Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 225
# 41
01-21-2013, 05:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by virusdancer View Post
As part of an overall combat system upgrade, they should have a fire priority. Though, this would apply to energy weapons as well as torps. But that's just me being lazy - but still, the random nature of it is kind of funny.

As a test, take four different torps - put them on auto. Arrange them in a certain order. Fire!

They'll fire in a certain order - not the order you arranged or any other logical order.

Take another toon, with the same four different torps - put them on auto. Arrange them in the same order. Fire! They'll fire in a different order - not the same as the other toon.

Go back to that first toon. They may or may not fire in the same order. Zone. The order may change...

You may even find that the order remains the same for a week or two, where you get used to it...and then...it changes.
if u make a macro fire button and slot them in the ui slots (like ctrl 2-3-4-5) you wont encounter this problem
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,040
# 42
01-21-2013, 07:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by emoejoe View Post
if u make a macro fire button and slot them in the ui slots (like ctrl 2-3-4-5) you wont encounter this problem
Yeah, but I'd also have to save it to file since it also randomly rearranges things. I go through that on one of my other toons, always having to make sure things are where I put them.

And like I said, I'm just being lazy.
Rear Admiral Geist, Klingon Science Officer
V.S.S. Oracle, D'Kyr-class Science Vessel
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 229
# 43
01-21-2013, 08:44 AM
Mem-Alpha has some interesting things to say about Torp Launchers in general :
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Torpedo_launcher

On several starships torpedo launchers also doubled as directed energy weapon emitters. The Galaxy-class forward launcher and the Intrepid-class aft launchers had phaser banks, the Klingon K't'inga-class and the Romulan D'deridex-class forward launchers had disruptors.

And according to the tech-manual :
The Galaxy-class starship launchers can fire up to 10 torpedoes simultaneously from a single launchtube.

According to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual, the 24th century photon and quantum torpedoes can launch without a large launcher assembly. Danube-class runabouts can be fitted with four-torpedo modules to the ships midsection that use a fire-and-forget guidance system.

The whole business on firing-arcs for the torpedoes is only to be found in the games, and even taking into account the almost-canon source mem-alpha makes of the tech manuals, there seems to be no credible reason to limit firing of torpedoes to a 90degree arc front/aft for normal/regular torpedoes.

We see torp-tracking all over the game by torps almost making a 90degree angle to hit something that just shot by your own ship.... so once its targeted, fire & forget, even if its almost behind u (but it would take longer to hit because of trajectory)

Therefore the fairly restrictive 90degree arc could for gameplay be reduced to only be in effect when firing Spreads or High-Yields, since that would require the bigger launcher variants.

Only 1 problem left, what to do with the Wide Angle quantum everybody bought the regent for ??

As for the damage, it is reasonable that a torp hitting a shield would not detonate on hull, but away from it, it is not reasonable that said explosion would still severly flow over the shield-damage into the ships (cue exploding consoles near camera ).
So a fairly simple calculation like 100% damage to shields, untill shields are down, when shields almost down, subtract shield strength from damage, 50% of leftover damage goes to hull as shockwave. (Torp-Dmg - Shield Strength)*50% damage to hull.

Didn't we all see ppl flying thru the air & consoles exploding when the ships were being pounded by torpedos, and Scotty/Geordi counting down the shield strength ??


Sidenote, the elderly Galaxy Class had way more than 4 front & aft weapons....
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Galaxy_class
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Phaser_array <== specifically notes the locations of said weapons.... 10 phasers & 2 torps
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 141
# 44
01-21-2013, 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jivedutch View Post

Only 1 problem left, what to do with the Wide Angle quantum everybody bought the regent for ??
Expand it to an even wider angle, since it's based on the torpedo turret that Sovereigns are supposed to have in canon.

Limiting the firing arcs a *little* makes sense from a canon perspective, since torpedoes are never shown firing int he opposite direction of their launchers. But they are shown with a 180 degree arc a *lot* and sometimes out to about 270. So the difference could be that the wide angle quantum gets a full 360 arc.
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,465
# 45
01-21-2013, 03:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jivedutch View Post
Mem-Alpha has some interesting things to say about Torp Launchers in general :
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Torpedo_launcher

On several starships torpedo launchers also doubled as directed energy weapon emitters. The Galaxy-class forward launcher and the Intrepid-class aft launchers had phaser banks, the Klingon K't'inga-class and the Romulan D'deridex-class forward launchers had disruptors.
A few things. First off, the sole example where a galaxy shoots laser beams out of it's torp launcher (Darmok) is a giant error. The vfx crew screwed the pooch big time there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jivedutch View Post
Sidenote, the elderly Galaxy Class had way more than 4 front & aft weapons....
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Galaxy_class
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Phaser_array <== specifically notes the locations of said weapons.... 10 phasers & 2 torps

The Akira carried fifteen torpedo launchers on top of respectable phaser batteries. Game balance trumps canon when it comes to ship weapon loadouts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jivedutch View Post
Didn't we all see ppl flying thru the air & consoles exploding when the ships were being pounded by torpedos, and Scotty/Geordi counting down the shield strength ??
Consoles exploded when somebody sneezed. The concept is one of energy transfer, specifically kinetic shock from the shields absorbing a hit transferring a reduced amount of energy to the shield systems or hull. Also, that mechanic already exists in-game. It's called bleedthrough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jivedutch View Post
As for the damage, it is reasonable that a torp hitting a shield would not detonate on hull, but away from it, it is not reasonable that said explosion would still severly flow over the shield-damage into the ships (cue exploding consoles near camera ).
So a fairly simple calculation like 100% damage to shields, untill shields are down, when shields almost down, subtract shield strength from damage, 50% of leftover damage goes to hull as shockwave. (Torp-Dmg - Shield Strength)*50% damage to hull.
NPCs already have this mechanic to a degree (NPC torps do a vastly larger amount of damage to shields than player torpedoes do) and we've seen how bad an idea it is. Do you really want player ships one-shotting shields with the first torpedo in an HYT3 salvo?

Last edited by stirling191; 01-21-2013 at 06:59 PM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 229
# 46
01-22-2013, 06:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
A few things. First off, the sole example where a galaxy shoots laser beams out of it's torp launcher (Darmok) is a giant error. The vfx crew screwed the pooch big time there.
Yet it would still be reasonable that EVERY starship be equiped with a basic firing photon launcher, integrated into the ship, same goes for some other basic things like tractor beams. Turning those weaksauce things more potent by using boffs (high yield targeting from an experience tac officer) ( trator repulsors or better holding from experience spock ) would be entirely plausible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
The Akira carried fifteen torpedo launchers on top of respectable phaser batteries. Game balance trumps canon when it comes to ship weapon loadouts.
And the Nemesis Shinzon Scimitar had 52 disruptors & 27 Photon launchers, we dont see it in game, but arent those ships supposed to be attacked by a group anyway ?
Cool & sensible are often mutually exclusive unfortunatly, gotta grant u that

Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
Consoles exploded when somebody sneezed. The concept is one of energy transfer, specifically kinetic shock from the shields absorbing a hit transferring a reduced amount of energy to the shield systems or hull. Also, that mechanic already exists in-game. It's called bleedthrough.
Bleedthrough is the shockwave damage of a massive explosion caused by the torps hitting shields , as long as the shields are there it remains plausible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
NPCs already have this mechanic to a degree (NPC torps do a vastly larger amount of damage to shields than player torpedoes do) and we've seen how bad an idea it is. Do you really want player ships one-shotting shields with the first torpedo in an HYT3 salvo?
If the shields were weak to begin with, a proper critting THY3 shot with enough damage, yes ... that would blow off the whole shield-facing, and then transfer alot of leftover explosive shockwave damage to the ship, yes ... entirely plausible.

What is more apropriate , why should every ship be capable of using every torpedo.
Why are the crititical modifiers even in effect on shields ???
Normally a critical hit in an rpg like enviroment is alike to bullet severing a muscle, rendering the arm/leg severely damaged, thus transfering the term to space combat it would mean a direct hit taking out a crucial ship-system, which are all over the ship, but not on the outside of a shield

Direct hit on the shield, giving off full base-damage to said shield = plausible
Critical hit on a shield, giving magic damage to internal ship systems on the other side of the shield , that seems like one even Adam & Jamie wouldn't put on their show. (ok, maybee Grant would).......

Last edited by jivedutch; 01-22-2013 at 06:16 AM.
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,465
# 47
01-22-2013, 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jivedutch View Post
If the shields were weak to begin with, a proper critting THY3 shot with enough damage, yes ... that would blow off the whole shield-facing, and then transfer alot of leftover explosive shockwave damage to the ship, yes ... entirely plausible.

What is more apropriate , why should every ship be capable of using every torpedo.
Why are the crititical modifiers even in effect on shields ???
Normally a critical hit in an rpg like enviroment is alike to bullet severing a muscle, rendering the arm/leg severely damaged, thus transfering the term to space combat it would mean a direct hit taking out a crucial ship-system, which are all over the ship, but not on the outside of a shield

Direct hit on the shield, giving off full base-damage to said shield = plausible
Critical hit on a shield, giving magic damage to internal ship systems on the other side of the shield , that seems like one even Adam & Jamie wouldn't put on their show. (ok, maybee Grant would).......

It's not a question of in-universe plausibility, but rather one of game balance. I don't think you quite understand how powerful player torpedo hits can be made in STO.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 229
# 48
01-22-2013, 09:13 AM
Thats why the main problem with torps is they dont do proper damage to shields, they do silly damage to shields.

1: Torpedoes should never ever Crit on shields ... EVER ... its a shield, it keeps the buffer between the CRITICAL systems ... it is not such by itself, it is a buffer.

2: Torpedoes should do normal explosive damage to said shields, the shields blow up the torp, so they blow up the entire torp for the entire dmg just like hitting hull would, not this cheesy 10% dmg to shields they do now.

3: Bleedthrough concussive damage of 10% , its a number, nothing more, they made up 10%, could have been 25 ... it all depends on how far the forcefield would be projected from the ship (thus makes more sense for big ships to have a bigger bufferzone then small ones) to how much that "should" be.

4: My Omega & Hyperflux torpedoes toasting jemmies in (pug) arena's say i got a fair idea on how to fly my Armitage with torps and be made a priority target of fairly quickly.

so yes, a shield can be made powerfull, a torp to the hull should be able to crit, a barely-existing shield should not make a torp fizzle to uselessness, and restricing the fire-arc for torps is just a plot-device.

there are some problems with how the game is currently balanced, and some of the fixes are fairly easy to do if they would take a serious look at them and not stick lockstep into keeping old bugs around for fear of making ppl change their playstyle.

Why wouldnt torps on a cruiser have a much wider shooting angle then on very small escorts that have barely room to put the systems in to start with.

Then again, my Peg has disruptor turret coming out of its back & belly that are bigger than the ship itself ... go figure......
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,465
# 49
01-22-2013, 09:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jivedutch View Post
Thats why the main problem with torps is they dont do proper damage to shields, they do silly damage to shields.

1: Torpedoes should never ever Crit on shields ... EVER ... its a shield, it keeps the buffer between the CRITICAL systems ... it is not such by itself, it is a buffer.
Good luck arguing for a complete reworking of the critical hit mechanic. If torpedoes can't Crit, why should cannons? Beams? Mines? Gravity Wells?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jivedutch View Post
2: Torpedoes should do normal explosive damage to said shields, the shields blow up the torp, so they blow up the entire torp for the entire dmg just like hitting hull would, not this cheesy 10% dmg to shields they do now.
And we're back to balance. You really want players being able to do 10-20k shield damage with a buffed auto-attack from one weapon?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jivedutch View Post
3: Bleedthrough concussive damage of 10% , its a number, nothing more, they made up 10%, could have been 25 ... it all depends on how far the forcefield would be projected from the ship (thus makes more sense for big ships to have a bigger bufferzone then small ones) to how much that "should" be.
Seriously, just stop. Canon gets trumped by the need for game balance on multiple occasions. This is one of them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jivedutch View Post
4: My Omega & Hyperflux torpedoes toasting jemmies in (pug) arena's say i got a fair idea on how to fly my Armitage with torps and be made a priority target of fairly quickly.
If a Bug get's killed by a rommie hyper-torp, it's being flown by an idiot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jivedutch View Post
Why wouldnt torps on a cruiser have a much wider shooting angle then on very small escorts that have barely room to put the systems in to start with.

Then again, my Peg has disruptor turret coming out of its back & belly that are bigger than the ship itself ... go figure......

For the same reason the Akira doesn't have fifteen torpedo launchers and 40+ fighters at it's disposal: (all together now) balance trumps canon.
Lieutenant
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 84
# 50
01-22-2013, 11:07 AM
Tempting though a slight buff to torps would be I have to say no because we all know it would travel across to npc ships and their torpedoes are bad enough already (all the shields and >90% of hull in one shot, I'm fairly sure I once saw a 40k (70K) hit that was neither heavy nor critting and it hit shields first)

Any torpedo buff would have to decouple from NPC torpedoes or include a simultaneous nerf to NPC torpedoes (and we all know that wouldn't happen).

So in short no
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 01:02 AM.