Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 1 Huge cannon, Little damage
02-04-2010, 05:53 PM
I wanna know what the reason is for this.

My character has a phaser RIFLE, that has an attack that does 150 some odd damage.

My tactical officer has a giant phaser CANNON, that is almost as big as her, yet it's secondary attack does 32 damage? Sorry, does not make logical or physical sense. Ground weapon damages = whacked


Giant weapon = Giant Damage
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
02-04-2010, 06:02 PM
Some weapons have more knockback change, or greater stun abilities, so they do less damage. Other weapons are build for damage, like snipers, so it varies a bit. I like variety though
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
02-04-2010, 06:06 PM
And I'm all for guns having different stats and everything. But ALL of the big cannon type guns do crap for damage, while smaller weapons are the most destructive. It just doesn't make sense to me. I see a big cannon I expect a big bang
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
02-04-2010, 07:09 PM
The real question is why the primary attack damage of both rifles and pistols is the same. It's like that in the Star Trek universe but it makes no sense.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
02-04-2010, 08:44 PM
I don't get it either, it strikes me as butt backwards. In canon, guns like the big ones are really anti-armor/anti-shield weapons, such as the Breen CRM-114. They should have the highest burst damage, and the over all DPS should be higher as well. I think the biggest problem is the lack of variable settings, and no practical disadvantages for the three classes of weapons.

A very basic system of disadvantage would involve greater emphasis of the tumbling system. Pistols should allow unfettered rolling and running. Rifles should allow running, with fettered rolling. Heavy weapons should slow running, and prevent rolling. However, this is only a practical system if losing maneuvering hurts in proportion to the gain. Currently, I don't see losing the maneuvering as a great loss, except I can't stand how slow everything is, so I wouldn't like to lose running.

Another possibility is to allow only command/combat personnel to learn heavy weapon skills, and require heavy weapon skills to use the heavy weapons properly.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
02-04-2010, 08:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorD View Post
I don't get it either, it strikes me as butt backwards. In canon, guns like the big ones are really anti-armor/anti-shield weapons, such as the Breen CRM-114. They should have the highest burst damage, and the over all DPS should be higher as well. I think the biggest problem is the lack of variable settings, and no practical disadvantages for the three classes of weapons.

A very basic system of disadvantage would involve greater emphasis of the tumbling system. Pistols should allow unfettered rolling and running. Rifles should allow running, with fettered rolling. Heavy weapons should slow running, and prevent rolling. However, this is only a practical system if losing maneuvering hurts in proportion to the gain. Currently, I don't see losing the maneuvering as a great loss, except I can't stand how slow everything is, so I wouldn't like to lose running.

Another possibility is to allow only command/combat personnel to learn heavy weapon skills, and require heavy weapon skills to use the heavy weapons properly.
I like that.

Tactical = big weapons, slow rate of fire, specials do great damage. Also receive extra bonuses from armors
Engineer = rifles, decent damage, longest range, knockbacks
Science = pistols / hand phasers, best stuns and higher chance for expose, med range. Receive extra bonuses from shields.

That would be interesting, and vary things a bit.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
02-04-2010, 09:21 PM
In the star trek universe they could both do the same damage, but on pistols they recharged slower & ran out of power faster. (though they only displayed it a few times)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
02-05-2010, 12:49 AM
compare this rifle to this pistol

Rifle: Musket
Pistol: Magnum

Now, which one would you say is more advanced?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
02-05-2010, 03:14 AM
To be honest it sounds like your comparing an AOE special to a single target special.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
02-05-2010, 04:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dasorine
To be honest it sounds like your comparing and AOE special to a single target special.
Can't say it much better.
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 05:43 PM.