I saw someone mention the idea in another thread. Does it work well? I've been having a lot of success with all beams but maybe it'd be a fun change of pace and I won't have to do the slow corkscrew all of the time.
-I've thought this would be a neat idea for my star cruiser. Currently, i've got so much energy in my shields i end fights with my hull intact and not a scratch most of the time. However, i haven't fought through the last two story arcs yet, so that could change. I also don't care about being the best at PvP, so i am not familiar with what is currently the most sought-after builds fro that area of combat.
I bring up the shields as a point on turret DPS. You get 360 firing at the loss of damage. i've *rarely* had a fight where my main target (s) were able to consistently stay out of my front 250 for beams. And the ones that can are going to be small fighters that are more annoying than anything else. Eject some plasma or just bash them with your aft weapons and that should be good enough.
You'd have to stack + damage consoles, and you wouldn't have to bother with +turn consoles so that would free up a spot for extra shields/defensive boost.
If anyone has had success at VA with this sort of thing, i'd be interested in seeing the build as well.
I did something similar with my Orion Engineer in my Bortas. Considering how slow a turn rate that thing has, stick some Rapid Fire on it, DEM, and stick a dual heavy canon up front just for some good front end damage. Seems to work out pretty well for me. Basically I stuck all turrets in front and back, except for the one Dual Heavy I stuck on the front.
I gave it a go last night because I have more EC than I know what to do with thanks to a couple of purples selling on the exchange...
It was alright. Not much of a drop in fight speed and being able to just spin around in circles to get my damaged shield out of the firing arc was useful. The lower energy costs was also good. It may even kick butt if I had enough dilithium to buy the needed consoles to up the damage.
I'll be sticking with beams for my Feddy cruiser, but if I get the proper drops and enough dilithium for the consoles, I may make it for my Klingon escort in a couple of levels.
Running a Fed cruiser, I eventually settled on a rear-facing build. I'm not saying this is all well and perfect, but it is interesting.
Most NPCs seem to need to be directly behind you and out of your broadside and not just the small ships that go boom in a few hits.
I also noted that many PVPers will set up directly to your aft and pound away. I scared the poop out of a Klingon escort last night when he caught me off guard, killed me (I was PvEing a couple Borg spheres) and then tried the same rear-hit attack when I was watching for him. He killed me but limped off at 25% hull. He avoided me after that.
This allows me to do nearly all of my damage where most of my opponents seem to have to park themselves. No, it isn't perfect and I'm considering going the standard broadside beam arrays front and back and just dealing with the mediocrity.
Problems with my build and I suspect an all-turret build are these:
1) lack of punch to the front. I do very little on approach unless I'm flying reverse.
2) drains alot of power, quickly, leaving you swatting feathers at your opponents.
A broadside build for cruiser still can drain your power but at least your full usage would gain more "punch" than the weak DPS of turrets.
I think about the only good place for turrets is aft placement on escorts or aft on Klingon cruisers.
use to be many of us that run this build a while back.
Right now its kind of back in style due to some game mechanic changes.
Its a faily simple build. For a ship that is somewhat maneuverable, like a excel you set the ship up with the following
3 - Single Cannon, 1 - Torp
3 - Turrets, 1 - Torp (some ran 4 turrets but I dont recommend this as it will keep your front cannons on cool down too long in the cycle rate)
Now, for the Oddessy/Bortas now we are dealing with 2 different beasts i would recommend the following setups.
The DBA give syou some bite in front along with the torp, and for those rear shots, and broadsiding, the 2 turrets make up for the missing BA. In the rear, would be a bad place to be as all the main firepower is directed there.
3 - turrets, 1 - Torp
3 - turrets, either 1 - Torp or 1 - Mine (as your taste dictates)
Now I do not have BA at all on this rascal, simple due to the 4 tac slots you can make great use of.
Understand the diff in a Cannon/Turret build VS a Beam Array build. Beams will outdamage most cannon turrets builds at range of 5-6K or greater. This is due to the major loss of power from the cannon/turret at that range. While both vessels will gain as you close on your target, the turret build begins to shine from 5K inward, as no matter how you are attacked, the target has to contend with the full firepower of all the weapons from a turret build. With a Beam build, the attacker can limit their exposure some by staying out of broadside.
Remember CRF (Cannon Rapid Fire) and CSV (Cannon Scatter Volley) are your friends with a turret build. Turrets are considered cannons and the proper console and skill affect them as the main/dual/ dual heavy are affected.
I've been playing a couple weeks now. Just hit 41 (Tact/Escort). For 90% of my playtime, I've been PVPing. For 100% of THAT playtime, I've been using a mostly turret-only build. Typically speaking, my damage was devastating. I'm virtually ALWAYS ontop of the damage chart at the end of the round. Of course, this is from ~9-41, so it's not exactly an indicator of endgame performance. However, turret-heavy builds seem to be extremely viable.
Extended survivability coupled with increased damage. Turrets never stop firing, and you're never penalized for turning away from the opponent. This is ESPECIALLY true in an escort, which is what I always fly; the mobility of an escort with the flexibility of turrets really synergize well. Recently, I've added 1 cannon + 1 dual cannon to my fore weaponbanks for a bit of increased DPS, without being hugely penalized should I be forced to turn away to preserve my shields.
In my opinion ive used all turrets for my Sci, Eng and Tac. But it works best for a Sci and Eng i find. If you happen to have the Excelcior and/or Mirror Assult Cruiser (Prime Star Cruiser but with extra Tac slot) then i suggest you use those two ships.
For turrets its all dependent on your choice of what bonus you'd like to apply on the enemy, would you like SHield drain? then Tets is your best. I prefer my Disruptors for a good -10% Damage resistance. Its all personal choice because they all work well on most types of battle (PvP, PvE). NO RAINBOW TURRET BOAT... that will just lower your damage output. Plus id stay away from plasma if your Lv. 40+ because most people in those ranges of levels will have Plasma protection due to Borg using Plasma based weapons.
I would refrain from using the Prefire CHamber that boosts cannons and turrets due to it's low %. But since turrets are an energy based weapon i use my energy boosting consol. Also if you are interested in an additional weapon, possibly a Torp. Go for the one you get at the end of Doomsday. That torp will continually damnage your tatget's hull and end in a huge chuck taken out depending on thier protective consols and their skills they use to avoid it. Plus... Most new players dont know these things about that torp so it will be a shock for them somewhat lol.
Dont bother putting all turrets on an escort. They are too fast to even need Turrets. Science is ok to have them on the Aft but save the front for single cannons and duel beam banks. Carriors (KDF, Artox, Recluse) Perfect example of another ship that would do good especially if you had shield healing support crafts. But dont waste turrets ont the Arminage. Its manuverability is like an Escort.
My Vo'quv runs an all turret build sometimes. You should see it with cannon scatter volley.
STO Forum member since before February 2010.
STO Academy's excellent skill planner here: Link
I actually avoid success entirely. It doesn't get me what I want, and the consequences for failure are slim. -- markhawman