Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 697
# 151
02-10-2013, 11:35 AM
I don't see the problem with the beam arcs.

As damage increases, firing arc decreases. Therefore, Dual Heavy Cannons, having high damage, should have a tight arc. Beams, having a wide arc, have lower damage.

This means that overall energy efficiency should remain the same. The problem is it isn't. Cannons are vastly more efficient (as an aside, ground weapons are much the same; beams do far less damage than bolts for no real advantage...).

The basic premise is that as you add something, you have to take away something equivalent to maintain balance. I don't see that here.

(and to put it in perspective... My Klingon character is max level, but is still flying a T3 D7 cruiser. With cannons, he can destroy a Tholian Orb Weaver in the Azure rescue mission in one pass, a matter of seconds. My Starfleet character in a T5 Excelsior armed with cannons, barely brings down the shields of the same Tholian ship, and takes several minutes to destroy it - exacerbated by the endless repeated disables the Tholians spam)...)
Once, I was simply called Mojo. Now, I'm forced into a new name, but don't be fooled, I'm the original STO Mojo!

Crafting, Exploration and Interaction as it should be:
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh....php?t=1108521
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,632
# 152
02-10-2013, 12:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by colonelmarik View Post
I don't see the problem with the beam arcs.

As damage increases, firing arc decreases. Therefore, Dual Heavy Cannons, having high damage, should have a tight arc. Beams, having a wide arc, have lower damage.

This means that overall energy efficiency should remain the same. The problem is it isn't. Cannons are vastly more efficient (as an aside, ground weapons are much the same; beams do far less damage than bolts for no real advantage...).

The basic premise is that as you add something, you have to take away something equivalent to maintain balance. I don't see that here.

(and to put it in perspective... My Klingon character is max level, but is still flying a T3 D7 cruiser. With cannons, he can destroy a Tholian Orb Weaver in the Azure rescue mission in one pass, a matter of seconds. My Starfleet character in a T5 Excelsior armed with cannons, barely brings down the shields of the same Tholian ship, and takes several minutes to destroy it - exacerbated by the endless repeated disables the Tholians spam)...)
While my origional suggestions add quite a bit what they take is a ship restriction.

And since we are already out of balance between beams and cannons I think we can get away with adding somthing for nothing.

They still do less damage.
But they gain some utility, making them more of a choice if you have one, and less of a burden if you dont.
Actualy reading things pefore posting will make you look smarter than yelling loudly. Reading comprehension is aparently a lost art.

Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abriham Lincoln
Commander
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 269
# 153
02-10-2013, 01:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemepwe View Post
I am still of the belief that the wide firing arcs of beams must grow smaller the higher thier damage grows. Otherwise they quickly becpme mary sue in design
I agree with this. If you increase damage you MUST decrease firing Arc, or the system falls apart. I'm not sold on this threads whole concept, to me Cruisers are getting plenty of play as is. But I'm willing to listen.

If you want more damage increase the complexity require to obtain it.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 697
# 154
02-10-2013, 01:32 PM
I don't agree that the arcs need to be addressed. I think that's fine. However, beam weapons need to be buffed up in some way. I need not be something as basic as increased damage or lower energy cost (which would be adequate). We can be more creative than that.


The Star Trek Technical manual describes shields acting roughly in this way:

They have a resting energy state. As something interacts with them, their energy state increases, up to the maximum level. Something that strikes quickly will cause the shields to surge rapidly, while something that causes continuous damage (beams) would force the shield to operate at higher intensity for longer periods. That means they would be far less efficient against beam weapons than against cannons.

In game terms, we might simulate this in any of a number of ways. Perhaps beam weapons would cause an inherent decrease in energy transfer rate or shield recharge rate. Perhaps something as simple as an inherent critical hit chance.

In any case, beams need something done for them, but I don't think we need to change the arcs at all.
Once, I was simply called Mojo. Now, I'm forced into a new name, but don't be fooled, I'm the original STO Mojo!

Crafting, Exploration and Interaction as it should be:
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh....php?t=1108521
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,769
# 155
02-10-2013, 05:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maliusnight View Post
I agree with this. If you increase damage you MUST decrease firing Arc, or the system falls apart. I'm not sold on this threads whole concept, to me Cruisers are getting plenty of play as is. But I'm willing to listen.

If you want more damage increase the complexity require to obtain it.
The firing arc idea is why I like the fixing of the drain of beam arrays instead of just buffing thier damage. I believe such a fix that goves beams a rest period in thier firing cycle will male for better experience.
Then they could look at any possibly needed damage buff.
Richard Hamilton (1975-2014)
goodbye good friend. We will see you in the DMZ in the sky oneday, save a shot for us.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,769
# 156
02-10-2013, 05:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by colonelmarik View Post
I don't agree that the arcs need to be addressed. I think that's fine. However, beam weapons need to be buffed up in some way. I need not be something as basic as increased damage or lower energy cost (which would be adequate). We can be more creative than that.


The Star Trek Technical manual describes shields acting roughly in this way:

They have a resting energy state. As something interacts with them, their energy state increases, up to the maximum level. Something that strikes quickly will cause the shields to surge rapidly, while something that causes continuous damage (beams) would force the shield to operate at higher intensity for longer periods. That means they would be far less efficient against beam weapons than against cannons.

In game terms, we might simulate this in any of a number of ways. Perhaps beam weapons would cause an inherent decrease in energy transfer rate or shield recharge rate. Perhaps something as simple as an inherent critical hit chance.

In any case, beams need something done for them, but I don't think we need to change the arcs at all.
beams where considered to be the shield killers but thanks to thier natural rapid fire state they should be very effective against shields but since they drain so poorly they bottom themselves out faster before they can do what they are designed to do.
DHCs both hit shields hard and damage hull do to thier upfront damage and the buffs they recieve that further increase thier attack damage.
In my opinion beams should have access to a BOff ability similiar as CRF and be fixed so they can drop shields faster if properly buffed and used by an experienced player.
Richard Hamilton (1975-2014)
goodbye good friend. We will see you in the DMZ in the sky oneday, save a shot for us.
Commander
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 269
# 157
02-10-2013, 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by colonelmarik View Post
I don't agree that the arcs need to be addressed. I think that's fine. However, beam weapons need to be buffed up in some way. I need not be something as basic as increased damage or lower energy cost (which would be adequate). We can be more creative than that.

In any case, beams need something done for them, but I don't think we need to change the arcs at all.
If you want damage, the only way to get it is the accept a more restricted arc. That is how the system works. It takes some skill to keep a target in the 45' arc, compared to the 70 degree side arc.

The damage to arc trade off is why folks fly things like the Aqarius destroyer. If you break that system the whole meaning of space combat comes apart. I'm not trying to derail this thread. But failing grasp that makes anything else meaningless.

The area I think that should be look at if you want to mess around with Beam damage in Beam Overload. BOIII would be fine concept except for the massive power drain attached, finding means to negate the problem should result in effective beam damage becoming possible.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,632
# 158
02-11-2013, 02:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maliusnight View Post
If you want damage, the only way to get it is the accept a more restricted arc. That is how the system works. It takes some skill to keep a target in the 45' arc, compared to the 70 degree side arc.

The damage to arc trade off is why folks fly things like the Aqarius destroyer. If you break that system the whole meaning of space combat comes apart. I'm not trying to derail this thread. But failing grasp that makes anything else meaningless.

The area I think that should be look at if you want to mess around with Beam damage in Beam Overload. BOIII would be fine concept except for the massive power drain attached, finding means to negate the problem should result in effective beam damage becoming possible.
Restricting the ars would only make them viable for faster ships. thats the problem with the system in its current state.

And for beams it makes no sense given how they work, it supposed to be the longer the array the more energy it can use, the more damage it can deal.

Where as cannons are emplacement weapons and to do more damamge you need a bigger cannon, and bigger cannons are harder to swing around.

Beam banks also count as emplacement weapons, which is why I didnt really bother with them.

And beyond the damage increase I suggested(which was rather small) I also suggested some ability changes and an innate shield penetration bonus to all beam type weapons.

This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies . ~syberghost
Actualy reading things pefore posting will make you look smarter than yelling loudly. Reading comprehension is aparently a lost art.

Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abriham Lincoln

Last edited by syberghost; 02-11-2013 at 06:30 AM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 410
# 159
02-11-2013, 04:14 AM
here is an idea...

dont mess with the base dps, power drain or arc of beams/cannons as i think these are ok but you could introduce versions of beam weapons that have extended range (eg. 12km or 15km) Beams become long range weapons that you can use whilst staying out of the range of cannons. Perhaps you could decrease the range of cannons to 8km.

Another idea is to up the innate accuracy of beams and decrease the inate accuracy of all cannons. eg all beams get the equivalent of an inate +[Acc] x 0.5 , whilst cannons get -[Acc] x 0.5

These suggestions are basically playing to the strength of a beam (less damage, more accurate, larger range) over cannons that are high damage but a little more scattershot and not as good at range.


EDIT here is another idea... which does mess with the dps of cannons. Introduce a chance to deflect when a cannon shoots into a shield. e.g if a cannon fires against a sheilded target there is a 5% change the shot will be deflected and miss. This wouldnt be the case on an unshielded target. Beams would have no such deflection change. Therefore beams effective dps against shields would remain unchanged whereas cannons would be decreased.

EDIT (2) Another Idea. Add an innate CritH modifier to beams that is based on a ship/captains sensor skill. A captain with +9 in sensors and 2x mk 12 consoles will be getting c.+160 to sensors. This should be equivalent to c. +4% crit chance (ie [CritH]x2) and you could scale this so that for every +1 to sensors you had +0.025% Critical Chance. Again this plays on the accuracy of beams (more accurate means more likely to hit a weak point on the target = crit hit)


...because not listening to player feedback is full of win.

Last edited by jackal1701apw; 02-11-2013 at 04:38 AM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 460
# 160
02-14-2013, 07:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelj88 View Post
I like what you're saying, I've been ranting to in-game friends about this.

simply for most high end escorts, fleet, bug. they have a really big hull hp and 5 tac consoles.

I was thinking maybe for those high hull escorts, to be reduced to 4tac consoles and lower hull hp escorts such as the B'Rel BoP retro to have 5 tac consoles.

Glass Cannons should be what they are, and considering most escorts... appear/decloack, fire all weapons until their buffs run out, then run away... orr speed tank.

the survival ability of almost 80/90% of escorts is ridiculous, I think those that can survive the longest should do the least DPS of the escorts, and those that don't last too long having the highest.

RachelJ88

P.S. a little idea I had that I never seem to want to say, I think all fleet ships should stick to a 4-3-3 console arrangement unless statistically they need to be a 5-3-2.

an example-ish

Fleet GOD Escort thingg...
weps layout - 4 bow/2 aft
BO layout - Cmd-Tac/Ltc-Tac/Lt-Sci/Lt-Eng/Ens-Uni
35k hull
shield mod 0.9-1
consoles
3-eng
3-sci
4-tac

Fleet GOD Science thing...
weps layout - 3 bow/3 aft
BO layout - Cmd-Sci/Ltc-Sci/Lt-Tac/Lt-Eng/Ens-Uni
30k hull
shield mod 1.3/4
consoles
3-eng
4-sci
3-tac

Fleet GOd Cruiser thing...
weps layout - 4 bow/4 aft
BO layout - Cmd-Eng/Ltc-Eng/Lt-Sci/Lt-Tac/Ens-Uni
40k hull
shield mod 1.1/1.2
consoles
4-eng
3-sci
3-tac

Fleet GOD DPS Dealing Escort thingg...
weps layout - 4 bow/2 aft
BO layout - Cmd-Tac/Ltc-Tac/Lt-Sci/Lt-Eng/Ens-Uni
25k hull
shield mod 0.9-1.0
consoles
3-eng / 2-eng
2-sci / 3-sci
5-tac

balanced... no?
Like what I said earlier in the thread, kinda went quiet on the forums so I didn't follow it up.

Escorts with high Hull points should not have 5 tac consoles... period!
they can so easily tear up most ship classes regardless of their defence, Why?

Because most tactical Captains don't have to realyl spec into any other skills.
they can get higher critical shots, therefore being more deady, giving an Escort 5 tactical slots to stack 5xWeapon Consoles is completely un-balanced, especially when the closest a cruiser or an science vessel can get is 3 tac console slots.

by subverting certain escorts into a more DPS based class which would reduce their hull in return for much higher damage and turn rate.

The Bugship is a perfect example of what everyone seems to call the perfect escort, all because it has the highest statistics of all escorts. and is quite plainly ridiculous.
high hull with the most absurd superior DPS dealing skills.

a supremely built Bug is pretty much invincible.

now I know the PvP guys generally say "you obviously don't play an escort"... I have played an Escort, I thoroughly enjoyed the experience but unlike yourselves, I have noticed the void between Escorts and the other ship classes.

I'm also very much aware that as a science captain, my role is different, ofcourse my role is different, but if our roles where reversed and it was Science Online, I'd take any reduction to be balanced.

plus, I can't* quote because I've already started as you can see above, but someone mentioned something about shield mods and how such a ship had 0.1 or 0.2 more of shield mod, in defence of why should "escorts" get a hull reduction when ship X has +0.2 shield mod? to be truely honest and to be fair, Hull comparisons in comparison with shield mods, they don't line up, at all.
Escorts can get a massive 10k difference in hull "once skilled" compared to a normal "small" science vessles, where Science vessel shields only gain around 3k to 5k shield difference.

If Cryptic actually don't hate me, sometimes feel asif I'm disliked :/ they'll start to see that their Lock Box ships, Fleet Ships etc are not inline with their so called "scaling", most newer ships are a mess, completely disasterous.

"STO Balance from lvl1 - 50"

"this Format - Tac/Eng/Sci - Example LRSVR - 2/3/4

LTC. Ship Consoles
Escort - 2/1/1
Cruiser - 1/2/1
Science - 1/1/2

Commander Ship Consoles
Escort - 3/1/1
Cruiser - 1/3/1
Science - 1/1/3

Captain Ship Consoles
Escort - 3/2/2
Cruiser - 2/3/2
Science - 2/2/3

RA. Ship Consoles
Adv. Escort - 4/2/3
Asslt. Cruiser - 3/4/2
Dp. Science - 2/3/4
Ptrl. Escort - 4/3/2
Star. Cruiser - 2/4/3
Recon. Science - 3/2/4

VA. Ship Consoles
Escort Retro - 4/3/2
Cruiser Retro - 2/4/3
Science Retro - 2/3/4

Now go look at the newer ships released and see how all the nice consoles go all wonky


RachelJ88

Last edited by rachelj88; 02-14-2013 at 07:56 AM. Reason: *
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 01:25 PM.