There is not a single positive thing about this change. Not one thing. Nothing. Zip. Zero. Zilch. It's fixing a problem that never existed in the first place.
All this does is nerf cruisers further into uselessness.
There is not a single positive thing about this change. Not one thing. Nothing. Zip. Zero. Zilch. It's fixing a problem that never existed in the first place.
All this does is nerf cruisers further into uselessness.
In your opinion which as a player I hold little value in.
You do not need eps at all you are far better to put damage resists on your ship
And since I know my Science Vessel needs a +3 Eps. Consoles to be even able to fire two Dual Beam banks without running out of power through canstant fire I say its ********.
I find that curious, given that on live my T4 Exploration Cruiser runs 5 beam arrays with a single +2.2 console, and on test seems to be able to run the same 5 beam arrays with a single +1.1 console.
I do need to do some more testing, but my gut reaction is that you're using a lot more EPS consoles than you actually need (for weapon power regen at least).
It becomes even worse in PvP, without enough Eps Transfer you have to crawl everywhere, since hiting Full Impulse is suicide as a Fed when this comes live... Klingons in Cloak have all the time to regen their Power while Feds will be shot out of Full Impulse, after which they have to wait something like 10 seconds before they can even start to counterattack.
If you have +3 EPS now, it'll take about five and a half seconds to go from 5 weapon power to 100 weapon power.
With the nerf, that +3 becomes +1.5, which means it'll take about eight and a half seconds to go from 5 weapon power to 100 weapon power - three seconds difference.
There was a bug where your power levels where lower then they should be because certain skills where ignored... but this has NOTHING to do with the Eps stat and Eps consoles.
On tribble Eps and certain other consoles are cut down to half of their current power, this is a fact and NO bug.
It's a fact, but I don't believe it's mentioned in any of the notes, which means I don't think we can say for sure whether it's a bug or not.
My suspicion is that it's an intended change, but without dev confirmation I don't think we can actually say for sure yet.
Yup. And I run two of those +3 EPS consoles, so after the patch I'd need to run 4 to get the same effect and lose my two other consoles or 3 to get a slight nerf and 1 console. Either way, I lose a ton of power regen and transfer speed. No other way around that.
If you currently run a total of +6, it'll take you about three and a half seconds to go from 5 to 100 weapon power (such as when dropping out of full impulse).
With the changes, that +6 becomes +3, which means it'll take you about five and a half seconds.
Have you even tried it on Tribble, the 50% decrease on the EPS consoles DOES NOT correlate to a direct 50% decrease in power transfer rate.
This is true, and well worth bearing in mind.
Cryptic's entire skill set is built with diminishing returns, even on your consoles. Try equipping a few damage resistance hull plates and look at your stats, guess what not a direct stack. That means that while atm you have 2 x +3 EPS consoles you are not actually getting +6 because of the already implemented diminishing returns. So as long as they don't change the point at which the diminishing returns occurs at the effect of the 50% decrease will be much much less.
Power transfer rate bonuses do have diminishing returns when you look at the time to regen/transfer X amount of power, but this isn't because two +3 consoles don't give +6 (they do), but because there's a base rate that the consoles add to, and the way rates work with the math.
Go to Tribble and try it.
The best advice that anyone can give right now, in my opinion.
There does seem to be an awful lot of knee-jerk responses here from people who don't understand how weapon power drain actually works and haven't bothered to try it on the test server.
Again, I have to ask whether you've actually tried it on test, as this has not been my experience at all so far.
Not sure you have to go to tribble and test it tbh. you could probably swap the +3 for a +1.5 (The current value on tribble) and see how well you do. i did on mine and hardly notice a diffrence.
Not sure you have to go to tribble and test it tbh. you could probably swap the +3 for a +1.5 (The current value on tribble) and see how well you do. i did on mine and hardly notice a diffrence.
If you currently run a total of +6, it'll take you about three and a half seconds to go from 5 to 100 weapon power (such as when dropping out of full impulse).
With the changes, that +6 becomes +3, which means it'll take you about five and a half seconds.
That's a two second difference.
Every second in PvP matters. I bet you play a Fed who never groups in pug PvP and runs into a ball of 4-6 Klingon ships. :rolleyes:
And if I started firing right out of full impulse, that poor regen will make things even worse.
I went on Tribble yesterday for the first time to check this out for myself. After a respec, using the same weapons and console loadout on my Adv. Escort, i had no problems with weapons power. Yes, the power transfer was a little slower when coming out of full impulse.
This is the entire problem, the game shipped with this flaw, if it would've been harder made you think, we wouldn't be in this situation. The only reason I see this change is do to everyone being capable of running weapons at max with little trouble and with little to no downside.
Making the game much harder would fix the EPS issues in PvE and you wouldn't need this change. Then you might need shields/aux/engines. It would've slowed the kill pace down and lengthened the time to RA, which would've given them more time fix and add content.
BUT these are all what ifs, the reality is the game is far too easy, and its currently all about what does max dps since very little poses a real threat, so why wouldn't you spec to kill faster.
I am guilty of it, I min/maxed my damage. I just am attempting to understand the change, so far I think it will help. Still once again its not that big of a change.
Cheers
Just a comment on this. I think the real problem is that shield/aux/engine power doesn't have enough of a discernable/useful effect (except in the case of science vessels). This is why everyone pretty much defaults to max weapon power all the time.
Another interesting thing for the people who keep talking about full impulse. As a cruiser captain, I find that if I drop out of full impulse about 16km from my destination, inertia carries me almost all the rest of the way into weapons range, and by the time i get there, weapons are fully charged. Now, cruisers have crazy high inertia (literally, I can almost get it flying backwards coming out of full impulse), but this is still something to think about. Plus, dropping out of full impulse a little short of weapons range gives me time to queue up things like high yield torpedoes, attack patterns, and directed energy modulation for that initial salvo.
I should also mention that I've found Beam Overload to be worthless when running multiple beams. Because it only works for one beam array, and it consumes 100% of available weapon power when you fire that beam array.... EPS consoles or not, unless that beam array can obliterate whatever you just shot it at, probably not the best use of all that power.
True, using full impulse in PvP without at least +3 EPS or cloak is nothing else but turning yourself into a free kill.
Thats why I hate this nerf so much, there will be absolutely no way around stacking two or more of those consoles instead of one... which makes this nerf a total failure.
Here's an idea: Don't race around everywhere at full impulse. It's supposed to be a hard decision if you want the added speed or instant availability of your shields and weapons.
I can't believe people are crying about having to make intelligent, situational choices.
Here's an idea: Don't race around everywhere at full impulse. It's supposed to be a hard decision if you want the added speed or instant availability of your shields and weapons.
I can't believe people are crying about having to make intelligent, situational choices.
The problem is, we don't have to make that choice right now with EPS consoles the way they are. Why should we be forced to make that decision after the nerf? And if I loaded with 4 of these consoles instead of the 2 I run now, I won't have to after the patch as well. Nothing changed except losing 2 engineering consoles to get the same EPS effect.
So what do we get if we do this do for PvP balance or "game depth"? Absolutely nothing.
As for crying, it's the fans supporting seemingly bad changes made in the name of balance by Cryptic that are the ones crying in response to our complaints. You are the ones making this and similar threads longer. Thanks for the thread bumping power.
Here's an idea: Don't race around everywhere at full impulse. It's supposed to be a hard decision if you want the added speed or instant availability of your shields and weapons.
I can't believe people are crying about having to make intelligent, situational choices.
Do you even realize how slow ships are without full impulse ?
I'am telling you this from my view as a Klingon: It will be just an enormous disadvantage for you starfleet guys. Our ships can cloak and race around in full impulse as much as we like... while starfleets will have to crawl everywhere because there is a very high possibility for you to encounter cloaked ships which are just waiting for a full impulse victim.
First, you say we have a "much larger warp core" that translates to almost no noticeable difference.
Then, you give us the most annoying turn rates, with a seemingly i don't care about you response when we just ask for it to be bumped slightly. Making torpedos almost pointless and looting a chore I might add.
And now, you see that all cruisers are running eps just to keep their ships firing so you decide to Nerf it too!?
WTF!!!? is going on here?
Are you just trying to get more people to fly other ships? because if that is it i have bad news for you....
A lot of fans play this game just to fly the Enterprise, and if you take that away i bet you'll just be pushing people off the game.
I however am stuck here for the duration since i have a lifetime sub, but i still beg of you don't Nerf the cruiser anymore than it already is.
Engineers dont need eps consoles just use your eps skill after you drop out of full impluse It does the same thing,
You know not what you speak of, young Padawan. +25 power to all systems is not the same thing as +6 to power regen rate.
If I have no consoles (slow power regen), start with 5 power to weapons after a full impulse, and use EPS transfer, that +25 only gives me 30 with still slow regen.
The problem is, we don't have to make that choice right now with EPS consoles the way they are. Why should we be forced to make that decision after the nerf? And if I loaded with 4 of these consoles instead of the 2 I run now, I won't have to after the patch as well. Nothing changed except losing 2 engineering consoles to get the same EPS effect.
So what do we get if we do this do for PvP balance or "game depth"? Absolutely nothing.
As for crying, it's the fans supporting seemingly bad changes made in the name of balance by Cryptic that are the ones crying in response to our complaints. You are the ones making this and similar threads longer. Thanks for the thread bumping power.
Right now I have six ships all fitted out that I switch around between for fun and variety. Every single one of them has an EPS console, some of them have two. I'm going to feel safe in saying that every single one of your ships has at least one of these consoles on them as well. When every single player uses the same item every single time, it's without exception because that item is extremely powerful and gives a tremendous advantage over all of the other available, comparable items (in this case, the other engineering consoles).
When something is that drastically overpowered, it's because game developers did not anticipate how powerful it would actually be and they're forced to make a change to bring the item back in-line with their intent. Good players accept this, adapt, figure out something new that works just as well or better and move on until the next nerf comes along. Consider it a challenge to find the next killer combination.
Eps Consoles being overpowered is not the problem, the problem is the basic Energy Transfer sucks so much that even when they would nerf Eps. down to 0,5 ratings people would still stack as many of those consoles as possible.
The only solutions to this I can imagine are:
Removing those consoles completely und buff the basic energy transfer on all ships except Cruisers by +3. Cruisers should get a bit higher bonus because of their massive number of weapons and their large warp core.
Or:
Leave values on Eps Consoles alone and simply cap the number of equipable Eps Consoles to one... or add diminishing returns if more then one is equiped.
Both solutions would have been much better then this nerf... and its not like this would be something new for cryptic...
In City of Heroes they have this nice little power called "Stamina", which offers a passive bonus to endurance regeneration.
Absolutely everybody uses this power, even though it means they have to pick two other powers which are pretty much useless for most builds only to get Stamina. They nerfed it numerous times because of this, but everybody is still using it...
Why ? Because the basic endurance regeneration is so crappy people will do anything to improve it, no matter how small the improvement is. Then they startet to add Endurance Regeneration through other sources to offer at least alternatives, but only accomplished people stacking those new bonuses with the Stamina Skill... In the end, they just gave up and left it as it is.
Eps Consoles being overpowered is not the problem, the problem is the basic Energy Transfer sucks so much that even when they would nerf Eps. down to 0,5 ratings people would still stack as many of those consoles as possible.
The only solutions to this I can imagine are:
Removing those consoles completely und buff the basic energy transfer on all ships except Cruisers by +3. Cruisers should get a bit higher bonus because of their massive number of weapons and their large warp core.
Or:
Leave values on Eps Consoles alone and simply cap the number of equipable Eps Consoles to one... or add diminishing returns if more then one is equiped.
Both solutions would have been much better then this nerf.
You know not what you speak of, young Padawan. +25 power to all systems is not the same thing as +6 to power regen rate.
If I have no consoles (slow power regen), start with 5 power to weapons after a full impulse, and use EPS transfer, that +25 only gives me 30 with still slow regen.
Erm, EPS Power Transfer gives +25 power to all systems and increases power transfer rate.
On live, my T4 Engineer's EPS Power Transfer III gives +1.2 power transfer. On test, it appears the ability may have been buffed, as the same character's EPS Power Transfer III lists +1.5 power transfer rate.
Well are we tactical officers in cruisers supposed to do? We don't have any EPS powers. I have been building my tactical cruiser from the start of the game, and now I'm looking at a DPS nerf (when we already have the worst DPS more or less) over getting rid of the usefulness of EPS consoles for no good reason.
There was literally no reason to nerf this item. Nothing was broken. Nothing was overpowered. It's like the turn rate console on cruisers: a necessity.
The bottom line is this is "fixing something" that didn't need fixing in the first place.
Many of the above posts either skirt around or hint to the basic issue: how do these chages affect the overall picture, not just 'my ship'.
===
First, a disclaimer about Tribble's changes to crit procs. The current crit procs on Tribble are massively skewing any test of the EPS changes. I think it's clear from anyone who has seen it that we should not be critting this often or for this much damage. If we ignore the crit procs altogether, we will see an overall decrease in DPS potential due to the EPS and power cost changes.
The rest of my points are offered from this perspective, ignoring the new Tribble crit procs (i.e., relying on Holodeck's old crit procs).
Second, a disclaimer about my own background. I am primarily a Federation player first and foremost. I do have some experience playing Klingon, but nowhere near the same level of experience as on my Federation character. PVE is trivial to me, as I have completed all content, including STF: Infected, multiple times.
My 'spec' focuses on space combat, min/max for PVP (which ends up equally effective in PVE). I have PVPed since Beta, with around 50/50 win/loss overall (bare minimum; usually do much better with full Fleet pre-made). Here is a typical Fleet-only pre-made. (Note that some of the Fleet members in that screenshot have a mix of space and ground skills.)
===
In terms of comparing ships within and between factions, the EPS and power cost changes make it clear that all ships should not and will not have equal base DPS potential. They are currently not equal on Holodeck, but they are so similar that ship types tend not to make a difference in terms of DPS potential. (For example, compare the DPS potential of an escort with that of a cruiser, or compare the DPS potential of a bird-of-prey with that of a carrier.) The changes to EPS and power cost serve to make these distinctions much clearer and more noticeable.
Why is this a good thing? Well, this means that it will be harder for ships to solo content as easily, and it will increase reliance between ships due to their different dynamics. Lacking DPS? Get an escort in your group. Lacking survivability? Get a cruiser and/or science vessel in your group.
===
In terms of the EPS effect on PVP 'balance', let me review the major balance issues on Holodeck.
The most fundamental problem with space PVP is poor match-making, which is the reason for the huge disparity in player experience. Some players like myself enjoy mostly even matches (with one obvious exception, which is being investigated by the DEVs), while others find themselves in unbreakable losing streaks. The solution to this 'balance' issue is simply to improve match-making to account for player 'skill', by basing ratings off participation (damage, hull/shield repair, buff/debuff, AOE). This will also separate pre-mades from PUGs.
Once you remove player 'skill' from the equation (i.e., look at balance issues between teams of relatively equal skill), you then see where EPS and power cost come into play. Most notably, min/max builds for FBP III, SNB (+ VM), Rapid Fire chaining, Photonic Officer + chaining of anything (usually RSP, if not FBP; also support, especially Extend Shields).
With the exception of Photonic Officer and RSP, the EPS and power cost changes most heavily affect Rapid Fire, FBP, and SNB. The min/max and chaining of these three abilities was responsible for Holodeck space PVP becoming a matter of 'luck' -- whichever side applies theirs first, wins. Specifically, the problem was in coupling DPS with CC from a single ship. The EPS and power cost changes now prevent that. (Again, assuming crit procs will be reduced.)
Regarding RSP stacking, subsystem warfare breaks this easily. How easily is the question: on Holodeck, EPS stacking makes non-maxxed power drains insignificant. In other words, unless you are using maxxed Tyken's Rift III (which has a limited firing arc and 2km AOE sphere) with full AUX, you are unlikely to break proper RSP stacking. (Again, I am discounting spamming power siphon x 30 since that is being investigated.) The EPS changes now make subsystem warfare more significant, and much more likely to break RSP stacking.
In summary, these EPS and weapon power cost changes are definitely helping the situation immensely, but only if the high crit procs are fixed. It is easy to lose sight of how these changes are good unless you look beyond your individual spec and ship, and take a closer look at group dynamics.
Why is any of this relevant to PVE? Quite simply, it will increase the effect of group dynamics, or encourage grouping. This means less soloing (although soloing will still be possible, just more difficult), and more group-based roles.
If everyone has one item it does not mean that the item is OP, it just means that every single ship type (from my experience) is in need of this item.
When everyone needs something because otherwise the ship energy transfer seems to be slower than is acceptable it means that something is seriously wrong.
As people before mentioned.. You can nerf EPS, but you have to buff "stock" energy transfer. I never saw in Star Trek that ship could efficiently attack after cca 20 seconds after stopping from full impulse etc. Aswell as cruisers having already horrible problems maintaining power while using a lot of weapons.
So again.. if everyone is in need of one type of item and instead of using a lot of usefull things, they use this one which actualy makes them able to efficienty use weapons or start attack quickly after leaving full impulse, it means it should be buffed for all, so they will use more variety of items instead of this.
It seems that devs in general forgot to buff things and instead they nerf them to higher need for better of same kind.
On the other hand, if you buff this, people will mostly lose interest in this item and start using variety of same slot type, just some for which is energy transfer rate still low, will tend to use EPS afterwards.
Sorry for Wall-of-text.. but I just felt that its needed. Nerf is seriously wrong way, EPS actualy made pace of game better and now, people will wait again 10-20seconds after leaving full impulse to attack. Its gonna be weird.
It's interesting you say that it will have no beneficial effect, when you have a clear parody of Spacebar-mashing in your signature.
Nerfing EPS, in addition to the changes to weapon power cost, mean that firing patterns become much more tactical. Spacebar-mashing and autofire no longer produce optimal DPS. Optimal firing patterns would now rely on:
1) Power level (+ buffs).
2) Recharge rate (inherently > 1 second, due to weapon power cost changes).
3) The enemy (positioning + buffs/debuffs).
In other words, players will be forced to think about what to fire, when to fire, and how much to fire, at any given time.
Subsystem warfare now becomes much more significant, as is the distinction in roles (e.g., deciding between AUX and weapon power) based on what abilities you wish to buff.
===
It seems that those opposed to these changes do not want to give up their solo play in favour of group dynamics. These changes help differentiate ships and loadouts, such that more specialised roles become more feasible and even needed in certain situations.
For example, a 'healer' does not need to be able to sustain DPS output similar to a purer DPSer. Currently on Holodeck, the DPS potential is similar. These changes should reduce that similarity to more reasonable or 'realistic' levels.
Well are we tactical officers in cruisers supposed to do? We don't have any EPS powers. I have been building my tactical cruiser from the start of the game, and now I'm looking at a DPS nerf (when we already have the worst DPS more or less) over getting rid of the usefulness of EPS consoles for no good reason.
I'm not convinced that there will be much impact on DPS in most cases, and even if there is, I suspect that some of the other changes on Tribble will more than compensate for it.
I've yet to see anyone post any testing results to back up the claims that the nerf will have a significant impact on DPS. If I get time, I'll try to do one myself, but real life demands are taking up a lot of my time right now.
I'm also not sure I believe that cruisers have lower DPS potential than science wessels, given that (at Tier 5) cruisers have a third more weapon slots.
There was literally no reason to nerf this item. Nothing was broken. Nothing was overpowered.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I think that this is a highly debatable point.
Clearly the devs (the only people who actually understand the exact mechanics of the combat system, and will have tools and spreadsheets to test changes and see their exact effects) feel that the change was necessary. It is possible that they're mistaken, but I don't have the knowledge or data to make that claim.
It's like the turn rate console on cruisers: a necessity.
Actually, because of the way that turn rates appear to be calculated (see the Starship Mechanics link in my sig), turn rate consoles are of questionable value on Tier 4 and 5 cruisers. They're definitely more useful on the Tier 5 ships, but looking at what else you can use an engineering console slot for, my personal opinion is that you'll gain more benefit from a different type of console.
The bottom line is this is "fixing something" that didn't need fixing in the first place.
Again, while you're entitled to your opinion, the devs clearly feel differently.
It's interesting you say that it will have no beneficial effect, when you have a clear parody of Spacebar-mashing in your signature.
Nerfing EPS, in addition to the changes to weapon power cost, mean that firing patterns become much more tactical. Spacebar-mashing and autofire no longer produce optimal DPS. Optimal firing patterns would now rely on:
1) Power level (+ buffs).
2) Recharge rate (inherently > 1 second, due to weapon power cost changes).
3) The enemy (positioning + buffs/debuffs).
In other words, players will be forced to think about what to fire, when to fire, and how much to fire, at any given time.
Subsystem warfare now becomes much more significant, as is the distinction in roles (e.g., deciding between AUX and weapon power) based on what abilities you wish to buff.
===
It seems that those opposed to these changes do not want to give up their solo play in favour of group dynamics. These changes help differentiate ships and loadouts, such that more specialised roles become more feasible and even needed in certain situations.
For example, a 'healer' does not need to be able to sustain DPS output similar to a purer DPSer. Currently on Holodeck, the DPS potential is similar. These changes should reduce that similarity to more reasonable or 'realistic' levels.
Couldn't agree more... I love reading your posts, its nice to see someone who cares and seems to attempt to understand the changes instead of complaining.
Erm, EPS Power Transfer gives +25 power to all systems and increases power transfer rate.
On live, my T4 Engineer's EPS Power Transfer III gives +1.2 power transfer. On test, it appears the ability may have been buffed, as the same character's EPS Power Transfer III lists +1.5 power transfer rate.
And I run two +3 consoles for +6. Huge difference between +6 and +1.whatever. And if I run 4 EPS, that's +12. Sorry, your quickly written jab at EPS doesn't work. Just admit it and move on. :rolleyes:
Comments
All this does is nerf cruisers further into uselessness.
In your opinion which as a player I hold little value in.
You do not need eps at all you are far better to put damage resists on your ship
I do need to do some more testing, but my gut reaction is that you're using a lot more EPS consoles than you actually need (for weapon power regen at least).
If you have +3 EPS now, it'll take about five and a half seconds to go from 5 weapon power to 100 weapon power.
With the nerf, that +3 becomes +1.5, which means it'll take about eight and a half seconds to go from 5 weapon power to 100 weapon power - three seconds difference.
It's a fact, but I don't believe it's mentioned in any of the notes, which means I don't think we can say for sure whether it's a bug or not.
My suspicion is that it's an intended change, but without dev confirmation I don't think we can actually say for sure yet.
If you currently run a total of +6, it'll take you about three and a half seconds to go from 5 to 100 weapon power (such as when dropping out of full impulse).
With the changes, that +6 becomes +3, which means it'll take you about five and a half seconds.
That's a two second difference.
Just to clarify - resistances do not have diminishing returns. The math used to convert them to a linear return makes it look like they do, but it's an illusion.
Power transfer rate bonuses do have diminishing returns when you look at the time to regen/transfer X amount of power, but this isn't because two +3 consoles don't give +6 (they do), but because there's a base rate that the consoles add to, and the way rates work with the math.
The best advice that anyone can give right now, in my opinion.
There does seem to be an awful lot of knee-jerk responses here from people who don't understand how weapon power drain actually works and haven't bothered to try it on the test server.
Again, I have to ask whether you've actually tried it on test, as this has not been my experience at all so far.
Not sure you have to go to tribble and test it tbh. you could probably swap the +3 for a +1.5 (The current value on tribble) and see how well you do. i did on mine and hardly notice a diffrence.
That would also work, yes.
Every second in PvP matters. I bet you play a Fed who never groups in pug PvP and runs into a ball of 4-6 Klingon ships. :rolleyes:
And if I started firing right out of full impulse, that poor regen will make things even worse.
Just a comment on this. I think the real problem is that shield/aux/engine power doesn't have enough of a discernable/useful effect (except in the case of science vessels). This is why everyone pretty much defaults to max weapon power all the time.
Another interesting thing for the people who keep talking about full impulse. As a cruiser captain, I find that if I drop out of full impulse about 16km from my destination, inertia carries me almost all the rest of the way into weapons range, and by the time i get there, weapons are fully charged. Now, cruisers have crazy high inertia (literally, I can almost get it flying backwards coming out of full impulse), but this is still something to think about. Plus, dropping out of full impulse a little short of weapons range gives me time to queue up things like high yield torpedoes, attack patterns, and directed energy modulation for that initial salvo.
I should also mention that I've found Beam Overload to be worthless when running multiple beams. Because it only works for one beam array, and it consumes 100% of available weapon power when you fire that beam array.... EPS consoles or not, unless that beam array can obliterate whatever you just shot it at, probably not the best use of all that power.
Here's an idea: Don't race around everywhere at full impulse. It's supposed to be a hard decision if you want the added speed or instant availability of your shields and weapons.
I can't believe people are crying about having to make intelligent, situational choices.
The problem is, we don't have to make that choice right now with EPS consoles the way they are. Why should we be forced to make that decision after the nerf? And if I loaded with 4 of these consoles instead of the 2 I run now, I won't have to after the patch as well. Nothing changed except losing 2 engineering consoles to get the same EPS effect.
So what do we get if we do this do for PvP balance or "game depth"? Absolutely nothing.
As for crying, it's the fans supporting seemingly bad changes made in the name of balance by Cryptic that are the ones crying in response to our complaints. You are the ones making this and similar threads longer.
Do you even realize how slow ships are without full impulse ?
I'am telling you this from my view as a Klingon: It will be just an enormous disadvantage for you starfleet guys. Our ships can cloak and race around in full impulse as much as we like... while starfleets will have to crawl everywhere because there is a very high possibility for you to encounter cloaked ships which are just waiting for a full impulse victim.
Pretty much yes you hit it right the first time.
Armor all the way for me
You know not what you speak of, young Padawan. +25 power to all systems is not the same thing as +6 to power regen rate.
If I have no consoles (slow power regen), start with 5 power to weapons after a full impulse, and use EPS transfer, that +25 only gives me 30 with still slow regen.
Right now I have six ships all fitted out that I switch around between for fun and variety. Every single one of them has an EPS console, some of them have two. I'm going to feel safe in saying that every single one of your ships has at least one of these consoles on them as well. When every single player uses the same item every single time, it's without exception because that item is extremely powerful and gives a tremendous advantage over all of the other available, comparable items (in this case, the other engineering consoles).
When something is that drastically overpowered, it's because game developers did not anticipate how powerful it would actually be and they're forced to make a change to bring the item back in-line with their intent. Good players accept this, adapt, figure out something new that works just as well or better and move on until the next nerf comes along. Consider it a challenge to find the next killer combination.
The only solutions to this I can imagine are:
Removing those consoles completely und buff the basic energy transfer on all ships except Cruisers by +3. Cruisers should get a bit higher bonus because of their massive number of weapons and their large warp core.
Or:
Leave values on Eps Consoles alone and simply cap the number of equipable Eps Consoles to one... or add diminishing returns if more then one is equiped.
Both solutions would have been much better then this nerf... and its not like this would be something new for cryptic...
In City of Heroes they have this nice little power called "Stamina", which offers a passive bonus to endurance regeneration.
Absolutely everybody uses this power, even though it means they have to pick two other powers which are pretty much useless for most builds only to get Stamina. They nerfed it numerous times because of this, but everybody is still using it...
Why ? Because the basic endurance regeneration is so crappy people will do anything to improve it, no matter how small the improvement is. Then they startet to add Endurance Regeneration through other sources to offer at least alternatives, but only accomplished people stacking those new bonuses with the Stamina Skill... In the end, they just gave up and left it as it is.
Same old stuff happening here again.
I agree with all of that.
On live, my T4 Engineer's EPS Power Transfer III gives +1.2 power transfer. On test, it appears the ability may have been buffed, as the same character's EPS Power Transfer III lists +1.5 power transfer rate.
There was literally no reason to nerf this item. Nothing was broken. Nothing was overpowered. It's like the turn rate console on cruisers: a necessity.
The bottom line is this is "fixing something" that didn't need fixing in the first place.
===
Many of the above posts either skirt around or hint to the basic issue: how do these chages affect the overall picture, not just 'my ship'.
===
First, a disclaimer about Tribble's changes to crit procs. The current crit procs on Tribble are massively skewing any test of the EPS changes. I think it's clear from anyone who has seen it that we should not be critting this often or for this much damage. If we ignore the crit procs altogether, we will see an overall decrease in DPS potential due to the EPS and power cost changes.
The rest of my points are offered from this perspective, ignoring the new Tribble crit procs (i.e., relying on Holodeck's old crit procs).
Second, a disclaimer about my own background. I am primarily a Federation player first and foremost. I do have some experience playing Klingon, but nowhere near the same level of experience as on my Federation character. PVE is trivial to me, as I have completed all content, including STF: Infected, multiple times.
My 'spec' focuses on space combat, min/max for PVP (which ends up equally effective in PVE). I have PVPed since Beta, with around 50/50 win/loss overall (bare minimum; usually do much better with full Fleet pre-made). Here is a typical Fleet-only pre-made. (Note that some of the Fleet members in that screenshot have a mix of space and ground skills.)
===
In terms of comparing ships within and between factions, the EPS and power cost changes make it clear that all ships should not and will not have equal base DPS potential. They are currently not equal on Holodeck, but they are so similar that ship types tend not to make a difference in terms of DPS potential. (For example, compare the DPS potential of an escort with that of a cruiser, or compare the DPS potential of a bird-of-prey with that of a carrier.) The changes to EPS and power cost serve to make these distinctions much clearer and more noticeable.
Why is this a good thing? Well, this means that it will be harder for ships to solo content as easily, and it will increase reliance between ships due to their different dynamics. Lacking DPS? Get an escort in your group. Lacking survivability? Get a cruiser and/or science vessel in your group.
===
In terms of the EPS effect on PVP 'balance', let me review the major balance issues on Holodeck.
The most fundamental problem with space PVP is poor match-making, which is the reason for the huge disparity in player experience. Some players like myself enjoy mostly even matches (with one obvious exception, which is being investigated by the DEVs), while others find themselves in unbreakable losing streaks. The solution to this 'balance' issue is simply to improve match-making to account for player 'skill', by basing ratings off participation (damage, hull/shield repair, buff/debuff, AOE). This will also separate pre-mades from PUGs.
Once you remove player 'skill' from the equation (i.e., look at balance issues between teams of relatively equal skill), you then see where EPS and power cost come into play. Most notably, min/max builds for FBP III, SNB (+ VM), Rapid Fire chaining, Photonic Officer + chaining of anything (usually RSP, if not FBP; also support, especially Extend Shields).
With the exception of Photonic Officer and RSP, the EPS and power cost changes most heavily affect Rapid Fire, FBP, and SNB. The min/max and chaining of these three abilities was responsible for Holodeck space PVP becoming a matter of 'luck' -- whichever side applies theirs first, wins. Specifically, the problem was in coupling DPS with CC from a single ship. The EPS and power cost changes now prevent that. (Again, assuming crit procs will be reduced.)
Regarding RSP stacking, subsystem warfare breaks this easily. How easily is the question: on Holodeck, EPS stacking makes non-maxxed power drains insignificant. In other words, unless you are using maxxed Tyken's Rift III (which has a limited firing arc and 2km AOE sphere) with full AUX, you are unlikely to break proper RSP stacking. (Again, I am discounting spamming power siphon x 30 since that is being investigated.) The EPS changes now make subsystem warfare more significant, and much more likely to break RSP stacking.
Beyond these balance issues, the only other balance issue I have seen in PVP is the 5 x 24 ship spawn issue with full carrier groups, which is being investigated by the DEVs.
===
In summary, these EPS and weapon power cost changes are definitely helping the situation immensely, but only if the high crit procs are fixed. It is easy to lose sight of how these changes are good unless you look beyond your individual spec and ship, and take a closer look at group dynamics.
Why is any of this relevant to PVE? Quite simply, it will increase the effect of group dynamics, or encourage grouping. This means less soloing (although soloing will still be possible, just more difficult), and more group-based roles.
When everyone needs something because otherwise the ship energy transfer seems to be slower than is acceptable it means that something is seriously wrong.
As people before mentioned.. You can nerf EPS, but you have to buff "stock" energy transfer. I never saw in Star Trek that ship could efficiently attack after cca 20 seconds after stopping from full impulse etc. Aswell as cruisers having already horrible problems maintaining power while using a lot of weapons.
So again.. if everyone is in need of one type of item and instead of using a lot of usefull things, they use this one which actualy makes them able to efficienty use weapons or start attack quickly after leaving full impulse, it means it should be buffed for all, so they will use more variety of items instead of this.
It seems that devs in general forgot to buff things and instead they nerf them to higher need for better of same kind.
On the other hand, if you buff this, people will mostly lose interest in this item and start using variety of same slot type, just some for which is energy transfer rate still low, will tend to use EPS afterwards.
Sorry for Wall-of-text.. but I just felt that its needed. Nerf is seriously wrong way, EPS actualy made pace of game better and now, people will wait again 10-20seconds after leaving full impulse to attack. Its gonna be weird.
Nerfing EPS, in addition to the changes to weapon power cost, mean that firing patterns become much more tactical. Spacebar-mashing and autofire no longer produce optimal DPS. Optimal firing patterns would now rely on:
1) Power level (+ buffs).
2) Recharge rate (inherently > 1 second, due to weapon power cost changes).
3) The enemy (positioning + buffs/debuffs).
In other words, players will be forced to think about what to fire, when to fire, and how much to fire, at any given time.
Subsystem warfare now becomes much more significant, as is the distinction in roles (e.g., deciding between AUX and weapon power) based on what abilities you wish to buff.
===
It seems that those opposed to these changes do not want to give up their solo play in favour of group dynamics. These changes help differentiate ships and loadouts, such that more specialised roles become more feasible and even needed in certain situations.
For example, a 'healer' does not need to be able to sustain DPS output similar to a purer DPSer. Currently on Holodeck, the DPS potential is similar. These changes should reduce that similarity to more reasonable or 'realistic' levels.
I've yet to see anyone post any testing results to back up the claims that the nerf will have a significant impact on DPS. If I get time, I'll try to do one myself, but real life demands are taking up a lot of my time right now.
I'm also not sure I believe that cruisers have lower DPS potential than science wessels, given that (at Tier 5) cruisers have a third more weapon slots.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I think that this is a highly debatable point.
Clearly the devs (the only people who actually understand the exact mechanics of the combat system, and will have tools and spreadsheets to test changes and see their exact effects) feel that the change was necessary. It is possible that they're mistaken, but I don't have the knowledge or data to make that claim.
Actually, because of the way that turn rates appear to be calculated (see the Starship Mechanics link in my sig), turn rate consoles are of questionable value on Tier 4 and 5 cruisers. They're definitely more useful on the Tier 5 ships, but looking at what else you can use an engineering console slot for, my personal opinion is that you'll gain more benefit from a different type of console.
Again, while you're entitled to your opinion, the devs clearly feel differently.
Couldn't agree more... I love reading your posts, its nice to see someone who cares and seems to attempt to understand the changes instead of complaining.
Cheers to you mate
And I run two +3 consoles for +6. Huge difference between +6 and +1.whatever. And if I run 4 EPS, that's +12. Sorry, your quickly written jab at EPS doesn't work. Just admit it and move on. :rolleyes: