Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,427
# 21
07-09-2012, 06:36 AM
I'm probably going to regret posting something this nerdy but...

The only weapons that really make "sense" in this game are plasma (and possibly antiprotons but that's a whole other can of worms). The others are all variations on a directed high-energy laser theme.

With lasers or light-based weapons, there's no need to mount the weapon in any one single place on the starship as the lightspeed travel time would be negligible. An "array" coiled around the whole hull of the vessel would have complete 360 coverage as well as being more powerful on the order of magnitude than a "cannon"-style mount (high-energy light can be looped indefinitely, gaining energy and thus heat on each pass). Cannon "pulses" are also less efficient as less energy is being continuously focused on one spot, with a high margin for error introduced between bursts (stopping a laser mid-cut in real life is considered a major failure).

One thing that people may be happy to hear, however, is that laser battles in all likelihood will be extremely colorful. Solid-state lasers themselves are produced via focused diffraction through a medium (ruby is common). The only difference between a cheap lime-green laser pointer and a weaponized laser array is the scale in power.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 620
# 22
07-09-2012, 06:38 AM
I agree more ore less with OP. Firing through your own hull without damaging it is silly and goes against my logic.

As a matter of fact there are some more silly weapon systems. Silly or at least not so 24th century. How come I miss quite a few times? A miss is a lost weapon or lost energy, also lost time, while you miss, the enemy is still there doing his thing, you really don't want him to do.

So let me tell you, I am convinced that in the 24th century there are no weapons any more that can miss. Countermeasured, sure, but miss? no.

WOII submarines had front and aft torpedoe tubes. The aft torpedoe room was very small and there where just a few torpedoes. It was a huge operation to supply the aft room with torpedoes from the front room. To fire a torpedoe the captain had to aim the ship. The torpedoe could be given a bearing, a course, but still the target ship could succesfully evade.

Modern subs and torpedoe systems are self guided, they find there target. In STO, mines are self seeking, torps do like a lot like WOII torps.

What is the difference between a cannon and a beam weapon? A beam weapon fires a puls of energy and a cannon? Does it fire a projectile, a sort of bullet, or does it still fire energy?

What are those big guns on the wings of my BoP. There fire power must be devastating. What do the Fed ships have to measure up against it?
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 658
# 23
07-09-2012, 07:19 AM
The problem with cannons firing through ownship's hull is a 3D modelling (hardpoint positioning) issue, not a weapon system issue.
STF Flight Instructor since Early 2012. Newbies are the reason why STO lives and breathes today. Do not discriminate.

My Youtube Channel
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 633
# 24
07-09-2012, 07:50 AM
Quote:
I'm probably going to regret posting something this nerdy but...

The only weapons that really make "sense" in this game are plasma (and possibly antiprotons but that's a whole other can of worms). The others are all variations on a directed high-energy laser theme.

With lasers or light-based weapons, there's no need to mount the weapon in any one single place on the starship as the lightspeed travel time would be negligible. An "array" coiled around the whole hull of the vessel would have complete 360 coverage as well as being more powerful on the order of magnitude than a "cannon"-style mount (high-energy light can be looped indefinitely, gaining energy and thus heat on each pass). Cannon "pulses" are also less efficient as less energy is being continuously focused on one spot, with a high margin for error introduced between bursts (stopping a laser mid-cut in real life is considered a major failure).

One thing that people may be happy to hear, however, is that laser battles in all likelihood will be extremely colorful. Solid-state lasers themselves are produced via focused diffraction through a medium (ruby is common). The only difference between a cheap lime-green laser pointer and a weaponized laser array is the scale in power.
Actually this is exactly how beam arrays in ST work. That huge strip on the galaxy suacer...

Thats a 1000 and some segments, each of which contributes to the beams opower. The STO cannons are based on the defiant, which unfortunatly had the advantage compared to contemparary ships of:

A) it was a good 5-8 years more advanced than the galaxy, possibly 10 or more than the phaser strips mounted on said ships.

B) those canons went a hell of a long way back into the hull, and where fairly large in other dimenshions. They had nearly as much generating volume as the Glaxy's big strip AFAIK.


But that obviouslly dosen't apply to every ship.


It's also why in non-reboot universe cannon you never see that kind of beam spam mess. You just can't power that many weapons at full power. You don't get any extra damage from doing it.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 502
i have a ship i don't use anymore, so i thought i would see what an all turret build would do on this ship. Of course prototype has been hard to come by lately so my project has slowed down. i only use level 12 items.

i'm thinking it would use very little power on weapons so i could use more on shields.

Also it could be firing every direction all the time. i'm curious to see if it it can do enough damage, for example, handle probes or knock out a cube.

so am i crazy or what?

i have no problem with turrets in the game. i think the game does fairly well staying true to Star Trek. It is a game after all.
http://startrek.44thfleet.com/
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 117
# 26
07-09-2012, 08:25 AM
When a beam misses, you can just say it's the enemy counter-measures/movement that causes it, not the ships own targeting system which messed up.

Either way, IIRC, plenty of misses in the Trek universe with phasers.

As for the Kelvin... apparently the script/some sources place those turrets as torpedo launchers. Which to me makes ZERO sense because then apparently the Kelvin has more torpedos then a galaxy class cruiser due to how rapidly those things fired (and how many there were). *Aka, I view them as energy turrets. Maybe able to fire torpedos but definitely not pure torpedo launchers.*

To the OP, as somebody else said... when I equip a beam array, it swaps between which phaser strips (on ships that have them like the Odyssey) is most useful. It'll jump from top of saucer, bottom of saucer, secondary hull, nacelle, etc.

So... why wouldn't they *logically, ignoring coding issues* have turrets placed across the full hull giving 360 degree coverage?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 247
# 27
07-09-2012, 08:32 AM
My rear mounted turrets sometimes fire from the front hardpoints (no, I've checked, it's not an optical illusion as it happens when I fire to something in the forward-side arc, not straight ahead). So turrets can very well be an energy system with multiple exit points, rather than a single weapon at a single point. Ingame, it is too (even if that may be a bug).
Don't fall for the fake advertising: Guild Wars 2 is a WoW clone and a poor one too.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 423
# 28
07-09-2012, 09:02 AM
I vote no no no no no.......but thanks for the post
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 314
# 29
07-09-2012, 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thibash View Post
My rear mounted turrets sometimes fire from the front hardpoints (no, I've checked, it's not an optical illusion as it happens when I fire to something in the forward-side arc, not straight ahead). So turrets can very well be an energy system with multiple exit points, rather than a single weapon at a single point. Ingame, it is too (even if that may be a bug).
Didn't a dev say they would be doing this a couple of months ago for the very reason listed? That is, it looks silly for a turret to fire through the ship, so they now fire from whichever hardpoint is logical, not just from the aft emplacements?
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,642
# 30
07-09-2012, 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalavier View Post
To the OP, as somebody else said... when I equip a beam array, it swaps between which phaser strips (on ships that have them like the Odyssey) is most useful. It'll jump from top of saucer, bottom of saucer, secondary hull, nacelle, etc.

So... why wouldn't they *logically, ignoring coding issues* have turrets placed across the full hull giving 360 degree coverage?
You're logically right in saying that a phaser should jump from the top strip to the bottom when needed.

Logically that would lead to the argument that turrets have points mounted all over the ship to cover all directions. That's the bit I don't like. Forward mounted weapons should have no rear mounted points and vise versa. Keep forward mounted weapons forward facing and rear mounted weapons rear facing.
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 11:09 PM.