Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Builds, Powers, and Game Mechanics
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Captain
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 687
# 21
03-08-2014, 03:13 PM
Current Status of Proposal to "Use Kumari Phaser Wing Cannons to make proper megaphase/phaser-lance weapon item for Galaxy Dreadnought": no rejections, one abstention, otherwise unanimous support.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,132
# 22
03-08-2014, 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by projectfrontier View Post
I re-reviewed the footage. Over the course of the scene there are 8 disparate rounds fired; #1 seems to miss; #2, #4, #6 pierce the ship; #3 may be the cause of a fire midships; #5 seems to do nothing; #7 and #8 are followed by secondary explosions right before the ship detonates.

Erring on the side of "plot device VFX shot with as much accuracy as budget and time constraints allow" caution, if we were to put the scene within game-context as mechanics are now so that "All Good Things..." are reasonably equivalent?

Riker clearly dev-consoled the Enterprise to have a Singularity Core for its Overcharge and the Phaser-Beam "Lance" so it can use Cannon: Rapid Fire.
TL;DR: Riker has more than one maneuver.
I don't interpret it that way. I feel that we saw the ship fire, then there's the lag and then we see the first shot connect.

The only people that actually missed were the Klingons.

Quote:
No reason why they could not do that; it would be simpler if weapons were pre-defined on ships though and the slots were "enhancers" used to determine specialization (energy type - which is another word for "buffs").
.
That's not unreasonable and is in fact more logical except that it wouldn't allow differences such as dual beam bank vs array.



Quote:
Originally Posted by stoleviathan99 View Post
Shared again:

I looked into this as a low, arc, always on weapon and did a fourth order polynomial comparing weapon arc and damage assuming a Dmg x4 mod.

45 degree weapon - 287 DPS
90 degree weapon - 257 DPS
180 -238 DPS
250 - 197 DPS
360 - 148 DPS

This gives us a polynominal regression equation of:

y = 1.25203512710^-7 x^4 - 9.86217185410^-5 x^3 + 2.55665279710^-2 x^2 - 2.891322634 x + 373.8107908

Where x=arc.

So a 10 degree weapon would do 347 DPS and 521 DPV.
Which is way too low. This is a weapon that's supposed to be able to destroy a full size battleship in 5-7 shots. 521 per volley is not worth it. That weapon is in the 10K per volley range.
Yes I support This

"Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many they are few"
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 159
# 23
03-08-2014, 03:38 PM
I'm going to log on soon and get some numbers for the Kumari's Wing Cannons, to then apply them to what a weaponized Lance may look like.

Damage Per Second really is the only value that needs to be balanced out, though that leaves whether the Lance deals that damage in fewer, stronger hits (thus higher Damage Per Shot) or with more shots (but less Damage Per Shot). Think Dual Heavy Cannons versus Dual Cannons, if that makes it more clear.

I personally feel that it's current one-two shot isn't visually accurate to what we saw in the Episode, but I'd much rather have heavy-hitting shots rather than a greater number of weaker beams. Obviously, to make the transition of assests easier, it probably should be closer to how the Kumari's Cannons operate.

And thoughts on this?
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,448
# 24
03-08-2014, 05:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by projectfrontier View Post
What do you think of the first post in this thread AND where did you get your static values from in your equation?
That is tricky to recall. I remember one came from quad cannons. I think I had to extrapolate the others based on stock equipment and the effectiveness of a Dmg mod.

My preference would be for the "real boy" dreadnought to be offered as a separate ship. No hangar. Different BO loadout. New costume. Access to Galaxy costume only for owners of the regular Dreadnought.

But I support the idea in principle.

I think 45 degrees or whatever is too broad, would look silly in animated form, and would feel too much cannons with a beam graphic. But if you narrow the arc as I outlined and up the damage, you'd have a unique feeling weapon that would feel true to the show.

I think it would finally justify running a max engine power, all RCS, Turn x3 engine build if you had a regular weapon with a very narrow arc and very high damage.... and cannons would make sense as a supplement to the beam weapon. It would bring out the synergy of that approach in a way the current Dreadnought doesn't.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,448
# 25
03-08-2014, 05:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by caasicam View Post
I'm going to log on soon and get some numbers for the Kumari's Wing Cannons, to then apply them to what a weaponized Lance may look like.

Damage Per Second really is the only value that needs to be balanced out, though that leaves whether the Lance deals that damage in fewer, stronger hits (thus higher Damage Per Shot) or with more shots (but less Damage Per Shot). Think Dual Heavy Cannons versus Dual Cannons, if that makes it more clear.

I personally feel that it's current one-two shot isn't visually accurate to what we saw in the Episode, but I'd much rather have heavy-hitting shots rather than a greater number of weaker beams. Obviously, to make the transition of assests easier, it probably should be closer to how the Kumari's Cannons operate.

And thoughts on this?
My thinking is basically that you can balance out all of that by NOT restricting firing speed (same speed as a normal beam) or making the damage lower but by giving the weapon a super narrow firing arc. Without the cannon range penalty, you achieve the sniper like function because a ten degree arc is an easier shot to make at long range.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 159
# 26
03-08-2014, 06:33 PM
Made a quick graphic of different arcs compared to the current 45' one for the Lance, just to see where everything falls.

Link

Now, I'm all for decreasing the arc for more damage, but I'm not so sure about 10'...
Captain
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 687
# 27
03-08-2014, 08:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by captaind3 View Post
I don't interpret it that way. I feel that we saw the ship fire, then there's the lag and then we see the first shot connect.
(...)
The only people that actually missed were the Klingons.
footage (17 seconds, 6 shots) being disputed:

Shot A - Riker
Shot B - Enterprise
Shot C - Klingon
Shot D - Enterprise
Shot E - Klingon (until Enterprise passes through)
Shot F - Worf

It is the case that in order to satisfy you arguments shot B and D must overlap (phaser blast 2 in B is 1 in D), meaning between B and D we have 3 actual phaser blasts: 1 hitting in shot C; 1 hitting off-screen (as indicated by the start of shot E where there is a 2nd visible damage shot ventral amidships aft); 1 hitting at the start of E. However, if this is the case then the disruptor fire through-out shot D would also be in part of shot C where it is not present at all.

Therefore in order to satisfy your arguments we have to either:
(a) mute the video and stop watching with the first hit
or
(b) assume egregiously horrendous editing
d
By chance, did you do A?

Quote:
Originally Posted by caasicam View Post
I'm going to log on soon and get some numbers for the Kumari's Wing Cannons, to then apply them to what a weaponized Lance may look like.

(...)

I personally feel that it's current one-two shot isn't visually accurate to what we saw in the Episode, but I'd much rather have heavy-hitting shots rather than a greater number of weaker beams. Obviously, to make the transition of assests easier, it probably should be closer to how the Kumari's Cannons operate.

And thoughts on this?
Idea #1: Cannon Rapid Fire (meaning slightly different tactical powers than one would assume for a "beam")

Idea #2: Change the duration of the animation used to represent the shot being fired to synchronize with the weapon's firing pattern.

Quote:
Originally Posted by caasicam View Post
Made a quick graphic of different arcs compared to the current 45' one for the Lance, just to see where everything falls.

Link

Now, I'm all for decreasing the arc for more damage, but I'm not so sure about 10'...
Firing arc is one of those game elements, like flight pitch, that requires the suspension of disbelief.

Last edited by projectfrontier; 03-08-2014 at 08:43 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 687
# 28
03-08-2014, 09:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stoleviathan99 View Post
(...)
My preference would be for the "real boy" dreadnought to be offered as a separate ship. No hangar. Different BO loadout. New costume. Access to Galaxy costume only for owners of the regular Dreadnought.

But I support the idea in principle.
(...)
I think it would finally justify running a max engine power, all RCS, Turn x3 engine build if you had a regular weapon with a very narrow arc and very high damage.... and cannons would make sense as a supplement to the beam weapon. It would bring out the synergy of that approach in a way the current Dreadnought doesn't.
As for "real boy" being a new ship, that may result in a lot of backlash. How about the following non-backlash-inducing alternative that leverages currently in-game technology?

-- Give the ship it's own analog to the "Tactical Mode" found on the Dyson Science Destroyer. Add a 5th, inactive, weapon slot to the front with the phaser-item permanently affixed. When you turn "Tactical Mode" on the hangar closes for business; the boff layout changes***; the 5th forward slot is enabled and one rear-slot is disabled. And vice versa.

*** They could reasonably go with CMDR->LT->CMDR Eng:Tac however I have an alternative that uses LTC->LT->LTC Eng:Tac (see next bullet)

-- It begins with letting separation systems change layouts (as explained here). By allowing that to function with Tactical-mode they could reasonably leverage the same code used to implement the example schema for the Exploration Cruiser Retrofit.

What do you think?

Last edited by projectfrontier; 03-08-2014 at 09:34 PM.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 182
# 29
03-09-2014, 03:27 PM
Hangar mode or Lance mode? I like.

What would stop players from launching small craft, then switching to Lance mode? The hangar may be disabled, but the fighters are still in play.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,448
# 30
03-09-2014, 04:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by projectfrontier View Post
As for "real boy" being a new ship, that may result in a lot of backlash. How about the following non-backlash-inducing alternative that leverages currently in-game technology?

-- Give the ship it's own analog to the "Tactical Mode" found on the Dyson Science Destroyer. Add a 5th, inactive, weapon slot to the front with the phaser-item permanently affixed. When you turn "Tactical Mode" on the hangar closes for business; the boff layout changes***; the 5th forward slot is enabled and one rear-slot is disabled. And vice versa.

*** They could reasonably go with CMDR->LT->CMDR Eng:Tac however I have an alternative that uses LTC->LT->LTC Eng:Tac (see next bullet)

-- It begins with letting separation systems change layouts (as explained here). By allowing that to function with Tactical-mode they could reasonably leverage the same code used to implement the example schema for the Exploration Cruiser Retrofit.

What do you think?
I don't see this happening without people willing to put another $25 down on a new ship. You're talking work that involves art, testing, systems, database hookups that are non-trivial.

I think this is a separate $25 purchase or it doesn't happen and if people lose enthusiasm at the idea of people buying it as a separate ship, the dev response internally will be that it isn't financially justifiable.
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 02:39 PM.