Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
03-17-2010, 01:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjaboy View Post
...In fact they already said they're fixing the Anti Proton Turrets to work on Cruisers.
And on Science ships as well, I hope? Not that I'd personally use it, but I think the option should be there for those who want it.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
03-17-2010, 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyd
actually turret energy consumption is reduced, if those patchnotes are still in effect that is:

Cannons
There are no longer any firing restrictions on cannons. (Removed shared cooldown)
Weapon power costs now show in weapon tooltips.
Increased DHC cost from 5 to 12 power.
Increased DC cost from 5 to 8 power.
Increased SC cost from 5 to 6 power.
Reduced Turret cost from 5 to 4 power.
Gonna have to redo all my G19 macros
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
03-17-2010, 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyd
actually turret energy consumption is reduced, if those patchnotes are still in effect that is:

Cannons
There are no longer any firing restrictions on cannons. (Removed shared cooldown)
Weapon power costs now show in weapon tooltips.
Increased DHC cost from 5 to 12 power.
Increased DC cost from 5 to 8 power.
Increased SC cost from 5 to 6 power.
Reduced Turret cost from 5 to 4 power.
Log on to Tribble and check the current values.

Turrets went up to 8 in the latest update.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
03-17-2010, 03:56 PM
Others appear to have answered the likelihood of them ever having considered this restriction and even why the rumor may have been started. However, I would think that the reasoing you were using to argue against the change doesn't really help your case, and you might want to consider a different tack if the subject does ever come up again.

The whole point of having facing restrictions to weapons is to limit the direction in which they can be fired, and the point of having forward and rear facing weapon slots is to force choices based on those facing limitations. Therefore, since turrets are the only weapon that can hit the forward facing arc from the rear slots, the whole point of removing turrets from non-escorts would have been (if it had actually been being considered) to limit the amount of forward firing DPS you could get. You are, in essence, therefore, arguing to keep turrets to do what the only possible reason for the change would have been intended to prevent, putting you in direct conflict with the intent of the change.

In my opinion, the way to argue the point, should it actually ever be considered, is to point out that turrets are the lowest DPS weapon available specifically because they can hit a target from any facing and that doing so represents a small increase in DPS in the forward 110 degree arc at the cost of DPS over the remaining 250 degrees accessible by rear slotted beam arrays. This difference is particuarly important when the choice for forward firing weapons slots goes to dual beams and torpedoes over beam arrays, which further limit the amount of DPS done outside the forward firing arcs. Since Escorts are already the ships most able to keep their forward firing weapons on a target and have access to the highest DPS weapons (cannons) when other ships do not, other ships already do less DPS in the forward arc and take a bigger hit to DPS by being forced into non-foreward facing arcs more often and for longer periods. Thus, the balance is not that only Escorts can add rear facing DPS with turrets but that Escorts suffer the least when they do so.

I would think that this would be the better argument rather than saying effectively, "I know you want to limit my forward firing DPS, but I wanna do it."
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:16 PM.