle.
@totenmet there is just one thing. you're checking only the season 14 table. but the season 13 table was after the nerf too, no change basically between 13 and 14 (its just a new season thats why there is a new table in clr). in the season 13 table there is a tac on #1 with around 60k more than eng/sci have right now
How many studies re you using to get your conclusion? Every single "DPS Record" is managed by a different group of players, using different weights of data, on different groups of player characters. YOUR community might be showing Engineering or sci toons dominating, but most of the other groups aren't showing that or you'd have more support for your thesis.
Also;
differences in content also apply. for six years, as an example, Sci was viewed as the weaker sister in DPS racing to Tac, but in the (dying.shrinking.) PvP community, Sci has been dominant practically since we were first allowed maps to shoot at each other.
Even after the "great big science nerf" in 2011.
Consistently, the only profession that's shown low averages in both PvE and PvP has been...Engineering.
(AND EVEN THERE, you've got players that routinely break the averages thanks to build quality, keybinds, keyboard macros, connection speeds, etc. etc.)
Before you start a thread like this, gather some information from DIFFERENT sources-there are at least 3 different parsers in common use, and something like four or five major groups that track DPS, and post standings. Otherwise, you're only observing a tiny portion of the playerbase and only looking at data from a narrow, possibly specialized community, possibly one where the best and most experienced members happen to run Sci or Engi toons specifically BECAUSE they're weaker than the DPS toons at the same level of gear and play.
IOW, your thesis lacks supporting evidence.
You seem to be knowlegable. If so, why didn't you add the top 3 results of those "5 major groups that track DPS" inclucing the screenshots as supporting evidence?
because I don't play with the DPS leagues, it's not 'my thing'. I'm aware of them mainly from talking/dealing with people who ARE involved in game, in here, and in Reddit. I don't do it, because I don't like to spend 40 hours a week grinding to slice 1/10th of a second off of an ISA run for a parse record.
It bores me to **** tears, but I've had to endure enough runs with fleeties who DO do the parses, to know that there are:
1. multiple parsing softwares available to read your combatlogs.
2. multiple channels that keep and track records for DPS-some of them formed from people leaving channels over out-of-game disagreements (check the feedback and PvE feedback threads on th is forum, or in reddit.)
3. a lot of these groups don't share data between them, leading to different curves in the results-these in turn lead to occasional flame-wars in this and other forums (though less actively of late.)
you have ONE sample, from ONE record, managed by ONE group, and based on replies and quotes by others here, you didn't even analyze your single sample correctly.
your methodology is flawed, your conclusion is, therefore, garbage. You need to gather more solid information before going to the battlements to defend a position that has no apparent validity.
Sure if you say so, who am i to argue.
One littleremark: I you are so keen on proven data, why then don't you prove your own statements? Show me those recent higher TAC parses then. If you can't the SCI parse I mentioned as ranked 1 still holds.
@totenmet there is just one thing. you're checking only the season 14 table. but the season 13 table was after the nerf too, no change basically between 13 and 14 (its just a new season thats why there is a new table in clr). in the season 13 table there is a tac on #1 with around 60k more than eng/sci have right now
=> tac is stil better (and its proven)
In that case when do we get to see a TAC parse showing 322K DPS in the current relevant season 14 table?
Should not take long if TAC so so much overpowered compared to SCI and ENG.
@totenmet there is just one thing. you're checking only the season 14 table. but the season 13 table was after the nerf too, no change basically between 13 and 14 (its just a new season thats why there is a new table in clr). in the season 13 table there is a tac on #1 with around 60k more than eng/sci have right now
=> tac is stil better (and its proven)
In that case when do we get to see a TAC parse showing 322K DPS in the current relevant season 14 table?
Should not take long if TAC so so much overpowered compared to SCI and ENG.
when we decide that its time to do it. right now its not the time for it. maybe after the dps-challenge is over.
> @totenmet said: > felisean wrote: » > > @totenmet there is just one thing. you're checking only the season 14 table. but the season 13 table was after the nerf too, no change basically between 13 and 14 (its just a new season thats why there is a new table in clr). in the season 13 table there is a tac on #1 with around 60k more than eng/sci have right now > > => tac is stil better (and its proven) > > > > > In that case when do we get to see a TAC parse showing 322K DPS in the current relevant season 14 table? > Should not take long if TAC so so much overpowered compared to SCI and ENG.
No, you don't understand. Nothing was changed between seasons to affect how strong a build was. The season 13 records still apply now. According to your own arguments, that means that tac needs another nerf, because if sci and eng need a nerf if they're not even 10k higher, 60k is waayyy too much to be considered balanced.
Except it isn't. As everyone has said to you, there are variables that change the outcome of a run. It's why you can do 2 runs with the exacts same setup and commands, but one of them can be twice as strong because of random chance. There likely won't be another run like the previously mentioned tac record because it's entirely random whether or not it actually hits that level of dps, much like how the current top sci and eng are more likely than not simply flukes of chance.
As you learned in grade school with the scientific method, you run multiple trials and average the results together in order to mitigate the chances of error. Basing your conclusion on one single outstanding measurement is blatant cherry picking and is the reason everyone here wants to call you a troll; you aren't following the basic rules of logic and reasoning that people expect of you when making such a game changing, vague, blanket argument as "nerf literally 2/3 of the game."
How many studies re you using to get your conclusion? Every single "DPS Record" is managed by a different group of players, using different weights of data, on different groups of player characters. YOUR community might be showing Engineering or sci toons dominating, but most of the other groups aren't showing that or you'd have more support for your thesis.
Also;
differences in content also apply. for six years, as an example, Sci was viewed as the weaker sister in DPS racing to Tac, but in the (dying.shrinking.) PvP community, Sci has been dominant practically since we were first allowed maps to shoot at each other.
Even after the "great big science nerf" in 2011.
Consistently, the only profession that's shown low averages in both PvE and PvP has been...Engineering.
(AND EVEN THERE, you've got players that routinely break the averages thanks to build quality, keybinds, keyboard macros, connection speeds, etc. etc.)
Before you start a thread like this, gather some information from DIFFERENT sources-there are at least 3 different parsers in common use, and something like four or five major groups that track DPS, and post standings. Otherwise, you're only observing a tiny portion of the playerbase and only looking at data from a narrow, possibly specialized community, possibly one where the best and most experienced members happen to run Sci or Engi toons specifically BECAUSE they're weaker than the DPS toons at the same level of gear and play.
IOW, your thesis lacks supporting evidence.
You seem to be knowlegable. If so, why didn't you add the top 3 results of those "5 major groups that track DPS" inclucing the screenshots as supporting evidence?
because I don't play with the DPS leagues, it's not 'my thing'. I'm aware of them mainly from talking/dealing with people who ARE involved in game, in here, and in Reddit. I don't do it, because I don't like to spend 40 hours a week grinding to slice 1/10th of a second off of an ISA run for a parse record.
It bores me to **** tears, but I've had to endure enough runs with fleeties who DO do the parses, to know that there are:
1. multiple parsing softwares available to read your combatlogs.
2. multiple channels that keep and track records for DPS-some of them formed from people leaving channels over out-of-game disagreements (check the feedback and PvE feedback threads on th is forum, or in reddit.)
3. a lot of these groups don't share data between them, leading to different curves in the results-these in turn lead to occasional flame-wars in this and other forums (though less actively of late.)
you have ONE sample, from ONE record, managed by ONE group, and based on replies and quotes by others here, you didn't even analyze your single sample correctly.
your methodology is flawed, your conclusion is, therefore, garbage. You need to gather more solid information before going to the battlements to defend a position that has no apparent validity.
Sure if you say so, who am i to argue.
One littleremark: I you are so keen on proven data, why then don't you prove your own statements? Show me those recent higher TAC parses then. If you can't the SCI parse I mentioned as ranked 1 still holds.
actually, it doesn't hold, because it is ONE SAMPLE. also, if you want me to waste a weekend doing parses, you're going to have to agree to show up for some Vanilla rules PvP. (See, that's MY game. It really DOES pit the careers, since Vanilla doesn't let you run consoles, add-ons etc. etc.-just your ship, some basic MkX purple or lower gear, and your career choice, no add-ons, clikky gimmick consoles, or pay-lobi-for-it items or powers.)
you parse three Vanilla runs or six pug runs in Arena or C&H, or log up 3-5 hours in freestyle in Ker'rat, and I'll consider saddling myself with a parser and grinding ISA.
Your sample is TOO SMALL. You've got ONE run in ISA, with one team, one time, and that's all the evidence you've got for your claim that Engineering or Sci is too strong.
YOur parse didn't show power activations, or how the damage was being caused, it doesn't include secondary supporting samples, it doesn't include averaged data from multiple runs, it doesn't account for different players running different builds.
FYI here, I run an old-school pvp build without the spacebar keybind to rotate shields, on a Bird of Prey. On parse runs I usually hit somewhere near the bottom, but on individual hits...
I've dropped boss-level NPC's in a single decloaking alpha...using a Tac, in a Tier 5 ship, with only mark XII weapons. I've also pulled AGGRO off of FAW-cruiser builds that were bragging about how high they parse, while using that ship. If you can't keep up with the engineering or sci players you run with, you're doing something wrong.
and take it from the guy who does everything wrong (in DPS building terms), or, y'know, we could meet in game, and you can run your parser, and it won't make a fig's difference.
IN the DPS game, if you're on a tac, and you're parsing low? it's not your career that's at fault, it's your build, or your play that need work.
Now, then, if you wanna claim Tac is weaker in PvP...well, that's true. but it's not because Tacs don't do enough damage, it's because the other two careers have more and better heals and cleanses (aka survival aspects) than pure tactical build runs (all other aspects being equal, generally a Tac in PvP is going to do more damage, and die faster, engineers can hang on to ridiculous lengths, but the real killers are sci, who can debuff players. Debuffing doesn't work on NPC's the same way it does on Players.)
but in PvE? don't make me laugh. One of hte primary reasons PvE is so incredibly more popular than PvP, is that it's a Tac's game, and doesn't require much, if any, t hought once you've got a good build.
Just orbit, and FAW. That's it, there's the sum total challenge in PvE.
Playing against NPC's, the greatest challenge is staying awake. aka combatting boredom. This is why the only PvE's that get regular traffic are the ones th at can be completed in under a minute by an AVERAGE team.
You have good points. But basically you also say TAC is currently the more weaker class overall.
@totenmet there is just one thing. you're checking only the season 14 table. but the season 13 table was after the nerf too, no change basically between 13 and 14 (its just a new season thats why there is a new table in clr). in the season 13 table there is a tac on #1 with around 60k more than eng/sci have right now
=> tac is stil better (and its proven)
In that case when do we get to see a TAC parse showing 322K DPS in the current relevant season 14 table?
Should not take long if TAC so so much overpowered compared to SCI and ENG.
when we decide that its time to do it. right now its not the time for it. maybe after the dps-challenge is over.
DPS-Challenge (yes I looked at the URLs in your SIG) has nothing to do with it. You and your DPS-Challenge organizers have excluded themselves from this challenge, it says. So nothing is holding you back to do a TAC run which parses higher then the current SCI record, which can easily be done according to your words.
It are your words that TAC should be able to do 322K currently (60K more then SCI). Well untill done so, it just are words. Highscores stand until broken.
I can image waiting for example for a dps gaining bug (every patchweek there is a chance for some kind of afterpatch bug, wich potentionaly could be used to have more DPS because some game mechanic all of the sudden works different then it should), could give an opportunity to gain dps.
PS: we don't know what devs exactly do, what tweaks and changes they perform serverside each patchweekand the impact on DPS. So we don't know if the conditions in season 14 is exactly the same as in season 13 when that specific higher TAC DPS score achieved. If you realy are convinced the conditions are exactly the same, then you actualy are diskwalifying the current records by saying ther are higher parses done. In other words you are saying the current number one position is actualy not the number one position. Well than it's very odd/unfair to not have the "real" records in these ranking tables.
> @totenmet said:
> felisean wrote: »
>
> @totenmet there is just one thing. you're checking only the season 14 table. but the season 13 table was after the nerf too, no change basically between 13 and 14 (its just a new season thats why there is a new table in clr). in the season 13 table there is a tac on #1 with around 60k more than eng/sci have right now
>
> => tac is stil better (and its proven)
>
>
>
>
> In that case when do we get to see a TAC parse showing 322K DPS in the current relevant season 14 table?
> Should not take long if TAC so so much overpowered compared to SCI and ENG.
No, you don't understand. Nothing was changed between seasons to affect how strong a build was. The season 13 records still apply now. According to your own arguments, that means that tac needs another nerf, because if sci and eng need a nerf if they're not even 10k higher, 60k is waayyy too much to be considered balanced.
Except it isn't. As everyone has said to you, there are variables that change the outcome of a run. It's why you can do 2 runs with the exacts same setup and commands, but one of them can be twice as strong because of random chance. There likely won't be another run like the previously mentioned tac record because it's entirely random whether or not it actually hits that level of dps, much like how the current top sci and eng are more likely than not simply flukes of chance.
As you learned in grade school with the scientific method, you run multiple trials and average the results together in order to mitigate the chances of error. Basing your conclusion on one single outstanding measurement is blatant cherry picking and is the reason everyone here wants to call you a troll; you aren't following the basic rules of logic and reasoning that people expect of you when making such a game changing, vague, blanket argument as "nerf literally 2/3 of the game."
Basically you are saying: looking at record tables is not good for determining who is best. Bit odd don't you think?
> @totenmet said: > disqord#9557 wrote: » > > > @totenmet said: > > felisean wrote: » > > > > @totenmet there is just one thing. you're checking only the season 14 table. but the season 13 table was after the nerf too, no change basically between 13 and 14 (its just a new season thats why there is a new table in clr). in the season 13 table there is a tac on #1 with around 60k more than eng/sci have right now > > > > => tac is stil better (and its proven) > > > > > > > > > > In that case when do we get to see a TAC parse showing 322K DPS in the current relevant season 14 table? > > Should not take long if TAC so so much overpowered compared to SCI and ENG. > > No, you don't understand. Nothing was changed between seasons to affect how strong a build was. The season 13 records still apply now. According to your own arguments, that means that tac needs another nerf, because if sci and eng need a nerf if they're not even 10k higher, 60k is waayyy too much to be considered balanced. > > Except it isn't. As everyone has said to you, there are variables that change the outcome of a run. It's why you can do 2 runs with the exacts same setup and commands, but one of them can be twice as strong because of random chance. There likely won't be another run like the previously mentioned tac record because it's entirely random whether or not it actually hits that level of dps, much like how the current top sci and eng are more likely than not simply flukes of chance. > > As you learned in grade school with the scientific method, you run multiple trials and average the results together in order to mitigate the chances of error. Basing your conclusion on one single outstanding measurement is blatant cherry picking and is the reason everyone here wants to call you a troll; you aren't following the basic rules of logic and reasoning that people expect of you when making such a game changing, vague, blanket argument as "nerf literally 2/3 of the game." > > > > > Basically you are saying: looking at record tables is not good for determining who is best. Bit odd don't you think?
No. Try actually reading my post, and come back to see if you actually understood it. ... ... Well? Go on then. ... ... I'm waiting. ... ... Done? Good.
Ahem. I said that in order to make a sound conclusion using logic and reasoning, one must use a sample size larger than literally 1. It's not that hard to grasp, unless you failed primary school science class.
DPS-Challenge (yes I looked at the URLs in your SIG) has nothing to do with it. You and your DPS-Challenge organizers have excluded themselves from this challenge, it says. So nothing is holding you back to do a TAC run which parses higher then the current SCI record, which can easily be done according to your words.
It are your words that TAC should be able to do 322K currently (60K more then SCI). Well untill done so, it just are words. Highscores stand until broken.
The DPS league admin team is doing a good job to encourage and support each and every player in the league. They do so every day and now you expect them to shine with numbers 20, 30, 40 times as high as some can achieve? Just to set your broken picture of STO classes straight? Why not instead of that you participate and proof yourself that TACs are still the master DPS class? Of course not! The scrub mentality you got yourself into is much easier.
I can image waiting for example for a dps gaining bug (every patchweek there is a chance for some kind of afterpatch bug, wich potentionaly could be used to have more DPS because some game mechanic all of the sudden works different then it should), could give an opportunity to gain dps.
You know what, @coldnapalm was right all along and I was much too naïve to try to reason with you in the first place. You rather resort to the absurd than to listen to the very people who set the current records, not to mention those who did so the past seasons.
PS: we don't know what devs exactly do, what tweaks and changes they perform serverside each patchweekand the impact on DPS. So we don't know if the conditions in season 14 is exactly the same as in season 13 when that specific higher TAC DPS score achieved. If you realy are convinced the conditions are exactly the same, then you actualy are diskwalifying the current records by saying ther are higher parses done. In other words you are saying the current number one position is actualy not the number one position. Well than it's very odd/unfair to not have the "real" records in these ranking tables.
The danger is that the Devs do something like they did in the past and that would be listening to players like you. Players who are unsatisfied with some aspects of the game and instead of just coping with it rather have it changed. That they ruin the game experience for everybody else as result is none of their concern of course. You are a real joke. Players cried for balance and stuff and now that the leaderboard temporarily reflects it you suddenly crawl out of you hole and emerge un satisfied. LOL.
Go ahead; continue asking for the game to be changed. It might interest you that those who did in the past found the changes not appealing at all and were the first to leave as a result.
Stay in your closed mind set all you want. At least it’s not on me.
Post edited by peterconnorfirst on
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
> @totenmet said:
> disqord#9557 wrote: »
>
> > @totenmet said:
> > felisean wrote: »
> >
> > @totenmet there is just one thing. you're checking only the season 14 table. but the season 13 table was after the nerf too, no change basically between 13 and 14 (its just a new season thats why there is a new table in clr). in the season 13 table there is a tac on #1 with around 60k more than eng/sci have right now
> >
> > => tac is stil better (and its proven)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In that case when do we get to see a TAC parse showing 322K DPS in the current relevant season 14 table?
> > Should not take long if TAC so so much overpowered compared to SCI and ENG.
>
> No, you don't understand. Nothing was changed between seasons to affect how strong a build was. The season 13 records still apply now. According to your own arguments, that means that tac needs another nerf, because if sci and eng need a nerf if they're not even 10k higher, 60k is waayyy too much to be considered balanced.
>
> Except it isn't. As everyone has said to you, there are variables that change the outcome of a run. It's why you can do 2 runs with the exacts same setup and commands, but one of them can be twice as strong because of random chance. There likely won't be another run like the previously mentioned tac record because it's entirely random whether or not it actually hits that level of dps, much like how the current top sci and eng are more likely than not simply flukes of chance.
>
> As you learned in grade school with the scientific method, you run multiple trials and average the results together in order to mitigate the chances of error. Basing your conclusion on one single outstanding measurement is blatant cherry picking and is the reason everyone here wants to call you a troll; you aren't following the basic rules of logic and reasoning that people expect of you when making such a game changing, vague, blanket argument as "nerf literally 2/3 of the game."
>
>
>
>
> Basically you are saying: looking at record tables is not good for determining who is best. Bit odd don't you think?
No. Try actually reading my post, and come back to see if you actually understood it.
...
...
Well? Go on then.
...
...
I'm waiting.
...
...
Done? Good.
Ahem. I said that in order to make a sound conclusion using logic and reasoning, one must use a sample size larger than literally 1. It's not that hard to grasp, unless you failed primary school science class.
The number 1 on the rank is the best of a whole lot of runs. The number one position shows who is best out of a large sample size. You can keep twisting an turning your words, but nothing is going to change the fact that the number one position on a ranking represents the best, in this case of a large sample size, as the ranking list shows of several thouthands of runs. And now SCI is ranked 1.
Ranking is done to determine the best and rank all others in relation to the best. The number one is almost all the time just 1 sample (unless more have scored exactly the same). Not hard to grasp iondeed.
pretty much well said ^. it's disgusting to think the devs would actually listen to some ignorant douche and nerf something that doesn't need nerfs, and ruin the fun for everyone.
Devs said we are going to balance this game. It was concluded TACs are overpowered DPS wise (other skils of SCI en ENG were labeled less important), most importand was TACs should be nerfed. BFAW should be nerfed. Plasma doping should be nerfed etc etc. All these things I have read in this forum.
Well the only thing I am asking for is if this game should be balanced then Balance DPS, balance survivability, balance the differences.
Everyone know scales. A scale is in balance if all weight is distributed evenly.
So maximum scores should be closely the same then. And for the people who keep talking about the avarages, sure also the averaged scores should be the same then. All with very little deviation. So the center of the Gaussion curves per class should be at the same spot.
DPS-Challenge (yes I looked at the URLs in your SIG) has nothing to do with it. You and your DPS-Challenge organizers have excluded themselves from this challenge, it says. So nothing is holding you back to do a TAC run which parses higher then the current SCI record, which can easily be done according to your words.
It are your words that TAC should be able to do 322K currently (60K more then SCI). Well untill done so, it just are words. Highscores stand until broken.
The DPS league admin team is doing a good job to encourage and support each and every player in the league. They do so every day and now you expect them to shine with numbers 20, 30, 40 times as high as some can achieve? Just to set your broken picture of STO classes straight? Why not instead of that you participate and proof yourself that TACs are still the master DPS class? Of course not! The scrub mentality you got yourself into is much easier.
I can image waiting for example for a dps gaining bug (every patchweek there is a chance for some kind of afterpatch bug, wich potentionaly could be used to have more DPS because some game mechanic all of the sudden works different then it should), could give an opportunity to gain dps.
You know what, @coldnapalm was right all along and I was much too naïve to try to reason with you in the first place. You rather resort to the absurd than to listen to the very people who set the current records, not to mention those who did so the past seasons.
PS: we don't know what devs exactly do, what tweaks and changes they perform serverside each patchweekand the impact on DPS. So we don't know if the conditions in season 14 is exactly the same as in season 13 when that specific higher TAC DPS score achieved. If you realy are convinced the conditions are exactly the same, then you actualy are diskwalifying the current records by saying ther are higher parses done. In other words you are saying the current number one position is actualy not the number one position. Well than it's very odd/unfair to not have the "real" records in these ranking tables.
The danger is that the Devs do something like they did in the past and that would be listening to players like you. Players who are unsatisfied with some aspects of the game and instead of just coping with it rather have it changed. That they ruin the game experience for everybody else as result is none of their concern of course. You are a real joke. Players cried for balance and stuff and now that the leaderboard temporarily reflects it you suddenly crawl out of you hole and emerge un satisfied. LOL.
Go ahead; continue asking for the game to be changed. It might interest you that those who did in the past found the changes not appealing at all and were the first to leave as a result.
Stay in your closed mind set all you want. At least it’s not on me.
1. The DPS league admin is a great supportive and helpfull person. I never said otherwise. The leagues are great and a real great contribution to STO, hence their popularity. It were his words he could now still do 322K in a TAC. I just said until done current record stands. He said now is not the time to do it. And now you are saying I have to do it. Why should I have to prove it. I am not claiming 322k can be done with TAC right now. I have read people saying they can do 1milionK dps, but untill done it's just talk.
2. All people should listen between the talking. You me, every one. Else conversating will be very difficult. I am listening and reading very well. But it doesn't change the fact that a SCI now holds the DPS record. Do you and your friends listen very well? What does number one on the DPS ranking mean? It looks to me that you and your friends (who done those runs as you say) call it meaningless. Because you keep saying TACs are the best.
3. You write "players like me" and "danger is that the Devs do something like they did in the past", you realy talk like you think you are more and better then other people. Devs are not stupid. If you think the Devs are not good at their job, wel develop a better game then yourself.
Comments
I'll give an example to explain what I mean, I play a fire mage in WoW, if the things go just perfectly I can pull DPS figures so high that I'll have worry about pulling aggro (aka I'll be doing more then 5 times the DPS the tank does). However it's extremely rare (as in practically never) for me to pull those DPS numbers as it demands a specific set variables I have no control over to go just right. Same with DPS in STO, you look at averages to remove the variables that aren't part of the career to give you a more realistic image of how things are rather then letting random chance to enforce our bias towards a certain result.
to nerf a career based on what the top 0.001% can do will only cause rage and valid accusations of favortism among those who are not part of the select few who made the peak DPS records.
"Anyaway, we don't often see a sense of humor in Section 31."
I have refuted what they say.
"Ego's" or size of "wee wee's" is irrelevant. Those have nothing to do DPS rankings and this topics.
Its getting funny how you trying to prove your point by saying averaging scores is the real benchmark. Well it isn't. By averaging scores of several runs from a certain class you also include not optimal runs.
The average of 5 almost perfect runs can for sure be higher then the average of 1 perfect run and 4 bad runs. In my opinion the higest score of a class counts as benchmark. Because that is the maximum score someone can get in that class untill that score gets beaten again.
So If SCI currently has the highest DPS score and is ranked number 1, then SCI is best in doing DPS.
If you then add suboptimal SCI run scores to create a lower avarage for the SCI class to make your point that TAC is better well, what does that say about wee wee's and ego's?
Very strange way to determine who's best. Glad they don't do that at other sports. The fact that SCI has highest DFPS atm, shows that when having a perfect run and SCI build, it scores a higher DPS then the best currently possible TAC.
So it is nonsence to add lower DPS scores from people who have not created a perfect build en did a perfect run and scored lower DPS, just to get a lower average DPS for a class.
You completely have missed my point. The revamp was done to balance the game. If done properly highest DPS scores of all classes should be the same (very close the same). Same for other parameters like survivability etc.
SCI en ENG are stronger now because TAC was nerved to much (else TAC would score the same as SCI, if it was balanced). I used the word nerf because if i would have said TAC be bit more powerfull, people would again complain about power creep.
Also some people say Rommies are overpowered. Well the SCI ranked number one is a FED.
No because then I would say nerf the TAC. Balanced means very very close the same DPS and survivability, etc.
An engineer has no Attack Pattern Alpha, Go Down Fighting (Trait enhanced), Tactical Fleet and Fire on my Mark that add up to A LOT of damage that boosts Torp, Energy AND exotic damage. I have a Tac build which has exactly all those three things put together, and believe me the damage is far superior than any Engi or Sci would do on the same setup.
All the engineer has is the ability to boost his Power Levels and reduce weapon drain. It doesn't really add up to much.
Sci's feel more like some kind of Hybrid/Debuff class. Engineers more like tanks, while Tacticals specialize in raw damage at the cost of defense.
Just because some player has the highest DPS record on an Engi/Sci doesn't mean a damn thing (and I don't really care how he/she/it pulled it off either). Besides, I am utterly against nerfs of any kind, unless something is blatantly overpowered.
Furthermore, the DPS charts is the last thing I want to look at on how to measure the game, because although I have DPS-builds myself (it's not like there's any other way to play the game right now anyway, is there?), I was against the DPS-race mentality since day one, and still am against it. It dumbs down the game, and narrows everything to a singular cookie-cutter playstyle.
If this was in response to my post, then meet me in-game, and I'll splatter the walls with you in PvP. If it was not, then ignore the message.
=> tac is stil better (and its proven)
ingame: @Felisean
Sure if you say so, who am i to argue.
One littleremark: I you are so keen on proven data, why then don't you prove your own statements? Show me those recent higher TAC parses then. If you can't the SCI parse I mentioned as ranked 1 still holds.
In that case when do we get to see a TAC parse showing 322K DPS in the current relevant season 14 table?
Should not take long if TAC so so much overpowered compared to SCI and ENG.
when we decide that its time to do it. right now its not the time for it. maybe after the dps-challenge is over.
ingame: @Felisean
> felisean wrote: »
>
> @totenmet there is just one thing. you're checking only the season 14 table. but the season 13 table was after the nerf too, no change basically between 13 and 14 (its just a new season thats why there is a new table in clr). in the season 13 table there is a tac on #1 with around 60k more than eng/sci have right now
>
> => tac is stil better (and its proven)
>
>
>
>
> In that case when do we get to see a TAC parse showing 322K DPS in the current relevant season 14 table?
> Should not take long if TAC so so much overpowered compared to SCI and ENG.
No, you don't understand. Nothing was changed between seasons to affect how strong a build was. The season 13 records still apply now. According to your own arguments, that means that tac needs another nerf, because if sci and eng need a nerf if they're not even 10k higher, 60k is waayyy too much to be considered balanced.
Except it isn't. As everyone has said to you, there are variables that change the outcome of a run. It's why you can do 2 runs with the exacts same setup and commands, but one of them can be twice as strong because of random chance. There likely won't be another run like the previously mentioned tac record because it's entirely random whether or not it actually hits that level of dps, much like how the current top sci and eng are more likely than not simply flukes of chance.
As you learned in grade school with the scientific method, you run multiple trials and average the results together in order to mitigate the chances of error. Basing your conclusion on one single outstanding measurement is blatant cherry picking and is the reason everyone here wants to call you a troll; you aren't following the basic rules of logic and reasoning that people expect of you when making such a game changing, vague, blanket argument as "nerf literally 2/3 of the game."
You have good points. But basically you also say TAC is currently the more weaker class overall.
DPS-Challenge (yes I looked at the URLs in your SIG) has nothing to do with it. You and your DPS-Challenge organizers have excluded themselves from this challenge, it says. So nothing is holding you back to do a TAC run which parses higher then the current SCI record, which can easily be done according to your words.
It are your words that TAC should be able to do 322K currently (60K more then SCI). Well untill done so, it just are words. Highscores stand until broken.
I can image waiting for example for a dps gaining bug (every patchweek there is a chance for some kind of afterpatch bug, wich potentionaly could be used to have more DPS because some game mechanic all of the sudden works different then it should), could give an opportunity to gain dps.
PS: we don't know what devs exactly do, what tweaks and changes they perform serverside each patchweekand the impact on DPS. So we don't know if the conditions in season 14 is exactly the same as in season 13 when that specific higher TAC DPS score achieved. If you realy are convinced the conditions are exactly the same, then you actualy are diskwalifying the current records by saying ther are higher parses done. In other words you are saying the current number one position is actualy not the number one position. Well than it's very odd/unfair to not have the "real" records in these ranking tables.
Basically you are saying: looking at record tables is not good for determining who is best. Bit odd don't you think?
> disqord#9557 wrote: »
>
> > @totenmet said:
> > felisean wrote: »
> >
> > @totenmet there is just one thing. you're checking only the season 14 table. but the season 13 table was after the nerf too, no change basically between 13 and 14 (its just a new season thats why there is a new table in clr). in the season 13 table there is a tac on #1 with around 60k more than eng/sci have right now
> >
> > => tac is stil better (and its proven)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In that case when do we get to see a TAC parse showing 322K DPS in the current relevant season 14 table?
> > Should not take long if TAC so so much overpowered compared to SCI and ENG.
>
> No, you don't understand. Nothing was changed between seasons to affect how strong a build was. The season 13 records still apply now. According to your own arguments, that means that tac needs another nerf, because if sci and eng need a nerf if they're not even 10k higher, 60k is waayyy too much to be considered balanced.
>
> Except it isn't. As everyone has said to you, there are variables that change the outcome of a run. It's why you can do 2 runs with the exacts same setup and commands, but one of them can be twice as strong because of random chance. There likely won't be another run like the previously mentioned tac record because it's entirely random whether or not it actually hits that level of dps, much like how the current top sci and eng are more likely than not simply flukes of chance.
>
> As you learned in grade school with the scientific method, you run multiple trials and average the results together in order to mitigate the chances of error. Basing your conclusion on one single outstanding measurement is blatant cherry picking and is the reason everyone here wants to call you a troll; you aren't following the basic rules of logic and reasoning that people expect of you when making such a game changing, vague, blanket argument as "nerf literally 2/3 of the game."
>
>
>
>
> Basically you are saying: looking at record tables is not good for determining who is best. Bit odd don't you think?
No. Try actually reading my post, and come back to see if you actually understood it.
...
...
Well? Go on then.
...
...
I'm waiting.
...
...
Done? Good.
Ahem. I said that in order to make a sound conclusion using logic and reasoning, one must use a sample size larger than literally 1. It's not that hard to grasp, unless you failed primary school science class.
The DPS league admin team is doing a good job to encourage and support each and every player in the league. They do so every day and now you expect them to shine with numbers 20, 30, 40 times as high as some can achieve? Just to set your broken picture of STO classes straight? Why not instead of that you participate and proof yourself that TACs are still the master DPS class? Of course not! The scrub mentality you got yourself into is much easier.
You know what, @coldnapalm was right all along and I was much too naïve to try to reason with you in the first place. You rather resort to the absurd than to listen to the very people who set the current records, not to mention those who did so the past seasons.
The danger is that the Devs do something like they did in the past and that would be listening to players like you. Players who are unsatisfied with some aspects of the game and instead of just coping with it rather have it changed. That they ruin the game experience for everybody else as result is none of their concern of course. You are a real joke. Players cried for balance and stuff and now that the leaderboard temporarily reflects it you suddenly crawl out of you hole and emerge un satisfied. LOL.
Go ahead; continue asking for the game to be changed. It might interest you that those who did in the past found the changes not appealing at all and were the first to leave as a result.
Stay in your closed mind set all you want. At least it’s not on me.
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
The number 1 on the rank is the best of a whole lot of runs. The number one position shows who is best out of a large sample size. You can keep twisting an turning your words, but nothing is going to change the fact that the number one position on a ranking represents the best, in this case of a large sample size, as the ranking list shows of several thouthands of runs. And now SCI is ranked 1.
Ranking is done to determine the best and rank all others in relation to the best. The number one is almost all the time just 1 sample (unless more have scored exactly the same). Not hard to grasp iondeed.
Devs said we are going to balance this game. It was concluded TACs are overpowered DPS wise (other skils of SCI en ENG were labeled less important), most importand was TACs should be nerfed. BFAW should be nerfed. Plasma doping should be nerfed etc etc. All these things I have read in this forum.
Well the only thing I am asking for is if this game should be balanced then Balance DPS, balance survivability, balance the differences.
Everyone know scales. A scale is in balance if all weight is distributed evenly.
So maximum scores should be closely the same then. And for the people who keep talking about the avarages, sure also the averaged scores should be the same then. All with very little deviation. So the center of the Gaussion curves per class should be at the same spot.
1. The DPS league admin is a great supportive and helpfull person. I never said otherwise. The leagues are great and a real great contribution to STO, hence their popularity. It were his words he could now still do 322K in a TAC. I just said until done current record stands. He said now is not the time to do it. And now you are saying I have to do it. Why should I have to prove it. I am not claiming 322k can be done with TAC right now. I have read people saying they can do 1milionK dps, but untill done it's just talk.
2. All people should listen between the talking. You me, every one. Else conversating will be very difficult. I am listening and reading very well. But it doesn't change the fact that a SCI now holds the DPS record. Do you and your friends listen very well? What does number one on the DPS ranking mean? It looks to me that you and your friends (who done those runs as you say) call it meaningless. Because you keep saying TACs are the best.
3. You write "players like me" and "danger is that the Devs do something like they did in the past", you realy talk like you think you are more and better then other people. Devs are not stupid. If you think the Devs are not good at their job, wel develop a better game then yourself.