Well I dont have a setup that breaks 10k consistently, but I am able to get 7-8k pretty regularly with room for more tweaking. From what I have figured out, getting maximum peak damage requires putting everything into a single column. Basically you can have wide damage across multiple types, or you can have narrow damage of a single type (excluding pets), and if you want to get big numbers from a single single type then you need to drop the non-contributing assets. EG, stop mixing beams and torps, go full one or the other, and max your damage into that type. If you want to use weapons, maximize your weapon hard-points that face the target. Pets will give you more damage but if you give up hardpoints to have a carrier you are going to do less beam damage. Its not something that is appealing to me so I am not interested in doing it, but if you notice all of these 10k ships have the same thing, they are all running 100% plasma weapons with plasma consoles and are skilled into that setup, EG all damage is compressed into a single type column.
I have tried many of them, and many variants of them, never quite got them to click.
I will give it another go, my curiosity is peaked again... but I have a feeling I will end up right back where I stand right now, that any build that uses single beams will be out performed by single cannons/turret by a wide margin. Plasma loadout or no.
I use a beam for SST and BOs, but that's the trick. *A* beam.
Edit: I don't have an eng, so it may well be lack of nadeon inversion. Seems like it wouldn't be up long enough to cripple me as much as it feels like, tho. I don't have it, so I really can't tell you.
Edit: I don't have an eng, so it may well be lack of nadeon inversion.
Nadion Inversion doesn't have a good enough up time to matter much in the grand scheme. It's for special occasions rather than as a bread and butter part of your build.
I find it endlessly frustrating that we can literally have a conversation about the best ways to make beams do the damage they are supposed to be doing, i.e. the damage figures you see before the stacked drains castrates them, and yet people still adamantly believe that there's nothing wrong with beams. Chief among them being Cryptic. It's just-- I mean--- RRRRRRGH!!
I am perfectly willing to concede that I just haven't found the magic build or skillset, if one can be produced. People all the time say that things I witness are impossible and I just have to shake my head. If there is somebody running a super beam build they must feel the same way I do then.
I run parses all the time. The only time ACT isn't running is when I first get a new ship and I want to just enjoy the feel rather then obseess over numbers and then go back to my top performer, or when I first wake up and just don't want to see the flaws in my flying =P
I haven't seen any beam build that myself or somebody else flew that I didn't the whole time in the back of my head say, "You know, single cannons and turrets would have made that even better."
I keep searching. If I find it I will announce it. Till then I say junk the beams, get some cannons and pwn.
Edit: Full time EP2W... Done it.. Do it.. Still more effective with cannons. Thats the point. If beams can do it, cannons do it and do it better.
I've already done the BA vs Single cannon vs DHC tests in another thread, on a cruiser the BAs actually work better.
DHCs are more bursty, but it takes you too long to get around to your target, and your tac Boff skills are too low to really use them well.
Single cannons do nearly the same damage as BAs, I'd call them even just due to potential variance of a match. If you could get 2 lt slots maybe worth using, but if you have threat control ramped up expect to get some pummelling from high yield torps, its far less defensive.
I've only broken 10k in an elite STF a few times with an eng cruiser, but I haven't been using the cruiser much the last couple weeks, my sci character needs dilithium lately.
What's stopping a Klingon player from using a battlecruiser like a healer?
Both factions have their relative advantages and disadvantages, and have things that the other does not. I'll admit that KDF is somewhat underdeveloped compared to Starfleet (which I consider to be somewhat bloated with content), but you are still crying foul over every advantage you perceive the Federation to have. In the case of Federation cruisers however, you must realize that cruisers are only capable of doing one thing well. Furthermore, unlike KDF battlecruisers, Federation cruisers do not appear to have been designed with carriers in mind; if you have recently compared Fed's options for carriers to their cruisers, you'll notice that carriers are actually better than the cruisers in practically every respect worth noting.
If you devote more boff ability slots to outgoing healing abilities, that's less slots you have available to boost your own attack abilities. That's what I was thinking of when I said that, anyhow.
For example, you might have to sacrifice an EptW skill to make room for an ES or ET skill to support teammates. That's a reduction in firepower in exchange for healing.
That's also why I said they're more suited for self-healing. . .because that way, they're ensuring they stay in the fight long enough to use their firepower effectively.
As for 'crying foul' over Federation advantages. . .my personal perspective on it is this: I'm fine with each faction having their own strengths and weaknesses. I prefer it that way, it makes the factions different in more ways. However, I do not know if Cryptic follows that same logic (and, from what I've seen, they probably don't), and I also keep seeing Federation players demand KDF exclusives. My thinking is this: If the Federation want battlecruisers, they should simultaneously be pushing to give the KDF a dedicated and effective science ship line. If they want something cool that's KDF, they need to be willing to give up something of theirs that's cool. This hasn't been the case, as the Federation has gotten a few concepts from the KDF without any exchange at all (again, the most prominent example would be the carriers).
As for the Federation cruisers being 'less flexible'. . .I don't really care, ultimately. Most of the folks loudly complaining about that are the ones trying to fly them as something they're not meant to be. They're supposed to be support healers and whatnot. If they're 'less performing' than battlecruisers or carriers, then so be it. The KDF has the advantage in those particular classes, it should stay that way until the Federation is willing to give up a few of its advantages to the KDF (such as the stronger escorts and the science ship line).
Last edited by travelingmaster; 03-28-2013 at 12:54 PM.