test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Stacking identical consoles on your ship...bad game design?

2»

Comments

  • seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 10,742 Arc User
    I'm afraid I have to disagree with depriving people of their playstyles and outfitting their ships the way they want just because some people don't like it. Stacking should stay. But buff or overhaul under-used consoles to make them more viable is always encourage. but removing console stacking should be a hard no.

    Agreed, but you're talking to people that won't listen. People here still think nerfs are the path to build diversity even though it's been proven wrong for years. Luckily, Cryptic isn't listening.
    animated.gif
    Discovery is good, it's you that sucks.
  • spiritbornspiritborn Member Posts: 3,414 Arc User
    > @seaofsorrows said:
    > (Quote)
    >
    > Agreed, but you're talking to people that won't listen. People here still think nerfs are the path to build diversity even though it's been proven wrong for years. Luckily, Cryptic isn't listening.
    I think part of the reason some people are so adamant about nerfing being the way, is that they're not seeking diversity but rather don't like others being able to do more dps then them.
  • trillbuffettrillbuffet Member Posts: 861 Arc User
    Two words Specialization Consoles
  • seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 10,742 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    I'm afraid I have to disagree with depriving people of their playstyles and outfitting their ships the way they want just because some people don't like it. Stacking should stay. But buff or overhaul under-used consoles to make them more viable is always encourage. but removing console stacking should be a hard no.

    Agreed, but you're talking to people that won't listen. People here still think nerfs are the path to build diversity even though it's been proven wrong for years. Luckily, Cryptic isn't listening.

    It CAN. The system I mentioned with categorized bonus and have the same category not stack...like say console, weapon, DECS category can be very well be used to create build diversity. Unfortunately this will nerf EVERYONE something fierce...and these low system mechanics people who think preventing console stacking will work will be the ones hit the worst by this...even after I SPECIFICALLY gave an example why it won't because one can only assume they did not understand. Basically DR 2.0...only much...MUCH worse. Notice how the one path to what they claim they want isn't even on the table...because what they really want isn't build diversity. It's to punish evil DPSers. In this case...poorly at that.

    I am going to be honest, I don't understand a lot of what you put in this thread.

    Like others, I see stat stacking in plenty of other games (and for the record in D&D some items do stack like Rings, Cloaks and Circlets, the only thing they don't stack with is armor/bracers but they do stack for saving throw bonuses.)

    We agree on a lot, but the idea that letting consoles stack is bad game design is not one of those things. Removing the stacking just means most people now have to de-equip 3-4 locators and replace them with the mathematically best combination of other consoles that will be found and posted 5 minutes after the nerf hits.

    My proposal is that instead, we take other consoles that currently have no use and buff them to where they're on par with the current 'meta consoles.' So now, you can leave things as is if you wish, but there might be other advantages to going a different route. You might be saying the same thing, I am just going to be honest.. you lost me on this one.. I have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry man. :lol:
    animated.gif
    Discovery is good, it's you that sucks.
  • foxrockssocksfoxrockssocks Member Posts: 2,461 Arc User
    baudl wrote: »
    I have a feeling this is getting too much lost in details and hypotheticals...

    What my initial post was meant to mean, was that the CONCEPT of being able to stack multiple copies of the same console is poor game design...and on top of that, stacking consoles is even meta. (Not stacking is kind of niche)
    But on the other hand releasing new consoles with every new ship...ships you want to sell to players. But basically the consoles are the "throw away part".

    To me, that makes ZERO sense.


    Yes it will get lost in details and hypotheticals because you want to change the system to work differently. As part of the exercise of determining what happens next if you do such a thing, you have to consider the details of the new improved system and the hypothetical outcomes. If you don't work through it, then how do you know if its even worthwhile to do, or which way is the better way to do it?

    Again, I'm on board with the issue of lousy console design for uni and ship based consoles, but that is entirely separate from the idea of console stacking. As best as I can tell they grossly overvalue the power and usefulness of most clicky powers on those consoles.

    But at the end of the day, you currently get to make all the choices when building your ship, and that is most important. Do you want to stack consoles or try something else and have fun with the clicky console or some other weird ideas? It is wholly your choice.
  • westmetalswestmetals Member Posts: 7,493 Arc User
    edited October 2020
    @coldnapalm.... you're not the only one who understands things.

    When I proposed buffing things to "fix" this, I specifically did not say they needed to be the "best"... and they don't. What we need is for the unique consoles, most of which are clickies and/or parts of sets.... to at least be competitive, stats wise. So that they are an alternative that people would at least consider using. Right now, a lot of them aren't even close to what you can get with a cream-of-the-crop universal, let alone a tac or sci specific console, in that slot.

    Yes, that could also be done by nerfs... but instead of breaking stacking, it would probably be easier to just nerf the consoles themselves.... if DPS is the probalem, then this would mean all those Phaser Relays, Vuln Locators, etc... just change the numerics to be lower.

    Ultimately the answer to the power creep is the number of slots. Especially slots that can be used for the tac or sci specific consoles.
  • seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 10,742 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    Okay...so in D&D, they don't categorize stat bonus by item slots...they name the bonus itself. So a deflection bonus to armor...be it from a ring or a cloak or a spell only applies the highest one. They do not allow for ALL bonus to armor to stack for example...just the highest shield, armor, deflection, holy/profane, natural, luck. The dodge is a circumstance bonus...which is one of the two types that are stacking. This is from 3.x fyi. The reason you do this is that as you grow and make expansions for your game, it helps you keep balance in the game. So if the highest deflection you can get is +5, than you know a +6 spell or item will give power creep while anything under that won't. In STO, all bonus...no matter the source stacks. That means a shield that gives 10% plasma weapon damage might not seem like much...but with all the other drops in the bucket, you end up with more power creep than you as a game dev may have planned for. Which is why, like I said, modern game designs use categorized bonus systems.

    Ok, that makes sense, thank you. I am old school, I play 2nd edition so yeah.. I didn't get it. I do now. :smile:

    Buffing everything to be the best is a bad solution. All that does is accelerate power creep out of control. And if everything becomes the best, the next big thing released needs to be even BETTER...and everything now needs to be adjusted AGAIN.

    Again, you're not wrong.. but this isn't really what I want. I would suggest making them simply on par with Locators, but things don't need to be buffed to be better then the current 'best.' We have this to some degree with protomater consoles that are good for tanking, things like this. Maybe they give the Cat 1 and instead of the Critical, they boost hangar pet damage? Something that would make them an alternative for carriers. Things like this, not better.. just different.

    The big problem with my solution is this requires getting rather creative with items to keep them on par without making them the new 'must have' that makes everything else obsolete. I am sure we can both agree, that creative solutions like this are not Cryptic's specialty.. they make 2 types of items, OP and trash. I am asking them to make items 'in between,' and I think that's where my idea loses viability. :lol:
    animated.gif
    Discovery is good, it's you that sucks.
  • chastity1337chastity1337 Member Posts: 1,532 Arc User
    westmetals wrote: »
    @coldnapalm.... you're not the only one who understands things.

    When I proposed buffing things to "fix" this, I specifically did not say they needed to be the "best"... and they don't. What we need is for the unique consoles, most of which are clickies and/or parts of sets.... to at least be competitive, stats wise. So that they are an alternative that people would at least consider using. Right now, a lot of them aren't even close to what you can get with a cream-of-the-crop universal, let alone a tac or sci specific console, in that slot.

    Yes, that could also be done by nerfs... but instead of breaking stacking, it would probably be easier to just nerf the consoles themselves.... if DPS is the probalem, then this would mean all those Phaser Relays, Vuln Locators, etc... just change the numerics to be lower.

    Ultimately the answer to the power creep is the number of slots. Especially slots that can be used for the tac or sci specific consoles.

    HEY HEY HEY!!! Don't you dare mess with my EPG!!!!

    I don't care what kind of girly slapfight you are having with coldnapalm, you keep your grubby little paws the TRIBBLE off my Science consoles!! GRRRRRRR!!!!
  • westmetalswestmetals Member Posts: 7,493 Arc User
    edited October 2020
    westmetals wrote: »
    @coldnapalm.... you're not the only one who understands things.

    When I proposed buffing things to "fix" this, I specifically did not say they needed to be the "best"... and they don't. What we need is for the unique consoles, most of which are clickies and/or parts of sets.... to at least be competitive, stats wise. So that they are an alternative that people would at least consider using. Right now, a lot of them aren't even close to what you can get with a cream-of-the-crop universal, let alone a tac or sci specific console, in that slot.

    Yes, that could also be done by nerfs... but instead of breaking stacking, it would probably be easier to just nerf the consoles themselves.... if DPS is the probalem, then this would mean all those Phaser Relays, Vuln Locators, etc... just change the numerics to be lower.

    Ultimately the answer to the power creep is the number of slots. Especially slots that can be used for the tac or sci specific consoles.

    HEY HEY HEY!!! Don't you dare mess with my EPG!!!!

    I don't care what kind of girly slapfight you are having with coldnapalm, you keep your grubby little paws the TRIBBLE off my Science consoles!! GRRRRRRR!!!!

    You'll note my example was actually the tac consoles. I run sci builds quite often myself, but if they're also a concern...

    But still, better "same console usage rules with reduced numerics" than "consoles I already had being made unusable due to brand new stacking limit", right? Would you rather have three or four of those fleet research lab consoles be forcibly unslotted and unusable?

    Just to throw a theoretical on this... say all the numerics were reduced by one-third... this would bring epic XV tac consoles down to roughly the equivalent of the current purple XII number. Basically rolling back power creep to 2015 levels.

    My overall idea though is to make the unique consoles (episode reward consoles, CStore ship consoles, etc) at least a competitive choice for the non-dominant-prof slots (meaning not the tac slots on a weapons build, or the sci slots on a sci build), and possibly for the dominant ones as well. So that stacking generics is not the default min/max choice. That can be done in one or both of two ways: buffing the uniques and/or nerfing the generics. (Or door number three, imposing stacking limits on the generics, but that is what I am advocating against.)

    I mean, hey, I love shopping in bulk, etc, in real life, but filling half your console slots with copies of the same generic console shouldn't be automatically and always the best choice.
  • westmetalswestmetals Member Posts: 7,493 Arc User
    edited October 2020
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    westmetals wrote: »
    westmetals wrote: »
    @coldnapalm.... you're not the only one who understands things.

    When I proposed buffing things to "fix" this, I specifically did not say they needed to be the "best"... and they don't. What we need is for the unique consoles, most of which are clickies and/or parts of sets.... to at least be competitive, stats wise. So that they are an alternative that people would at least consider using. Right now, a lot of them aren't even close to what you can get with a cream-of-the-crop universal, let alone a tac or sci specific console, in that slot.

    Yes, that could also be done by nerfs... but instead of breaking stacking, it would probably be easier to just nerf the consoles themselves.... if DPS is the probalem, then this would mean all those Phaser Relays, Vuln Locators, etc... just change the numerics to be lower.

    Ultimately the answer to the power creep is the number of slots. Especially slots that can be used for the tac or sci specific consoles.

    HEY HEY HEY!!! Don't you dare mess with my EPG!!!!

    I don't care what kind of girly slapfight you are having with coldnapalm, you keep your grubby little paws the TRIBBLE off my Science consoles!! GRRRRRRR!!!!

    You'll note my example was actually the tac consoles.

    But still, better "same console usage rules with reduced numerics" than "consoles I already had being made unusable due to brand new stacking limit", right?

    This of course is all predicated on Cryptic knowing what they doing as they shifts numbers. Because plasma exploders would like to have a word with you if you think they do.

    Basically...any suggestion given won't work...because it requires somebody at the helm of Cryptic that has even an iota of how to make a balanced game. And we all know that's not gonna happen.

    Plasma exploders are a false example, as they did not just change the numerics, they changed how they function as well. What I was proposing was simply lowering the numerics on the existing boosters - not changing the mechanics of how they work, just changing the numbers.

    For example... shaving down that +39.4 number you see on epic XV stuff down to say +30 or +25. (And the rest of the scaling on those types of consoles proportionately of course.)

  • westmetalswestmetals Member Posts: 7,493 Arc User
    edited October 2020
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    westmetals wrote: »
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    westmetals wrote: »
    westmetals wrote: »
    @coldnapalm.... you're not the only one who understands things.

    When I proposed buffing things to "fix" this, I specifically did not say they needed to be the "best"... and they don't. What we need is for the unique consoles, most of which are clickies and/or parts of sets.... to at least be competitive, stats wise. So that they are an alternative that people would at least consider using. Right now, a lot of them aren't even close to what you can get with a cream-of-the-crop universal, let alone a tac or sci specific console, in that slot.

    Yes, that could also be done by nerfs... but instead of breaking stacking, it would probably be easier to just nerf the consoles themselves.... if DPS is the probalem, then this would mean all those Phaser Relays, Vuln Locators, etc... just change the numerics to be lower.

    Ultimately the answer to the power creep is the number of slots. Especially slots that can be used for the tac or sci specific consoles.

    HEY HEY HEY!!! Don't you dare mess with my EPG!!!!

    I don't care what kind of girly slapfight you are having with coldnapalm, you keep your grubby little paws the TRIBBLE off my Science consoles!! GRRRRRRR!!!!

    You'll note my example was actually the tac consoles.

    But still, better "same console usage rules with reduced numerics" than "consoles I already had being made unusable due to brand new stacking limit", right?

    This of course is all predicated on Cryptic knowing what they doing as they shifts numbers. Because plasma exploders would like to have a word with you if you think they do.

    Basically...any suggestion given won't work...because it requires somebody at the helm of Cryptic that has even an iota of how to make a balanced game. And we all know that's not gonna happen.

    Plasma exploders are a false example, as they did not just change the numerics, they changed how they function as well. What I was proposing was simply lowering the numerics on the existing boosters - not changing the mechanics of how they work, just changing the numbers.

    For example... shaving down that +39.4 number you see on epic XV stuff down to say +30 or +25. (And the rest of the scaling on those types of consoles proportionately of course.)

    You realize that is not how they work...right? Oh they will shave it down alright...shave it down to 10% at epic XV. Like Sea said, they have two modes...OP as all heck or worthless. Nothing inbetween. Also you shaved down the cat 1 bonuses by 40% from the tact console...great...too bad that we have uni consoles that give as much as those tact console...those need to be adjusted as well. Oh and set bonuses. Don't forget those. And what about the uni consoles that were not suppose to be tact heavy but now gives 33 or even 50% of what a tact console gives instead of say 25% . You are getting too hung up on one thing...like it's ONLY those tact consoles that are the problem. You nerf those...something else just takes it's place. The whole system is borked...and it can't be fixed without somebody with a bloody super computer brain to see all the combinations and see where all the pitfalls will be when they don't have categorized bonuses.

    You're jumping to conclusions there that are specifically not what I actually said.

    My whole proposal was that the unique consoles (ship consoles, etc) be comparable to the "generic" stackable consoles, so that it's not an automatic choice. Not clearly better (as you theorize) or significantly worse (as they are now). Within the range that players would be willing to use the consoles with clickies over the ones that don't have clickies, or have interesting side effects over ones that don't, because the numerical difference is small enough that they are willing to take it.

    I was clearly by that assuming that the changes would be limited to the generic consoles (if they are nerfs). The numbers given were only meant as an example.

    EDIT: to be clear I also mean the fleet consoles that are similar to the "generic" ones with extra benefits added.

    I was NOT trying to propose (nor did I mean) that all of everything needs to be buffed (or nerfed). Which seems to be what you thought?
    Post edited by westmetals on
  • seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 10,742 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    The whole system is borked...and it can't be fixed without somebody with a bloody super computer brain to see all the combinations and see where all the pitfalls will be when they don't have categorized bonuses.

    I agree, which is why the best solution is to just leave it like it is.

    The current system isn't perfect.. far from it, but if I know Cryptic, whatever they do to 'fix' it would be far far worse.

    It always is.
    animated.gif
    Discovery is good, it's you that sucks.
  • westmetalswestmetals Member Posts: 7,493 Arc User
    edited October 2020
    I was including the spire consoles, etc, with the generics, but thanks for completely ignoring what I said and arguing against your cardboard cutout version of what I said.

    As I said repeatedly I was NOT proposing that EVERYTHING needs to be changed by a proportional amount. I was and am proposing that there be a bit of "rebalance" so that the clickie consoles (especially ship specific ones) are not clearly worse than the stackable ones.... so that it's actually a reasonable CHOICE.

    As a solution the the OP's complaint about people using rows of stackables. (Rather than removing the ability to stack them, let's make it a reasonable option to use something else.)

    i.e. DOMINO vs., Vuln Locator (Phaser). Most people would say "run both"... but let's say you have all other slots committed and it's a matter of putting the DOMINO in a tac slot.

    Maybe I used the wrong terminology, or maybe you're just that intent that nobody other than you can understand things. I'm done.
  • jaturnleyjaturnley Member Posts: 1,212 Arc User
    edited October 2020
    baudl wrote: »
    Cryptic is making the effort of coming up with ever more powerful consoles and sets going along. However, the most effective setup for most ship builds is, even the most novice STO player eventually learns early on, to stack the same tac-consoles to get the most out of your beams/guns and torpedos.
    The question I am raising now...or again...since I have been pondering on this issue for years, is WHY are those consoles not unique in the first place?
    Why have ships with 5 tac console slots when the only sensible way of using those 5 slots is duplicating the same consoles?
    The thing to remember about this design is that it goes AAAALLLL the way back to the beginning, when the game was rushed out on a timeline that anyone in the industry would call insane due to the transfer of the Trek license to Cryptic at what was essentially the last minute.

    They made the decision to allow duplicate consoles in part because they didn't have the time to come up with a hundred different console types. You will note that most of the consoles available at launch are more or less useless in actual gameplay, so people fell back to using multiples of the 6 or 7 that actually did something vs the ones that didn't. I mean, you still can go out and use an EPS Flow Regulator or a Stealth Module if you want, but most of us realized 10 years ago that they don't actually do anything useful.

    You also need to realize that there wasn't a crafting system so you were stuck with item drops and quest rewards. Getting a full set of matching consoles was an actual ordeal at launch, and VR Mk XI items were actually very rare - quests dropped greens and occasionally blues, and there was no difficulty setting so getting green drops was uncommon, and blue was rare, like the names indicated. Getting a set of phaser consoles and field generators in Mk XI purple was a long, long process, and the benefits you got from them needed to be worth the effort, enough to keep you competitive in PvP, which was a popular game component in those days. Then they added Mk XII and we had to start all over. This was pretty typical of MMOs in that time period.

    So, in answer to your question, is it bad game design? In 2020, sure. But in 2009 it wasn't - it was a necessity, and a primary drive for keeping people playing. 10 years of evolution in the game has been based on that design decision so it's not something they can easily change without completely re-balancing the game again. And that's not really necessary - there's no content in the game that you NEED 4+ stacked consoles to complete, so if you don't feel like it's something you want to do, you'll be fine in anything except the few missions where the people hang out comparing their DPS.
  • chastity1337chastity1337 Member Posts: 1,532 Arc User
    westmetals, good buddy, if you look at this thread -
    https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline/#/discussion/1257907/upgrade-a-t6-ship-for-free
    - I would say that cryptic has offered an extended middle finger to your idea of banning duplicate consoles. Indeed, they have gone exactly the opposite direction.

    Me, of course, I love it. I'm like, "MOAR PART GENS!! MOAR CtrlX!!! Can I push the radius of my GW3 to 15km? Let's find out!"

    (note that with the this post I have now consumed my entire quota of exclamation points for the fourth quarter of 2020)
  • westmetalswestmetals Member Posts: 7,493 Arc User
    edited October 2020
    westmetals, good buddy, if you look at this thread -
    https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline/#/discussion/1257907/upgrade-a-t6-ship-for-free
    - I would say that cryptic has offered an extended middle finger to your idea of banning duplicate consoles. Indeed, they have gone exactly the opposite direction.

    Me, of course, I love it. I'm like, "MOAR PART GENS!! MOAR CtrlX!!! Can I push the radius of my GW3 to 15km? Let's find out!"

    (note that with the this post I have now consumed my entire quota of exclamation points for the fourth quarter of 2020)

    It was never my idea. (I'm not the OP of this thread.)

    I was just theorizing on the way to make it happen in a more voluntary way (i.e. by improving the comparative value of unique consoles so that stacking multiples is not automatically the best choice) rather than simply enforcing it by banning it, and meanwhile doing that in a way that did not require any changes "under the hood".
  • darkbladejkdarkbladejk Member Posts: 3,243 Community Moderator
    edited October 2020
    baudl wrote: »
    Cryptic is making the effort of coming up with ever more powerful consoles and sets going along. However, the most effective setup for most ship builds is, even the most novice STO player eventually learns early on, to stack the same tac-consoles to get the most out of your beams/guns and torpedos.
    The question I am raising now...or again...since I have been pondering on this issue for years, is WHY are those consoles not unique in the first place?
    Why have ships with 5 tac console slots when the only sensible way of using those 5 slots is duplicating the same consoles?
    Just because you can stack certain console like tac consoles doesn't mean you have to. You can use whatever you want that qualifies for that slot, however not all choices you make will be effective. You don't have to use any console you don't want to use. However depending on what your goals are for your build, there are certain setups that will be objectively bad for that goal. Having multiple tactical consoles stacked on its own does not automatically guarantee you the victory nor does it guarantee one knows what they're doing or how to use those consoles. Having decent gear is part of the puzzle certainly, but knowing how to use that gear is the biggest part of the puzzle. Someone can have a full set of mk xv gold everything on their ship, and it will mean nothing if they don't know how to use said gear.

    Hundreds and even thousands of other games let you stack certain stats. In WoW a spell caster can use a bunch of gems that let them boost spell power, a warrior could boost his strength, a tank might boost his stamina. In SWTOR a force user may buff their force based attacks, a sniper might buff their weapon based attacks, or so on. That's not bad design, that's playing the game tailored to your particular character. If you honestly think making certain consoles like tac consoles unique will do anything other than take options away and infuriate the playerbase you're kidding yourself. It's been the way it is since the start of the game and I see no reason to change what has been working fine for over 10 years now. Why should I be restricted from using 5 tac consoles on a ship with 5 tac slots to buff my phasers just because someone else doesn't like it? Why should I have to use a different console on my ship at all just because someone else doesn't like it? If my goal is to create a phaser build, why would I use anything that doesn't grant some kind of benefit to the build, and why would I not use things that give me free damage or survival? Keeping the stacking consoles as simple as they are is not a bad thing. If folks want to stack consoles I legitimately have to ask, why do you care and how do you feel it's negatively effecting your ability to play the game since you don't have to play with those people? Why would I ever equip something that's not going to be a benefit to my ship?

    Not everyone is going to build the same way, and not everyone has the same goals in mind. Just because folks do something differently than you do does not make it bad design, nor does it mean you are automatically right or them automatically wrong. Your fun and their fun are not wrong. Having stacking consoles can allow folks to boost certain stats to specialize their ships for certain roles. I really don't understand why people think this is an issue.
    "Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations

    Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 36,847 Arc User
    edited October 2020
    Can I push the radius of my GW3 to 15km?

    no, there is a hard cap of 12km

    but that doesn't stop any of the OTHER benefits an extra science console gives, whichever one you end up slotting​​
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!

    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    RIP Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks & Calvin Munerlyn

    blacklivesmatter.png

    #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."

    "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.
  • chastity1337chastity1337 Member Posts: 1,532 Arc User
    Can I push the radius of my GW3 to 15km?

    no, there is a hard cap of 12km

    but that doesn't stop any of the OTHER benefits an extra science console gives, whichever one you end up slotting​​

    DOHHHH! How disappointing! I am already reaching 11.3km or so with QSM activated.
  • husanakxhusanakx Member Posts: 987 Arc User
    The state of console stacking is just fine. Yes if you want to build a easy dmg build early on you stack tac and sci consoles. However end game... you have multiple tac and science consoles that make more sense then pure stacking. Sure you probably still have 2-4 fleet or colony tac consoles, or 3-4 exotic research consoles. However you also have reputation tac consoles, or even mission their are at least 2 good tac consoles from missions depending on your build. Lorcas tac console from disco rep has become pretty standard. On the science side its even more standard to slot a one per ship crafted console, and perhaps one of the other mission or even a voth sci console.

    Stacking is something Cryptic has been eroding for many years now. Having said that it has been awhile since they released some interesting mission reward tac consoles. The Chronometric Capacitor is actually semi popular on science builds for the extra EPG and the Counter-Command Multi-Conduit Energy Relay is highly underrated as it can be used to engage the sets 2 pc which is a cat 2 dmg buff for phaser and disruptor weapons. (on most builds that 2pc bonus is worth more then a tac console making it a good choice if you are using say a radiation based experimental weapon)
Sign In or Register to comment.