Quote by SaintPlazma

Enjolrals here a phased antichronoton beem may collapse the rift. It could also fracture the space time continuum... your call

Welcome back Parker... what did you bring us?

Cookies!!!!!!!!

Quote by NicholasJohn16

Quote by Zander_Hawk

I suggest that you include a statement of definitions as section 1 of your CoC to define some of the words that you are using in order to provide an established definition. You greatly reduce the potentional of personal interpretation or ambiguity; example people may have their own definition of the words "drugs" or "sexual harassment" -both words are also broad subjects. Meriam Webster Online Dictionary is a great site to help you form the basis of a definition.

This isn't a legal document and doesn't need to be that complex. If people aren't sure what drugs or sexual harassment mean, they can look them up on Meriam Webster's Online Dictionary. :P

Definitions are good way to establish a common understanding between people. Statement of definitions are used in all sorts of types of documents, legal, non-legal, etc. The Code of Conduct may not be a legally binding document but it creates rules for people to follow and a breach of those rules result in consequences. So, if a person is going to be subject to consequences as a result of not following the rules, it's important for them to know how you are using certain words when setting out those rules.

The definitions can be complex or very simple. It's just a suggestion to minimize ambiguity, you've gone this long without one so I'm sure you'll be fine but I figured that since you are making adjustments now, you add it to your CoC.

Quote by Teknomancer

Part of the ambiguity re the term "drugs" can probably be attributed to the varying legality of marijuana from state to state, too. Maybe go with "substance abuse" instead? That might make the issue clearer without the need to specify any particular substance.

That could be a good idea. What does everyone else think?

Quote by Zander_Hawk

I suggest that you include a statement of definitions as section 1 of your CoC to define some of the words that you are using in order to provide an established definition. You greatly reduce the potentional of personal interpretation or ambiguity; example people may have their own definition of the words "drugs" or "sexual harassment" -both words are also broad subjects. Meriam Webster Online Dictionary is a great site to help you form the basis of a definition.

This isn't a legal document and doesn't need to be that complex. If people aren't sure what drugs or sexual harassment mean, they can look them up on Meriam Webster's Online Dictionary. :P

Quote by Teknomancer

Part of the ambiguity re the term "drugs" can probably be attributed to the varying legality of marijuana from state to state, too. Maybe go with "substance abuse" instead? That might make the issue clearer without the need to specify any particular substance.

Yes, a statement of definitions would hash out this issue by telling the reader how a word is being used.

Example
"Section 1 Definitions
The following are definitions for words used for this Code of Conduct.
1. "Drugs" means something and often an illegal or legal substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change inconsciousness."

Part of the ambiguity re the term "drugs" can probably be attributed to the varying legality of marijuana from state to state, too. Maybe go with "substance abuse" instead? That might make the issue clearer without the need to specify any particular substance.

I suggest that you include a statement of definitions as section 1 of your CoC to define some of the words that you are using in order to provide an established definition. You greatly reduce the potentional of personal interpretation or ambiguity; example people may have their own definition of the words "drugs" or "sexual harassment" -both words are also broad subjects. Meriam Webster Online Dictionary is a great site to help you form the basis of a definition.

Open hailing frequencies...

Quote by revvy

I've never been much of a PvP type either (frankly, I would rather work WITH other people rather than AGAINST them.)

Amen to that.

Quote by revvy

I've tried to use Anti-proton weapons, but I just don't like them. Their effects just weren't noticeable when I was using them (admittedly that was a LONG time ago). It just wasn't as rewarding as multiple different weapons in my opinion.

I have mixed feelings on this. Having tried multiple different energy types I do have to say that AP is definitely the one with the most DPS output so I use it on my main's primary boat. I just despise that honking noise they make. :S

• On my ENG Romulan, I'll go all-in for the New Romulus reputation gear on his warbird, and of course all of that is pure plasma. I've tried out a few of them on other ships just to see what they're like, and they aren't bad at all.
• I love the (chronometric) polaron weapons on my SCI main's fighter, which is geared out with the polaron-oriented Jem'Hadar space set, and for a small craft she's a nasty little beast when it comes to damage.
• I also bought a Tholian Meshweaver escort for my SCI main just for funsies, and I'm doing a Nukara reputation build on it just to stick with the Tholian theme, and honestly I have no complaints about the tetryon output or procs. Once the enemy's shields are (almost immediately) down, a dual quantum-torp spread dishes out plenty of damage.

Honestly if like me you're not really a min-max type rolling in EC to burn on the expensive weapons, do whatever. Ultimately it all comes down to knowing your boat, your play style, piloting and space combat skill more than any particular energy format anyway. You can have best-in-slot all you like but if your skill isn't up to par for the battle, none of that's gonna help.

I will say that having done the "multiple formats on one boat" thing, that isn't something I'd do again just because the specialized tactical consoles pump output a lot more than the generic ones. I pick one theme per boat and stick with it. I say play whatever you have the most fun with -- it is a game after all.

I suppose you're right. I just prefer more than just DPS. I rather enjoy the various different procs. It's very satisfying to see your enemy's shields randomly drop, etc.

I enjoy the variety as well. I'm not a huge DPS'er. I've never been much of a PvP type either (frankly, I would rather work WITH other people rather than AGAINST them.) Since most of my ships are either science or engineering vessels (I NEVER use tactical ships or characters), the random effects are pretty useful from time to time.

I've tried to use Anti-proton weapons, but I just don't like them. Their effects just weren't noticeable when I was using them (admittedly that was a LONG time ago). It just wasn't as rewarding as multiple different weapons in my opinion.

I agree that if you are going to nothing but DPS, then sure, your way is the best. It's just not as enjoyable for me, personally. :)

Quote by Gravity

Revvy, i am really really sorry but i am going to have to disagree with you there.

DMG is a solid modifier for sure as is ACC. However there are so many other good modifiers out there, especially around critical hit change/damage which generally are the preferred mods because they consistently give the best damage boost (as measured by DPS meters).

As for your second point about weapon types, this is actually the exact opposite of what an optimised build would look like normally. Currently the best way to boost weapon damage is by using tactical consoles. While it is possible to get non specific consoles like beam or cannon consoles that work for all weapon types the damage boost they give is alot lower than for specific weapon types. The standard way to build a ship these days is you pick a weapon type (disruptor and antiproton are popular as they are consistently the best performers damage wise because of their procs). You then buy tactical consoles for that weapon type to get the most damage out of them.

Also i would suggest that for weapon types like disruptor where the proc stacks you find having multiple of the same weapon type allows the proc to be up almost all the time and as a sci captain who specialises in shredding resistance, i can tell you its very effective.

Have to agree here, the ultimate golden goose right now is Coalition Disruptor [critd]x3 [pen] because it has a higher Disruptor proc than normal disruptors. How this will shake out in 11.5 with the new skill tree is something we'll have to see.

Bienvenido(s) a la comunidad!

Still trying to get into GW2, but, I hope to see you when I get more into it (and past the starting area).

Welcome back, and nice entrance! :silly:

Welcome to Stonewall!

Quote by revvy

I have seen every episode of every ST series at least 3 times - including the movies. I love Trek. My favorite ST series is Voyager and my favorite ST movie is First Contact. I particularly like Borg story lines.

Error, Voyager fan detected. Lower your shields, and prepare to come around to like DS9 the most, resistance is futile. Error, sarcasm subroutine activated without authorisation, purging history. Glad to see another Voyager fan in the community! :)

Just....why...

Personally, I always liked the Khyzon best because of the way it looks and because it's the science version and I generally prefer science ships to all others.

Generally speaking, there's no one "best" ship though. Other than for a few slight variances in DPS, any ship has the capability to do what you want. Unless you're trying to min/max your ship to the moon and back, any of the three should perform well if you equip them properly.

It's a shame more people don't fly other ships that aren't the newest/most popular ones of the day, the Andorian ships went the way of Dyson ships: to dry dock *plays game over music*

Quote by Gravity

None tactical varient, i recall was the preferred option.

Gravity is right, I think I remember always having seen the Kumari flying around.

Revvy, i am really really sorry but i am going to have to disagree with you there.

DMG is a solid modifier for sure as is ACC. However there are so many other good modifiers out there, especially around critical hit change/damage which generally are the preferred mods because they consistently give the best damage boost (as measured by DPS meters).

As for your second point about weapon types, this is actually the exact opposite of what an optimised build would look like normally. Currently the best way to boost weapon damage is by using tactical consoles. While it is possible to get non specific consoles like beam or cannon consoles that work for all weapon types the damage boost they give is alot lower than for specific weapon types. The standard way to build a ship these days is you pick a weapon type (disruptor and antiproton are popular as they are consistently the best performers damage wise because of their procs). You then buy tactical consoles for that weapon type to get the most damage out of them.

Also i would suggest that for weapon types like disruptor where the proc stacks you find having multiple of the same weapon type allows the proc to be up almost all the time and as a sci captain who specialises in shredding resistance, i can tell you its very effective.

I personally go for DMG modifiers over anything else on whatever weapon I can find. Second choice is ACC. I feel it's better to hit my target for reliable damage every time, than to rely on random chance.

As for Proc types, it happens rarely, so I tend to use multiple different types on the same ship. That way, I have various different effects. It's more or less random anyway. I do tend to stay away from plasma, simply because the effect is more or less useless. I also don't use disruptors by choice. The proc is beyond useless. I currently have a disruptor array on my carrier right now, only because it's a super rare unique with useful effects other than just lowering DR.

Excellent revision, Nick. To the point and easy to understand. Short enough to keep wandering minds from not reading everything and helps to minimize loop hole possibilities while still implementing the roles and responsibilities of the membership.

Welcome back, Shawn!