Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > PvP Gameplay
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
04-09-2011, 04:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MustrumRidcully View Post
Problem: Uninitutive to player. (This was also a problem of the old skill). Using the power means you deal less damage then without the use of a power against a single target. That doesn't seem to work within the usual spirt of power use, where using a power always gives you some benefit.
Well, it only does less damage if you are not able to mitigate the drain, otherwise it does more. One potential balance fix would be lower the damage of FAW but also lower the drain, since the current incarnation of FAW mechanics make it easy for engineers (EPS3 + nadeon) to come close to the damage of tacs while still having far greater utility in all other things.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
04-09-2011, 04:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husanak View Post
Simple answer. No It will not work.
[...]
Would increasing the cooldowns on OLD broken CSV have fixed the issue ?
I agree. The problem with cooldown changes is that beamboats were viable before. New Faw™ is an improvement for beamboats no matter the cooldown. And 15/60/30 still allows 50% uptime.

The old FAW was good enough against mines and photonics, and against carrier pets you had (and still have) CSV as an option. Just bring back old FAW, it's an easy choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MustrumRidcully View Post
Bring back BFAW back to its pre-buff state. This should be easy to do, but it might not be done because the fundamental reason why BFAW was tweaked still applied - that version of BFAW was not strong enough to the design team.
I don't really care for the design team's opinion. They had the opinion that New Faw™ was a good idea.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
04-09-2011, 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mancom
I don't really care for the design team's opinion. They had the opinion that New Faw™ was a good idea.
Indeed. Perhaps the best option is to put FAW back as it was... and look at the real issue. That being the way Mines work in general. Carrier already got a mini nerf... scorpions are less of an annoyance. (of course people are likely not worrying about resupplying right now).

I don't mean to go off topic, but the real issue is 100s of targetale objects... ie 5 mines at a launch. This is the real issue. Honestly it shouldn't be any harder to change the mine mechanics then the faw ones. A quick revert on the faw. Mines reduced to 1 out at a time instead of 5... give them all the cloak ability they have on the Tractor mines... up the dmg to be in line with the same type of torp... DONE. fixed.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
04-09-2011, 04:48 PM
Whatever changes made, so long as FAW I & II can still effectively remove spam and still be viable against a single target if no other targets are within range. If the secondary beams only hit NPCs, noone would use FAW.

An increased CD wouldn't bother me, so long as it doesn't share a GCD with any other abilities. I'm not sure a flat damage reduction would be necessary but perhaps an increased power drain, forcing the player to concentrate on more power management loadouts to use it effectively, thus sacrificing survivability and making the Excelsior less attractive to Tac and Science Captains. Or, the Excelsior-R itself could use a review, reducing it's base hull and shields.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
04-09-2011, 08:05 PM
Old BFAW:

Firing Rate: 5 pulses, per firing cycle, per weapon (+1 from normal firing cycle) - Each pulse is fired at full effectiveness

Damage Increase: +20/30/40% (Factoring in the 25% increase in the number of pulses per cycle? Can't honestly remember if this was included in the damage factor or not...)

Mechanics: Each beam weapon gained additional pulse per firing cycle. Fully random target selection, irrespective of selected target. Each pulse could, potentially, strike selected target (unlikely, in a target rich environment), if primary target was isolated, all pulses would strike primary target (challenging, but hardly impossible to accomplish).


================================================== ==

New Faw™:

Firing Rate: 2 shots per pulse, 4/5? pulses per firing cycle, per weapon (+3/5? pulses total, compared to Old BFAW) - Each shot per pulse is fired at full effectiveness.

Damage Increase: baseline modifier: +20/30/40%; effective damage output increase (if two or more targets in weapon arc): +140/160/180% (+20/30/40% for the primary attack, +120/130/140% for the full-damage secondary attack... Potentially more, if New Faw™ retains the +1 pulse per cycle bonus)

Mechanics: Each beam weapon fires 2 shots per pulse of a firing cycle; each shot is calculated at full damage. Each pulse, the primary attack will (theoretically) strike the currently selected target, the secondary attack will randomly select a different target, using the Old BFAW mechanics. If primary target is unselected, power reverts to Old BFAW mechanics (gaining double random attacks?). If primary target is isolated, secondary beams do not affect primary target, keeping damage in-line with expectations. (Ironically, against a single target is the only time that New Faw™ is working as expected and, likely, intended...)

================================================== ==

Proposed FAW 4.0

Firing Rate: 2 shots per pulse, 4/5? pulses per firing cycle, per weapon - Each shot per pulse is fired at modified effectiveness.

Damage Increase: baseline modifier: -40/35/30%; effective damage output increase: +20/30/40% (2 shots per pulse at 60/65/70% of normal effectiveness = 120/130/140% normal damage)

Mechanics: Each beam weapon fires 2 shots per pulse cycle, using modified damage output. Each pulse, the primary attack will strike the currently selected target, the secondary attack will strike any randomly-determined (using the Old BFAW mechanics) target, including the selected target. If no target selected, each shot is randomly determined. If selected target is isolated, all primary and secondary beams strike the selected target.



Any changes to FAW should include (and should have already included) a modification to small objects, giving them a substantial passive Defense increase, thereby increasing the likelihood of their survival, at least moreso than they currently possess.

Just some thoughts,
-Big Red
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
04-09-2011, 09:28 PM
Some pretty interesting ideas here.

However, my head is hurting. Way too many variables, percentages, quadratic equations....

Keep it simple...

- Standard fire rate as normal attacks
- Same damage as a normal attack
- EXACT same as it used to be, but with a 50% chance to either hit the primary target or a random target
- Beams not with primary target in arc: 50% chance to hit random enemy, 50% chance to hit nothing.

** Edit: Make the randomness 30%/40%/50% to hit primary target based on FAW Rank

Where does it say fire at will means more attacks? To me it always meant just letting the tactical officer/computer decide what to shoot without needing to be ordered. I know we're simulating it for game-play....but still. We're talking targeting here, not fire-rate.

The randomness about how it used to be was it's crutch. Give it a "chance" to be more focused, while still offering the AOE spam removal and I think it would be better than it used to be, and not as silly as it is now. It doesn't need extra attacks per shot, the fact that beams that can't hit the primary will fire anyways are the bonus. It's not supposed to be Beam Rapid Fire.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
04-09-2011, 09:44 PM
My idea for FAW was to take awy it's multi-target ability. Beams have such a large radius to fire in compared to cannons, I can understand cannons getting the AOE effect. Beams can hit nearly 360 on their own already.

Instead of letting beams hit mutiple targets, why not say for 10 seconds they dont drain weapon power, give it a 45 second cooldown at max rank.

This way you still do more dmg, because there is no drain for that ten seconds, but it wouldn't be a substanial amount. Fire at will doesn't have to mean AOE.

I also thought, why not just change the secondary hit to a cahnce. Say, 50% chance that your beam will fire twice, the second hit would be a random target. Leaving it exactly the way it is now, except that there is only a 50% chance that the beam would fire twice.

Just my thoughts.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
04-09-2011, 10:37 PM
The problem with FAW hitting ships as they de-cloak is not new (nor, is it inherently a 'problem', more a function of luck, as it were), even the Old BFAW would do this, if the random targeting mechanic happened to select a ship as it de-cloaked; the problem with the New FAW™ is that there are SO many additional opportunities for the random targeting mechanic to hit a de-cloaking ship, while taking nothing away from the primary target of the FAW-using starship.

New FAW™ more than doubles the effective damage output of a ship for its duration, with no drawback to offset this massive increase (even the powerdrain argument is flawed, as many have pointed out the means of overcoming the drain). Even CRF only offers a 50% upscaling in effective damage output, New FAW™ more than doubles this output (even discounting for the secondary attack of New FAW™ ignoring the primary target).

Alterations to the power's cooldown would only have a slight mitigating effect, and only on an individual basis, as the 15 seconds while the power is active would still be vastly overpowered in relation to any other available power. For groups that are currently employing New Faw™, we would see the 5-Man teams switch from running 2 copies of BFAW and cycling them at will, to each running only a single copy, chaining them in sequence, and adding in some other power (Attack Pattern Beta, for example) to amplify that effect. The power's mechanics (or inherent damage modifiers) need to be addressed moreso than the ability to cycle multiple copies.


With the suggestion I offered above, if the power retains its current mechanics (if this is the direction that the Dev Team wishes to keep the power), drastically reducing the damage modifier (to a negative modifier), and aiming for an "effective" damage increase (in the +20/30/40% range), would allow a ship to retain 'pressure' damage on their currently-selected target, clear spam, and still get a moderate damage boost if they are able to isolate a single target. For PvP, this would mean no more Zombie Cruisers being able to tank and wipeout any TWO opposing starships. For PvE, a ship using FAW could still effectively draw aggro on multiple targets, while still contributing to focused damage on a single target (particularly in a team setting, such as in the STF's).

Additionally, serious consideration should be given to dropping Cannon: Scatter Volley down to an Ensign-level Rank I ability, particularly if the New FAW™ mechanics are retained in whatever balance/modification is made to FAW.

-Big Red
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
04-10-2011, 02:37 AM
It seems really difficult to come up with a good consensus. One thing I tend to agree with now is that the 15 second duration alone is also an issue. Other DPS and AOE buffs have a shorter duration as well.

I theoretically appreciate ideas that come up with different mechanical changes on how the powers could work, but I think the main issue I have with that is: We have seen what happened before with such ideas. Remember the big Reverse Shield Polarity discussion? There were countless of interesting mechanical concepts for it. None of them were picked. We instead got a significant change to the duration and cooldown of the power. IIRC, we didn't even get a skill based modifier into the skill integrated!

Quote:
Originally Posted by mancom
I don't really care for the design team's opinion. They had the opinion that New Faw™ was a good idea.
I understand you. But it will still be that design team that will implement the change, and even if their solution to their perceived problem was bad, the perceived problem might still exist. It will be easier to convince of one error then two. Call it politics or diplomacy...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
04-10-2011, 02:48 AM
2 Alternative Proposals:

Beam Fire At Will - Proposal (Category 4)
  • Duration: 10 seconds
  • Recharge: 40 seconds
  • Global Cooldown: 20 seconds
This also brings the skill's duration in line with Cannon Rapid Fire and Cannon Scatter Volley. The better damage potential of BFAW is compensated with longer cooldowns. This gives a "stutter" effect with 10 second BFAW followed by 10 seconds without.

Beam Fire At Will - Proposal (Category 5)
  • Duration: 10 seconds
  • Recharge: 60 seconds
  • Global Cooldown: 30 seconds
This also brings the skill's duration in line with Cannon Rapid Fire and Cannon Scatter Volley. The better damage potential of BFAW is compensated even furhter than with the preceding suggestion - Category 5 is pretty harsh. I think the biggest risk is that this version creats 20 second gaps where BFAW cannot deal with spam issues.

But we cannot only think of dealing with spam. If we wanted a pure anti-spam power, we woulda have a 10 km radius effect that inflicts 50 damage to all targets every 15 seconds. Ultimately, Spam is a problem that needs an "internal" fix, e.g. that object spamming should not be possible in the first place, as it seems more an (UI) exploit then an intentional game effect.
The current BFAW effectiveness also provides a nerf to "wanted" game effects - Heavy Torpedoes and Carrier pets, this version should be more friendly to them.
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 10:12 AM.