test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Upcoming space combat tweaks headed for Tribble

11112131416

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    sorry bout that I meant +15 weapons, (or +20 to weapons... that would be nice) with +5 to engines (if not +20 to weapons)

    Sci should have +15 aux, and +5 to either engines or weapons and so forth.

    And EDIT before I go off to hell... I mean work.
    Please tell me the Debuff hull resist stacking exploit is going to be fixed. I refuse to pvp at this point since it's proliferated (thanks soley to one thread) so quickly. Thanks TSI and Lore (lore's fault for posting it on the forum You should know better!) you took something that I knew about which breaks the game and was hoping wouldn't proliferate and turned it common place.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Mavairo wrote:
    sorry bout that I meant +15 weapons, (or +20 to weapons... that would be nice) with +5 to engines (if not +20 to weapons)
    Sci should have +15 aux, and +5 to either engines or weapons and so forth.
    MY bad, I missunderstood your idea then.
    And EDIT before I go off to hell... I mean work.

    Say Hi to Fek'lhr for me, remind him who stole the Shard of Kahless from him.:)
    Please tell me the Debuff hull resist stacking exploit is going to be fixed.
    Most likely it will.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    adwynyth wrote: »
    This is excellent info Snix, thanks! >Bookmarks for future reference.<

    Snix, is there some place in game we can see our SDR as we can our Hull Resistance? Shield Regenerations rates as well? And if not (which I don't think there is), with the updates, will you please add a dynamic display of our shield regeneration and damage resistance levels to the UI? Details available here:
    Thanks!
    Agreed in full. I'd like to be able to see this very important, currently hidden stat.
    Thanks for the vote of approval Adwynyth. I agree, these are quite important. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    im sorry but could someone tell me how the added 15% bonus for escorts brings it up to cruiser standards? as this balance patch is supposed to bring other ships up to cruiser standard, which 'everyone' felt the other ships were sub standard to when compared to said cruisers?

    reason I ask is that currently the cap for defense is 84%.... which is very achievable by any escort in the game as it is right now with the aegis set. The only advantage i can see in this change and a very small advantage it is, is you would be required to run less engine power to engines and therefore have an additional 5 or 10 to spend elsewhere which is negligible in the grand scheme of things.

    So the 15% bonus is neither here nor there since we fly at cap already and are getting SQUISHED still very easily.

    Maybe you need to give escorts an innate built in resistance to their shields or hull........since the defiant first introduced ablative armor, it would be only fair if we the escorts had access to that special armor which increases our armor resistance. or maybe give us 'armor' along with hull/shields... or decrease the effectiveness of focused fire, i.e when more than 2 ships are firing on the same target the damage is diminishing returns and you would better be spent having ships have multiple targets.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Cruis.In wrote: »
    since the defiant first introduced ablative armor

    STO is not canon so your expectations are misguided.

    STO is anti-canon when you play Fed, want canon? play as a Klingon.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    and the defense bonus helps how since most people have like 75 percent accuracy? so they miss what 10 % of the time? great.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    So on Tribble, the best Defense bonus I get on my Escort is 83.0% when I am a bit under 3/4 speed.

    Build:

    73 Engines setting (effective)
    Aegis Hyper Impulse Engines (+16 speed)
    No passive trait related to Defense

    Speed___Tribble Def__Live Def
    0 _______-15%______5%
    1.93_____26.2%_____25.2%____(Barely moving)
    8.35_____46.7%_____40.9%____(1/4 speed)
    16.68____68.4%_____61.7%____(1/2 speed)
    23.99____83.0%_____79.6%____(peak Tribble Defense speed)
    25.02____82.5%_____82.6%____(3/4 speed)
    33.37____80.0%_____85.0%____(full speed)


    I'm not really sure how I feel about these changes. There is a bit of improvement of defense in the mid range, but a decrease at the top end. I spend most of my time at full throttle now, but will naturally shift to about 3/4 if this goes live.

    I wonder how this will impact cruisers and other ships that do not go very quickly. The difference in speed between full speed and 3/4 for me is quite substantial (10 impulse from full speed to optimal). The same difference between full and 3/4 for a cruiser is probably a lot more minor. They can achieve the optimal defense bonus for their ship while not impacting their overall speed very much.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Cruis.In wrote: »
    im sorry but could someone tell me how the added 15% bonus for escorts brings it up to cruiser standards? as this balance patch is supposed to bring other ships up to cruiser standard, which 'everyone' felt the other ships were sub standard to when compared to said cruisers?

    reason I ask is that currently the cap for defense is 84%.... which is very achievable by any escort in the game as it is right now with the aegis set. The only advantage i can see in this change and a very small advantage it is, is you would be required to run less engine power to engines and therefore have an additional 5 or 10 to spend elsewhere which is negligible in the grand scheme of things.

    So the 15% bonus is neither here nor there since we fly at cap already and are getting SQUISHED still very easily.

    Maybe you need to give escorts an innate built in resistance to their shields or hull........since the defiant first introduced ablative armor, it would be only fair if we the escorts had access to that special armor which increases our armor resistance. or maybe give us 'armor' along with hull/shields... or decrease the effectiveness of focused fire, i.e when more than 2 ships are firing on the same target the damage is diminishing returns and you would better be spent having ships have multiple targets.

    Why do all escorts think they need to be as durable as a cruiser? You have a role it's called dps NOT tanking. Seriously you guys need to be running and gunning, not taking hits like a beast. The advantage you gain is that you can lower your engine power and have the same defense. You can go slower, which is good for cannons with their tiny fire arcs. When you go slower, you get more approach time to fire on your opponent before you must circle back and make another run or cut your speed & defense to stay on somebody. You now get more power for shields or weapons since you don't have to go as fast as others to reach the defense cap.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Mavairo wrote:
    sorry bout that I meant +15 weapons, (or +20 to weapons... that would be nice) with +5 to engines (if not +20 to weapons)

    Sci should have +15 aux, and +5 to either engines or weapons and so forth.

    And EDIT before I go off to hell... I mean work.
    Please tell me the Debuff hull resist stacking exploit is going to be fixed. I refuse to pvp at this point since it's proliferated (thanks soley to one thread) so quickly. Thanks TSI and Lore (lore's fault for posting it on the forum You should know better!) you took something that I knew about which breaks the game and was hoping wouldn't proliferate and turned it common place.

    Why is this LORE's fault? They caught TSI showing off with an exploit, and reported their cheating butts. You should be thanking them for making it known so it gets changed to better balance the game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    KamikazKid wrote:
    Why is this LORE's fault? They caught TSI showing off with an exploit, and reported their cheating butts. You should be thanking them for making it known so it gets changed to better balance the game.

    What exactly is "TSI"?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Mavairo wrote:
    sorry bout that I meant +15 weapons, (or +20 to weapons... that would be nice) with +5 to engines (if not +20 to weapons)

    Sci should have +15 aux, and +5 to either engines or weapons and so forth.

    if anything, Escorts and sci ships should have their power bonus REDUCED to a total of plus ten. that way the expanded warp core of cruisers is more obvious. but if you were to bring the escorts and sci vessels up to a +20 total, then why would anyone play a cruiser? their "big advantage" with their warp core is gone. and they sure and heck not gonna boost cruisers to a +25 (or even worse... a +30)

    to counter act the movement buff to the escorts, they should have +5 go from their weapons to their engines.

    SO you have

    ESC +10 weaps, +5 ENGS
    SCI +15 aux
    CRZ +10 sheilds, +5 aux, +5 weapons

    that would balance the game more with these proposed changes than giving escorts and sciences vessels and aditional +5
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    AZSteel wrote:
    What exactly is "TSI"?

    They are a powerful PVP fleet
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    For an escort running 25 engines it should be good, the aegis set seems to work that way with them too. But escort's are supposed to get their defense from speed so this is counterintuitive to me.

    By the way, snix is following a different thread now so this is us talking to each other. The new thread is at:
    http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=198042

    The current changes on Tribble don't really address all the issues as I see them. Some escorts see an actual decrease in defense, some with aegis see an increase. Sensor analysis is a small buff to offense but is not the problem for pvp; the Intrepid's ablative armor and sci ship's shield tanking seems to be the issue; after all right now they don't have sensor analysis on Holodeck and people already thought the Intrepid was OP.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    KamikazKid wrote:
    Why is this LORE's fault? They caught TSI showing off with an exploit, and reported their cheating butts. You should be thanking them for making it known so it gets changed to better balance the game.
    I believe he was refering to the fact that LORE posted it for ALL to see instead of presenting all the evidence to the Devs. Now, everyone who didn't know about it does. As a result, you will see a resultant increase it's use. Moreover, it will make a mediocre player think they are better than they really are and, when the change takes place, we'll hear more crying about it.
    AZSteel wrote:
    What exactly is "TSI"?

    TSI = The Spanish Inquisition - a notable and formidable opponent. When you see them on the other side ... fight the good fight, but prepare yourself for 15/0.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    TSI = The Spanish Inquisition - a notable and formidable opponent. When you see them on the other side ... fight the good fight, but prepare yourself for 15/0.

    LOL!

    They have to catch me first! I've gotten good at punching and running in PvP!

    Emphasis on the running part....

    For me, I have my own criteria for a "win" in PvP.

    To be "killed" no more than once per PvP session.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Interesting stuff I look forward in testing it out. Keep up the good work.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    After playing a few matches, I'd suggested the following:
    • Tric/SubN/PSW shouldn't chain stun so much.
      • Keep the 10s stun time on Tric.
      • However, I'd recommend upping affected player's resistance from 15s to 20-25s; 5s to react when other stuns can fill that void mean teams can chain stun. Not fun.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Snix,

    I know has been brought up many times before, but it it would be possible to get Cannon: Scatter Volley shifted to an ensign slot as well?

    The rationale for C:SV at ensign is that Beam: Fire at Will is there already, and the ensign slots are sorely in need of a cannon ability especially now that we have a light escort in tier 0/1. C:SV would be along the same vein as FAW, so it seems (at least to me) a good fit.

    :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    snix wrote: »
    The shield damage resistance values are multiplicative. They are scalers that multiply against the incoming damage.

    For example. An ability that grants a 25% shield damage resistance is actually multiplying the damage by .75. On its own, this will result in a 25% damage reduction.

    When more than one shield damage resistance ability is being applied, the scalers are multiplied. Two abilities that grant a listed 25% shield damage resistance would actually look like this:

    .75 * .75 = .5625 * incoming damage (or an approx. 44% damage resistance).

    It is not ideal and unfortunately different from the hull damage resistance calculation. It has everything to do with how hull and shields are handled in our system.

    -snix

    snix, please apply the gravity well fix to tyken's rift - it makes no sense that when the target of the Rift dies, the Rift itself dies, the same logic has been applied to gravity well, so can you do the same for Rift?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Intrepidox wrote: »
    snix, please apply the gravity well fix to tyken's rift - it makes no sense that when the target of the Rift dies, the Rift itself dies, the same logic has been applied to gravity well, so can you do the same for Rift?

    Zero said it's incoming - it just wasn't in the build we tested earlier.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Intrepidox wrote: »
    snix, please apply the gravity well fix to tyken's rift - it makes no sense that when the target of the Rift dies, the Rift itself dies, the same logic has been applied to gravity well, so can you do the same for Rift?

    On a related note, it would be real nice if the tac teams did not vanish after a few seconds of none combat or if the PC goes down. They should until they are killed or the PC sends them away.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    .Spartan wrote: »
    On a related note, it would be real nice if the tac teams did not vanish after a few seconds of none combat or if the PC goes down. They should until they are killed or the PC sends them away.

    I agree wholeheartedly
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    What about +15 to aux and +5 to shields for Science Vessels?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    if anything, Escorts and sci ships should have their power bonus REDUCED to a total of plus ten. that way the expanded warp core of cruisers is more obvious. but if you were to bring the escorts and sci vessels up to a +20 total, then why would anyone play a cruiser? their "big advantage" with their warp core is gone. and they sure and heck not gonna boost cruisers to a +25 (or even worse... a +30)

    to counter act the movement buff to the escorts, they should have +5 go from their weapons to their engines.

    SO you have

    ESC +10 weaps, +5 ENGS
    SCI +15 aux
    CRZ +10 sheilds, +5 aux, +5 weapons

    that would balance the game more with these proposed changes than giving escorts and sciences vessels and aditional +5

    AFAIK, Cruisers don't necessarily have more warp power than escorts (in universe), ESPECIALLY when many of the components in such vessels are commonly shared. (The Defiant class actually has its thrusters ripped from the galaxy class, for instance).

    I'd like to see Cryptic just get rid of the power generation differences, and give every class the same, divided differently. There was no in-universe reason that cruisers had more energy (they didn't), and as it stands, the game is already becoming Cruisers Online.

    The various nerfs to escorts have me worried as well. Escorts are already rare, and reduced to hit and run solo ships most of the time.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Pliskin wrote: »
    The various nerfs to escorts have me worried as well. Escorts are already rare, and reduced to hit and run solo ships most of the time.

    I guess we can start calling ourselves "The Few, The Proud, the exploded.... the Escorts"

    On that note, does anyone else think escorts need some kind of innate always-on ability to heavily discourage focus firing on them?

    Sci has their various crowd control abilities and Cruisers tank like mess, so why can't we have some way to cope with everyone's unsolicited high voltage attentions?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Cruisers are only bigger because they carry many more crew and their families, same with sci ships. Escorts on the other hand are purpose built war machines with no other purpose like exploring and have only crew aboard.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Thlaylie wrote: »
    Cruisers are only bigger because they carry many more crew and their families, same with sci ships. Escorts on the other hand are purpose built war machines with no other purpose like exploring and have only crew aboard.

    Now now, me and my crew explore...

    ...Just usually places that require alot of shooting and very little shaking of the hands.

    If we see anything truly deep and thought provoking we can always send for an intrepid. :p
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    LOL Awesome!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Ok devs, what have the KDF Carrier captains done to deserve this massive nerfing? Is this because the feds have been complaining about getting beaten in pvp? All this is going to do is make a lot pf players retire their carriers and go back to flying cruisers (Like I was)

    Reducing the max number of fighters in the air from 24 to 18 on a Vo'Quv?
    That might sounds like a 25% drop in fighter strength but it's actually more like half for the following reasons;
    The fighters (at least on my setup) have a hull of just over 3700. During the battle, a few are usually destroyed. After an enemy is destroyed, they don't turn and immediately return home or go to their next target. Some of them are always caught in the enemy warp core blowing (Because they swarm the target at close range), usually half of them. If the enemy is destroyed close to the carrier, they stay in the area and are all destroyed. You make it sound like we can keep 24 in the air but that's the impossible dream. After an encounter I'm lucky if half the fighters I launched survived at all. And then the rest disappear a few seconds after my red alert status goes away so you're left at square one for the next battle.
    It's a constant task to keep 12 to 16 in the air as it is, and you want to make it more difficult?

    All of this applies to pvp and pve as well. In addition, the pvp feds see a carrier and they do three things-
    1. They launch a spread of torpedoes that outright destroys what you've launched.
    2. When you launch your next wave, a fed captain uses gravity well on you which sucks you and all your pets (usually fighters) together, destroying them all AND causing the carrier significant damage. This isn't crowd control, it's insta-death for all the pets within range of the well, due to the cascading explosions.
    3. All the feds usually beeline straight for the carrier and destroy it in record time because the carrier is weak on engineering abilities.

    I don't use BoP's because they suck, period. They do an impressive strafing run then they swing way out before coming in for another pass. They spend at least half their time looping around instead of attacking. That's why they suck and that's why the only play they typically get is in pvp specifically to avoid being destroyed by the methods I just mentioned.

    If you want to shut down pvp, you've gone a long way with these changes. Klingons aren't going to play carriers in pvp much because of this, and I don't know of many that are going to Qo'nos or Genalda to switch to a cruiser just for pvp reasons. When the feds start whining that they're waiting for hours for enough klingons to show up, remember- You heard it here first.


    The tactical team buff changes? Here's an idea- REVERSE-GIMP Reverse Shield Polarity. I understand that having a 15 second duration on it back in the day made it too much of a good thing. But making it a 6 second duration weakened it too much! Put the automated-shield distribution power on RSP and leave it at the 6 second duration! It's an engineering feature anyway, why are you attaching it to Tactical Team?

    Shield Strength Reduction- ok where is this coming from? Perhaps none of you fly a carrier as a professional. In case you haven't noticed, the carrier is WEAK on Engineering BO SLOTS! It's not like we're a cruiser with a ton of BO slots to devote to shield heals and hull regens. Once something sets its mind to destroying us, we don't last long because we can't do much to save our ships and carrier maneuverability sucks, so it's difficult to turn and get another shield facing towards the opponent! Our pets don't dynamically switch targets anymore according to the AI you've implemented. Once they're on a target they stay there until either they or the target is down.

    Auxiliary Power Levels, Launch Bay times, Shield Resists (Now tied to Shield Power Setting)-
    You want a carrier captain to lock up 40% of his power to maintain 100 aux power just so he can launch pets at the time he's been accustomed to for a year now? And your only compensation is an increase of 5 to the auxiliary system? What about if his auxiliary system goes offline? Does that mean the pets we have in the air will disappear?
    What about your shield power changes? Not only have you reduced the resists that shield heals give (and a carrier only has 2 or 3 Eng BO slots to begin with), but now you expect a carrier captain to have another big chunk of his power allocation stuck in his shield grid so they'll actually stay up for a decent time?
    After all that is done, what's left for his weapons? Even with gear bonuses and well-spent skill points, he'll be lucky to have his weapon power top out at 75. And then when he starts firing, his damage output is going to be less than that of his fighters (Not that he'll have many in the air, thanks to the changes you've proposed).

    Your passive sensor analysis ability sounds like a nice addition but I don't see where it's going to begin to offset the big negatives you're introducing.
    The way I see it, you're basically reducing our practical fighter strength by half by reducing the amount we can launch at a time, taking into account how fragile they are in the first place.
    You're reducing the carrier's damage output by at least half, if not more, because of the massive power requirements that auxiliary and shields will now demand just to maintain what we have now.

    And all you're adding to offset this is a stacking damage debuff? How fast is it going to stack? How long will it last? You seem to be pretty specific on what you're taking away, but a little thin on the details of what you're giving.

    Leave the carriers alone! They're doing fine as they are right now, even with the inherent weaknesses that we've learned to live with. As it is, I barely pvp any more because I'm always the first death of a match. The npc's I fight are not dying in 5 seconds when I engage them. If these changes go into effect, expect to see a lot of carriers retired because you've made them weaker than they were when the game first came out. Remember those days? You could only keep 8 fighters in the air, so most of the damage had to be done by the carrier itself? The battles were long and drawn out and a pain in the rear. That's why I retired my carrier in the first place.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    Jekyll47 wrote: »
    Ok devs, what have the KDF Carrier captains done to deserve this massive nerfing?
    They breathe?

    Seriuosly the pet spam was a bit excessive.


    All of this applies to pvp and pve as well. In addition, the pvp feds see a carrier and they do three things-
    1. They launch a spread of torpedoes that outright destroys what you've launched.
    2. When you launch your next wave, a fed captain uses gravity well on you which sucks you and all your pets (usually fighters) together, destroying them all AND causing the carrier significant damage. This isn't crowd control, it's insta-death for all the pets within range of the well, due to the cascading explosions.
    3. All the feds usually beeline straight for the carrier and destroy it in record time because the carrier is weak on engineering abilities.
    Evidently not all understood how to do this. If feddy can't learn, feddy will cry nerf.


    Leave the carriers alone! .

    Too late we have succumbed to the ultimate weapon.

    Grab another vessel and vent your anger upon them in PvP!
    Give no quarter and expect none!
    Fight them in the skies, on the ground and where ever they deem to place themselves! Show them the price of meddling in Klingon afairs!!
Sign In or Register to comment.