test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Does Cryptic know the Starship Trait from the Borg Assimilated Dreadnought Carrier is already out?
doctorstegi
Member Posts: 1,221 Arc User
Starship Trait – Targeted Excision
While this trait is slotted, activating Beams: Overload or Cannons: Rapid Fire activates rank I versions of both abilities on your hangar pets.
Under a different name
Coordinated Assault
While this trait is slotted and you activate Beam Overload I/II/III you will allow your pets to use Beam Overload I. Using Cannon Rapid Fire I/II/III you will allow your pets to use Cannon Rapid Fire I.
So you put a C-Store Ship Trait on a Lockbox Ship call it a different name and hope nobody notice? Seriously something off here...
While this trait is slotted, activating Beams: Overload or Cannons: Rapid Fire activates rank I versions of both abilities on your hangar pets.
Under a different name
Coordinated Assault
While this trait is slotted and you activate Beam Overload I/II/III you will allow your pets to use Beam Overload I. Using Cannon Rapid Fire I/II/III you will allow your pets to use Cannon Rapid Fire I.
So you put a C-Store Ship Trait on a Lockbox Ship call it a different name and hope nobody notice? Seriously something off here...
C-Store Inc. is still looking for active members on the fed side. If you don't have a fleet feel free to contact me in game @stegi.
Post edited by baddmoonrizin on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The new trait: activating either of beam overload/cannons rapid fire will enable BOTH overload AND rapid fire on pets.
The old trait: activating beam overload ONLY enables that on pets; ditto rapid fire.
You also forgot the "within 10k" range.
On top of what others have pointed out: the first T6 ship was released almost a decade ago. Since then we've had hundreds. There will invariably be increasing trait overlap as the devs frankly run out of new mechanics to fiddle with that players see as desirable. They'll also strategize that between formats so the likely audience for a new ship isn't getting something they'll likely have.
Ie. even if this was the exact same trait (which it isn't, it's more fair to call it an update) there isn't much ground to complain from. Would it be nice if novelty existed forever? Sure, but without big new game mechanics coming in that could branch out possible design paths for Starship traits (to the detriment of older branches of game mechanics as meta shifts to favor the new content) you won't see that ideal in actual practice. We will get redundant starship traits, consoles, and ship layouts as the game continues to blast past likely expectations for a F2P Star Trek MMO launching in the shadow of WoW.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
When activating Beam: Fire at Will or Cannon: Scatter Volley:
Grants Fire at Will I and Scatter Volley I to your hangar pets
Upgrades your energy weapons for 20 seconds:
To target hit (Does not stack):
-30 All Damage Resistance Rating for 5 sec
Better to give the old trait a small QOL upgrade then release a completely new version.
Not really impressed. Yes its nice you can run any pet you want which is nice I guess...but I mean the borg friget pets are beam users and it makes zero sense to put cannons on the borg carrier. So really coordinated assault or this trait make zero difference on the ship the new trait comes on.
Its too bad they didn't take the opportunity to offer some other form of pet buff trait then one we already have. Even if this one proced in a different way... say Attack patterns activate Rapid/Overload on pets. IMO this would have been 10x better as a lot of people prefer to fly their carriers as torp boats. It would have made the trait useable on the Sci Carriers almost no one plays with sub system targeting as well. Can't use NRG buffs + sub targeting... an attack pattern proc would have really helped sci carriers suck a little less.
The game never launched as F2P it switched to the model later on. Not sure what WoW has to do with any of this. Yes its worthy to complain because even if just similar not identical its a trait which more or less already exists and it does not just exists but it does so on C-Store ship which is claimable on every character while this one is not. So if something is way more expensive but has the same value or almost same value trait it just doesn't feel right. You have your opinion I have mine it is a simple as that.
It's a statement of how old the game is, son. The game launched in 2010, introduced T6 ships in 2014, and expecting it to come with more novelty irrespective of fundamental limitations with systems is not genuinely engaging with the topic.
Let's lay some stuff out here. 1. game systems are old, they're well established, and they provide finite design space for new perks, especially when combined with player interest. They could have made this trait work with, for example, tactical team just to nominally create something "new." But no one's going to give a TRIBBLE about that, even compared to a redundant ship trait offering some iterative benefits over the old one. Cryptic has limited options to create new compelling traits, no matter their objectives. No matter how much they want to create unique traits, they cannot long term without creating design space via new mechanics in pace with the release of new ships, which isn't at all likely to have positive impacts as this necessarily requires changes in the meta at regular intervals for viable development, invalidating old builds at large costs to the system team's time.
Ie. the benefit in feeling like you got something more novel with this one trait on this one ship has counterpoints in necessary design actions to REALLY fix that problem and accompanying trade-offs for players. That also includes zero-sum development opportunities in making fancy new systems to setup new kinds of ship traits, questions about whether that design space is even as fun to be in vs. existing game mechanic priorities, as well as major bug risks in fiddling with the core mechanics of a game from 2010 (which is why total age is important to consider. Context matters for understanding). Ie. it's a non-starter, so we must contend with finite design space further constrained by player want, which invariably leads to redundant traits over time. You may not have tried to falsify your point before posting it, but I have with mine.
2. Not every player owns every trait. For example, the M'chala refit that came with KDF recruits recycled the trait from the B'Rel/Defiant line. Did this still have value? Absolutely, because not every player owned this trait and the ship came with other benefits besides the trait (namely the new layout and a ship skin, here magnified with the assimilator in new pets, console, and layout). You cannot stand on this being a problem unless you presume that the recycled element is a deciding factor into whether the ship is worth buying, overriding all other selling points AND being owned already, which are two conditional states which invariably narrow into a small probability. Ie. an insignificant part of the market, by odds. Thus the reasonable call for change and this being "off" from comfortable development does not have a strong imperative. You can try presenting this as an issue but for Cryptic to act on it, there needs to be a tangible risk to real engagement rates. And if you're going to copy traits over, doing so between two formats (c-store/lock box) and across two ships with very different core appeals is the way to do it to minimize the risk of overlap in markets (causing the least distress given the limitations point 1 imposes).
This is not a matter of opinion, these are basic facts, taken without personal judgement. Notice that I didn't say any Q-damn where whether I *liked* the retread trait for this ship, in particular, or via this trait, in particular. That's the realm of opinion, son. Whether you chose to respect facts in informing your opinion is your call. But if you want to engage in a discussion here, this is the reality we're facing. Whether or not you think its good, you have very stern limitations in how much like/dislike matters to the real act of making a video game. Possible feedback must contend with point 1 (as there is likely no meaningful alternative to avoiding this long term, and invites a productive discussion about how we best deal with it) and must condition itself with point 2. Don't and your point immediately fails to make impact as it becomes non-actionable (see. complaining for the sake of it, irrespective of need and reasonable change).
It's as simple as that.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
I wasn't counting the damage resistance. Take that out, and its a single target version of SAD because it does the same thing but with Rapid Fire and Overload.
Coordinated Assault is FAR more constrictive, requiring the hanger pets to line up with the ability to be bestowed as well as being within 10k of you. How often are all your Hanger Pets within 10k of you in combat?
SAD doesn't have the range requirement, and is far more flexible as it gives hanger pets both, meaning it doesn't matter if you're running beams and your pets are running cannons.
Targeted Excision does the same thing as SAD but for single target without the damage resist debuff. No range requirement, and no need to be locked into what pets or weapons you use to synergize it. It has SAD flexibility in that way.
So it is more in line with Superior Area Denial in functionality than Coordinated Assault.
But that is the icing on the cake though.
This new trait isn't even half as good as SAD. Regardless this new trait is a stinker.
Frankly I know Cryptic doesn't want to do it but they should really give all ship traits older then 2 years out a once over. (a look not all al needed changes) They should be going through and finding traits like Coordinated Assault and giving them QOL changes... this trait is essentially Coordinated assault with a QOL update.
Really it is probably a good time to do it. Cryptic is light on development manpower at the moment. We also have a ton of T6 ships that are so old at this point that new players ignore them. Yes those of us that have been around forever probably have them. But ships like the 3 old flight decks Coordinated Assault comes on... I would wager there are a lot of people that have been playing for 5 years at this point that never bothered buying them. The ships are meh the trait is pretty bad... but conditionally semi ok.
IMO change this new one to make it the new SAD... it should impart a debuff just like sad (I mean its single target how much more powerful does that make it anyway), it should also proc off attack patterns rather then Overload/Rapid. This would mean all carriers can use it Energy setup or Kinetic Setup. Even the old sci carriers that have sub system disables Inate. If they can load one attack pattern their pets are covered and they can still use their sub disables.
I know they have said in the past they don't want to update old traits... really I don't see why not. I'm not suggesting they drastically change traits... but some of the earliest traits are so bad you would be crazy to slot them.
A few ideas;
Desperate Repairs (Guardian Cruiser) - A large heal after getting crit hit 3 times. Problem with this trait as a heal trait it has a 60s lockout. I mean its not that large a heal... lol Drop that to 15-20s. Even 30s is iffy.
Emitter Synergy (Scryer Intel Sci) - When using Intel and Tac skills gain stacking +Exotic and +Shield healing. This gives you a total of 22.5% cat 1 exotic. This is TERRIBLE. Change it to either Cat 2 bonus dmg... or change the 7.5% per stack to something more like 20% per stack.
Advanced Firing Solutions (QIB Intel Battle Cruiser) - When firing cannons gain +1 flight turn rate and 0.8 acc stacks to 10. LMAO I don't think I need to point out how terrible this trait is. Just multiply the numbers by 10 and it would still be bad but might perhaps sell a few to some newer players.
QOL for some of these old traits would be a good use of their limited resources imo. They should just go through their sales numbers for the last year and pick the 10 lowest selling Zen Store ships and give their traits a bit of a update. Releasing new promo ships with these old power creeped to terrible status traits rehashed with QOL updates is just going to TRIBBLE players off. (Seriously I am)
But its not everything. Clearly Targeted Excision is geared more towards augmenting pets rather than the general purpose SAD can fill.
Here's how I view the three traits.
The way Targeted Excision seems to work, its definitely more for extended battles. Coordinated Assault, you'd have to trigger it just before an engagement if you want to guarantee ALL your pets benefit. That is why I would classify Coordinated Assault as an Alpha Strike. Get that first big hit in with everything.
I admit I use SAD even on non Carriers, but you do get the MOST out of it with Carriers. Targeted Excision is still very much a Carrier trait. And one I would honestly use if I had room for both it and SAD, along with the abilities to trigger them. But as I don't have the Assimilator, I can only judge based on what it says it does compared to other traits.
Coordinated Assault doesn't fit my playstyle, and it is highly situational to get the most out of it, requiring a lot of synergizing in a build to actually use.
Elevate what you do, kiddo. Skip the complaining and say something that'll move the needle. Ex. is it best to move in this direction (c-store -> lock box) for trait redo's, given that they WILL happen? Is it best to do this for a ship found in Armada with a particular set of abilities from that game that we have other mechanics to replicate (see. assimilator console, enemy ship control mechanics) where another ship in the schedule might have had more room to recycle an old trait without it changing the character of the received ship. Do something other than give your bare two cents so others can play with those ideas and we can all move forward. Because some people are coming at this with more than just their opinion and would like to see the game be the best it can be, for what little we can contribute to that.
Cryptic isn't going to be able to give you unique shinies for shinies sake ad infinitum, fact. So, how do they best approach this for all concerned? If you can't answer that with reasoned insight (which you can't, given your response here), learn from others who might be able to so your next foray into discourse can come in from a more impactful direction. Or just keep doing you. It's not my foot being shot.
It's near the same as an existing ship trait. Thus it's high dramatics to call it a stinker. The trait's precursor been sold and Cryptic has data on use. Any grant proclamation of worth is either going to tell Cryptic something they already know or can shrug off as insular opinion, not supported by the population. Either way, the commentary is moot theater.
But that's a minor point. What matters most here is that not every trait will move the meta to some degree, because that's the embodiment of aggressive power creep. Furthermore, consider the community's own interests. Do we want one-off infinity box ships claiming priority dev time? Because the alternative here would have been to ship the Tamarian cruiser with a copied trait and new, a ship with far greater population-scale impact, if the Assimilator absolutely had to have something bonkers and new. Congrats, you've found novelty. You've also created a very clear statement of priority disfavoring extremely accessible content in favor of maximizing whale prizes when dev constraint comes into play. This also applies if the trait was given a flat buff over the old version (ex. rando +bonus all or pet damage proc, it's not beyond the realm of possibility) to desperately try appealing to those who have everything and can't stand not to have a new best in slot for a given build (when the ship's being sold on being a giant slab of borg amping nostalgic good vibes from a classic trek game. Ie. it's not exactly a winning proposition to hang ship purchases on the trait here. It could have shipped with *no* trait without likely impact on its key market.)
It's fine that new traits aren't causing you to scramble to loot boxes in order to maintain relative build parity with the rest of the 1%. This is how power creep is kept in check, especially power creep directed at very expensive release formats.
Infinity box ships are probably the ideal ships to receive this kind of treatment. Per stated mass feedback on the subject, we don't want RNG ships getting buffs. If something's gotta take a hit, let it be THIS stuff.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
This has nothing to do with DEEPS. lol
I get it a lot of players are have nots and they are salty that the premium product in the game is premium.
That is the point here. This is a premium ship, out of a premium box obtained with premium currency. For them to essentially recycle an almost 9 year old trait is a bit offensive to people actually purchasing premium content. I'm not asking for the best trait on the game to appear on every new ship released... just don't recycle bad 9 year old traits either.
As for the arguments that this trait is different.... HAHAHA no its not. Its coordinated assault that has a cross over proc. Cause lets be honest this is PREMIUM content. Anyone using this trait with beam weapons and beam pets gets a slight QOL improvement in that this trait should effect pets a little further away from you. For anyone running Cannons they won't ever slot this trait anyway as they would be using scatter volley and SAD. Anyone using cannon pets that is buying premium content will use SAD instead. Which means the only real game scenario for his trait is no different then a Coordinated Assault setup... so its a minor QOL upgrade >.<
I guess Johnathan hadn't really finished up when they told him pencils down. Based on other ship traits he has done this one is extremely weak. No I'm no uber DPS chaser... nor do I want all the best traits locked behind Premium ships. At the same time... premium ships shouldn't feel like recycles either.
The point here is that if you're looking at limited dev time and need to double up on a ship trait then taking the complain train to "Mwah, lock box ship doesn't have enough shinies!" is not in the interest of a happy community.
Because 1) this ship already has enough going for it for its target audience (because no responsible person would possible suggest that a Borg ship from star trek armada that is the closest analog to flying a cube as we're ever likely to see is going to live or die from the ship trait as opposed to base concept) and so its not likely to materially impacted by the trait doubling. Recycled trip *because* of the trait? That's putting a lot of emotional energy into one tangential aspect which doesn't cross at all for why someone might want this ship beyond it being an overly complex box for trait delivery (whitewashing all other conceivable aspects of appeal to manufacture a leg to stand on for complaint). At the very least, it's a select view. That is where you should have pumped the brakes on your opinion because to double down on the aggrieved consumer reflex per "premium" content not feeling premium enough is going to run headlong into the fact that not many other consumers are likely to take similar issue, nullifying the importance of your reflex.
And judging from the reaction from higher-rolling STO players, even after the fact you should have picked up on the fact that those interested in the ship may not give a flying Q about the trait and might care more about flying a chonky Borg ship with deep ties to the Trek gaming community.
2) Other ships DO live or die by their accessories. Namely, seasonal event ships. They don't often carry themes that mesh well with long term player interest (focusing on niche factions) and thus their use often comes through short-term bursts as players 1) explore the novelty of the ship and 2) unlock its trait. Thus in terms of basically competent strategy a dev would be an idiot if they prioritized the thing that isn't at all likely to be impacted by the presence of a trait vs the thing whose engagement will very likely be impacted by not having it. Furthermore, per "greatest good/least harm" prioritizing the effort on the more accessible content is the better call for community interests (especially with an accessible ship release slot converted to premium this fall) as more people are likely to be engaged by the "prioritize the event ship" path than if the effort was thrown on the dragon's horde of blunder that whales already possess through the heavy lean this game has to top tier monetization. There's PLENTY of other content that's received intensive development effort to justify the premium price tags.
See. The freaking Shrike, with the most technically complex console in the game and was the last thing released for this game (which incidentally took the release slot that regular c-store ships have gone in for years). Another option here would have been to neuter that to save dev effort for this trait. TRIBBLE that, if we are to have a lords and peasants system of ship releases lets at least see the effort put into some insane spectacle we can reach for in an event campaign rather than averaging out effort blandly over ship releases to check some boxes because someone on the internet got irritated by being denied something (anything). If any ship was to have a repeat trait this year, the Assimilator was absolutely the ship to do it with. The trait doesn't matter at all for its appeal and likely allowed for some better systems content across two key ships to close out the year (Shrike and Temarian cruiser). It was the most responsible, strategically best, move to make. Don't feel like buying the assimilator because of the trait? Fine, you're not in the target demographic and if the trait was going to be a deal breaker it's not likely you would have put much effort or capital into getting the ship in the first place. Not every ship in the game needs to be reaching for your personal dollars. See. IDIC as applied to marketing.
BUT PREMIUM?!
That's noise. Think about the problem for two seconds and don't put your first consumer reflex at the forefront of your brain. And if you have to devolve into being a jerk to someone on the team to try justifying your premium sense of entitlement (see. "guessing" about Jonathan not finishing up, implying a failing on his part for why we're here given the lack of any other ameliorating context), step away from the keyboard and go touch some grass. You don't Trek by treating employees like TRIBBLE because you didn't get precisely what you wanted out of a product.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Yes we are allowed to say hey this trait is a copy of an old trait not cool. Sorry that upsets you. We don't need uber traits every release I agree... but a new ship should get a new trait. I would be just as annoyed if this was an event ship with a copied trait.
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch