Star Trek Online Just in case there was any doubt about what was wrong with beam arrays.
 Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 514
# 101
01-24-2013, 04:33 PM
That doesn't follow at all. Efficiency matters.

Beam array technology may be essentially less efficient than a cannon.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,060
# 102
01-24-2013, 04:36 PM
Quote:
 Originally Posted by maicake716 thats complete bs. i dont recall seeing anywhere that a ship is "supposed" to equip energy and torps anywhere.
I think they set the game up for phaser-kills-shield-torps-kills-hull, but cannon-kills-all sort of made it meaningless.
_________________
Nebula coffee is the best coffee
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 168
# 103
01-24-2013, 04:38 PM
Quote:
 Originally Posted by capnmanx You can only get as much energy out of a thing as you put into it; if a beam requires more power, then it should be doing more damage.
I suppose that depends on how we are defining energy. You are correct in that regard when using the term to define Potential and Kinetic Energy. But that need not apply to other forms of energy such as Electricity, Plasma, Nuclear Energy, etc... I mean seriously, have you seen the amount of concussive force that you get just by smashing a tiny little atom apart?
______________________________
Captain
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 562
# 104
01-24-2013, 05:08 PM
Quote:
 Originally Posted by eulifdavis Doing a straight math comparison, in simple language for you (using Mk XII): DHC: 45 degree arc, 384 base damage, 256 base DPS Beam array: 250 degree arc, 220 base damage, 176 base DPS Beam arrays get almost 600% the firing arc of DHCs, but only take a 43% decrease in base damage. Or, flipped another way, DHCs do approximately 170% as much damage as beam arrays, but take a 82% decrease in their firing arc. The DPS calculations have very similar numbers: DHCs do only 50% more base DPS. According to the math above, beams should do much less damage than they currently do, or cannons should do a whole lot more. It balances out, though, because a cruiser can consistently keep broadsiding targets with their beams, while an escort has to face their target and keep one single shield facing subject to almost all the incoming fire. Cruisers can rotate from one side to the other, turn to fire torpedos, etc. Now you try telling me, again, what's wrong with beams?
Did you add power drain into that equation? Not to mention that those who use DHC tend to be able to keep their targets in that 45 degree arc.

Last edited by xigbarg; 01-24-2013 at 05:15 PM.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,845
# 105
01-24-2013, 05:10 PM
Quote:
 Originally Posted by momaw Setup: 6 disruptor beam arrays 1 romulan experimental beam array 1 borg cutting beam Target: 9.5km distant With no attempts to mitigate power drain, average damage with the disruptors was 327. With plasmonic leech (+2.2 power per hit, max +11) and chained Emergency Power To Weapons 1 (+22 power), average damage with the disruptors was 348. With plasmonic leech, chained EPTW1, and 4 plasma manifolds (+14 power), average damage with the disruptors was 387. That should be a total of +47 to weapon power. However, With nadion inversion, average damage with the disruptors was 487. Just to recap, using leech and EPTW chain gained me 6% actual damage, while using every slot available for power consoles got me 18%. Turning off power drain got me 48% more damage. Problem with beam arrays: power drain is insane and making every sensible effort to mitigate it barely helps.
Yes. This is why I say change the Beam Arrays drain value to be spread over the four second firing cycle to beam total of its drain so they behave similiar to the DHCs efficiencey .
DHCs would still be the king of damage but BAs would not drain them selves onto the basement unless one just wails on the fire key for long periods without pausing.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,265
# 106
01-24-2013, 05:12 PM
Quote:
 Originally Posted by helixsunbringer I suppose that depends on how we are defining energy. You are correct in that regard when using the term to define Potential and Kinetic Energy. But that need not apply to other forms of energy such as Electricity, Plasma, Nuclear Energy, etc... I mean seriously, have you seen the amount of concussive force that you get just by smashing a tiny little atom apart?

Well, strictly speaking, a particle beam's energy is kinetic.

BTW, you'd pronounce it 'Cap'n Manks'
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,845
# 107
01-24-2013, 05:13 PM
Quote:
 Originally Posted by xigbarg Did you add power drain into that equation? Not to mention that thouse who use DHC tend to be able to keep their targets in that 45 degree arc.
Keep in mind that DHCs are easy to keep on slow targets but are very hard to keep on fast movers.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 168
# 108
01-24-2013, 05:48 PM
Quote:
 Originally Posted by capnmanx Well, strictly speaking, a particle beam's energy is kinetic.
um.... actually it breaks down like this:

Phasers --- are actually hard light and as such are basically just glorified heat / cutting rays.

Disruptors --- are basically a substance that disrupts the molecular cohesion of the target. And as such cannot be said to be kinetic in the strictest sense.

Plasma --- an argument for these can be made that they are kinetic in the sense that they start plasma fires and actually consist of a physical element that exists in our understanding of these kinds of weaponry. Same with Tetryon, Polaron, and Positive Proton weaponry.

Antiproton --- consists of the Anti-matter equivalent of Protons and as such is not so much Kinetic as it is an Antimatter Bullet encased in an Electromagnetic Shell that when it comes into contact with a Positively charged Matter will annihilate that positively charged matter in a catastrophic way.
______________________________
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 196
# 109
01-24-2013, 08:56 PM
To put it simply, beam arrays are just plain garbage. In exchange for a greater firing arc, you get a weapon with much less DPS than a dual cannon while using the same amount of power per shot. So basically, you get penalized twice for a greater firing arc.

If the Devs wanted to balance the weapon types properly, they would keep the firing arcs where they are and scale power usage with DPS. This would still give your DCs and DHCs the best DPS in the game while giving the other weapons a lower but better sustained DPS. With the current setup, running multiple beam arrays results in the weapons choking themselves for power and making an already lower DPS an absolutely pitiful DPS.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,753
# 110
01-24-2013, 10:38 PM
Quote:
 Originally Posted by peter1z9 To put it simply, beam arrays are just plain garbage. In exchange for a greater firing arc, you get a weapon with much less DPS than a dual cannon while using the same amount of power per shot. So basically, you get penalized twice for a greater firing arc. Fortunately for you, no one is tied to using Beam Arrays! There are also DBBs,and if you insist on using DHCs on everything the KDF awaits with open arms for anyone that has an undeniable need of mounting DHCs on cruiser hulls. If the Devs wanted to balance the weapon types properly, they would keep the firing arcs where they are and scale power usage with DPS. This would still give your DCs and DHCs the best DPS in the game while giving the other weapons a lower but better sustained DPS. With the current setup, running multiple beam arrays results in the weapons choking themselves for power and making an already lower DPS an absolutely pitiful DPS. Or maybe the players could learn to get the most out of their ships? I find that on almost every occasion the person complaining is a frustrated cruiser captain that either does not know how to build their ship/character or does not understand that greater damage potential is achieved by trading in durability.