Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 21
12-13-2010, 10:37 PM
if you made a more powerful beam arry , by the ballance formula of the game , you would need to limit it's fireing arc. but then you could just get duel arrays, which are already in the game. so what is the point of this thread, more cosmetics?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 22
12-13-2010, 10:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtorma View Post
if you made a more powerful beam arry , by the ballance formula of the game , you would need to limit it's fireing arc. but then you could just get duel arrays, which are already in the game. so what is the point of this thread, more cosmetics?
Variety mostly maybe more build options.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
12-14-2010, 05:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FizixMan View Post
Are dual beam banks and/or beam overload not good enough?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtorma View Post
if you made a more powerful beam arry , by the ballance formula of the game , you would need to limit it's fireing arc. but then you could just get duel arrays, which are already in the game. so what is the point of this thread, more cosmetics?
ok. i see that no one is actually reading the original post. i understand. it was long, and very detailed.
its hard to be given all the information you would need to understand the concept so you don't have to make posts like this. anyway, i'm just gonna post some cliff notes

-instead of fired 4 times in a cycle, it is fired once, or twice

-it has the SAME dps as an equivalent beam array. just like the dual canons and dual heavy cannons have the same dps

-it is limited to forward arcs

-it has the same 250 deg firing arc as an equivalent beam array

-dual beam banks firing from the rim of a cruiser saucer looks RETARDED when there is a great big beam array just sitting there unused. dual beam banks firing from most fed escorts and all klingon ships looks fine

-the visual charge up effect would be to hard to make and is not needed, maybe a slight delay before the beam fires with a short charge sound

-its more trek
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 24
12-14-2010, 06:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
-dual beam banks firing from the rim of a cruiser saucer looks RETARDED when there is a great big beam array just sitting there unused. dual beam banks firing from most fed escorts and all klingon ships looks fine.
Why not just have Dual Beam Banks fire from the top & bottom of the Saucer Section, from the dorsal and ventral arrays at the same time?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 25
12-14-2010, 07:09 AM
So then the only thing changing is the aesthetic of the beam firing once instead of four times?

That is an unnecessary change. If they wanted to make a more aesthetically pleasing dual beam shot for cruiser, all they would have to do is move the two beams closer together.

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:Co...on_phasers.jpg
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
12-14-2010, 08:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
i believe the tng technical manual basically explained it as i did, just a bit more eloquently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The TNG Technical Manual
As installed in the Galaxy class, the main ship's phasers are rated as Type X, the largest emitters available for starship use. Individual emitter segments are capable of directing 5.1 megawatts... The Galaxy class supports twelve phaser arrays in two sizes, located on both dorsal and ventral surfaces as well as two arrays for lateral coverage.

A typical large phaser array aboard the USS Enterprise, such as the upper dorsal array on the Saucer Module, consists of two hundred emitter segments in a dense linear arrangement for optimal control of firing order, thermal effects, field halos, and target impact. Groups of emitters are supplied by redundant sets of energy feeds from the primary trunks of the electro plasma system (EPS), and are similarly interconnected by fire control, thermal management, and sensor lines. The visible hull surface configuration of the phaser is a long shallow raised strip, the bulk of the hardware submerged within the vehicle frame...

Energy is conveyed from each flow regulator to the PDM (plasma distribution manifold), a secondary computer-controlled valving device at the head end of each prefire chamber...

Energy from all discharged segments passes directionally over neighboring segments due to force coupling, converging on the release point, where the beam will emerge and travel at c to the target. Narrow beams are created by rapid segment order firing; wider beams are, of course, prone to marked power loss per unit area covered.
and so we see that the energy is not magnified by each segment in the phaser array, merely passed along to where the beam will be focused.

Yeah, I really do carry it around with me
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 27
12-14-2010, 09:30 AM
Which is as I thought. There is no doubt that the arrays are probably more efficient than the banks as perhaps the ability to pass energy along the array would mean that an EPS feed could power groups of emitters rather than each emitter requiring its own. But the power actually discharged from the emitter doesn't appear to have anything to do with the size of the array, but rather the size of the emitter.

But efficiency is not a factor that would affect gameplay, and so there is really no reason for ships with long arrays to fire beams that are any different from ships like the Constitution or Excelsior.

As I said earlier, and the TNG manual apparently supports, longer arrays provide for more optimal targeting. For instance, if you've played Bridge Commander, the shorter and separated arrays of the Ambassador class' primary hull creates blind spots that the Galaxy does not have. But the concept of ship specific blind spots should not be incorporated into STO as it would imbalance the game.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 28
12-14-2010, 09:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
ok. i see that no one is actually reading the original post. i understand. it was long, and very detailed.
its hard to be given all the information you would need to understand the concept so you don't have to make posts like this. anyway, i'm just gonna post some cliff notes

-instead of fired 4 times in a cycle, it is fired once, or twice

-it has the SAME dps as an equivalent beam array. just like the dual canons and dual heavy cannons have the same dps

-it is limited to forward arcs

-it has the same 250 deg firing arc as an equivalent beam array
If this is a purely visual thing, then yes.

But if you're thinking of actually compressing that damage, then simply put, *no*. Beam overload would receive a quite unnecessary 2-4x boost in damage when used with that array (I think it would also take half/quarter the damage from damage shields etc).
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 29
12-14-2010, 09:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BreachAndClear View Post
Which is as I thought. There is no doubt that the arrays are probably more efficient than the banks as perhaps the ability to pass energy along the array would mean that a plasma manifold could power groups of emitters rather than one. But the power actually discharged from the emitter doesn't appear to have anything to do with the size of the array.
I think the fact that beam arrays on fed ships are strips and, as such, emitters must pass the power down the line makes them less efficient by definition. Banks, like cannons, draw power directly from the EPS system. Since there is no system in our universe that is perfect, energy must be bled by the emitters in an array each time it is passed down the "line."

You are correct in saying that beam power has nothing to do with the length of the array, so long as power output is proportional to the size of the array. If it took 4.2 gigawatts to power a ten meter array, then one should assume it takes 6.3 gigawatts to power a fifteen meter array at the same intensity. Obviously, these numbers are arbitrary

Quote:
Originally Posted by BreachAndClear View Post
As I said earlier, and the TNG manual apparently supports, longer arrays provide for more optimal targeting. For instance, if you've played Bridge Commander, the shorter and separated arrays of the Ambassador class' primary hull creates blind spots that the Galaxy does not have. But the concept of ship specific blind spots should not be incorporated into STO as it would imbalance the game.
hear hear
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 30
12-14-2010, 10:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP3CTREnyc
I think the fact that beam arrays on fed ships are strips and, as such, emitters must pass the power down the line makes them less efficient by definition. Banks, like cannons, draw power directly from the EPS system. Since there is no system in our universe that is perfect, energy must be bled by the emitters in an array each time it is passed down the "line."

You are correct in saying that beam power has nothing to do with the length of the array, so long as power output is proportional to the size of the array. If it took 4.2 gigawatts to power a ten meter array, then one should assume it takes 6.3 gigawatts to power a fifteen meter array at the same intensity. Obviously, these numbers are arbitrary
Well, by efficient I mean that it eliminates alot of the circuitry that would otherwise cramp a lot of room on board a ship like a galaxy class. If all two hundred emitter segments had their own EPS feed, that would be a much more complicated system rather than simply allowing one EPS feed to pass energy along the array to the appropriate emitter.

Perhaps a Type X phaser fed directly would be more powerful than a Type X embedded in an array, but the requirements necessary to power all of the emitters would probably be impractical. And if they removed emitters to accomodate fewer, but more powerful phasers fed directly by the EPS system, then it would also be at the expense of optimal targeting.
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 09:23 AM.