Commander
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 268
# 21
10-30-2012, 06:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by carl103 View Post
No but i have and i cna tell you if you expect to use DBB's on a cruiser as primary DPS your in for a rude shock in PVE. The only way to keep a target in arc with DBB's in a cruiser for enough time to actually beat out broadsiding is to come to a near complete stop. Result your defnce takes a nosedive and so does you ability to take a hit. You die, you suck, congratulations.

That said i do belive it would be worth it strictly for science ships to get a bema vershion of the turret.
That is true...in a game where warp plasma, tractor beam, and other holds do not exists.

Fortunately...cruisers, being engineer ships, have access to a lot of very nice hold abilities which allow you to get into the perfect firing arc.

Checkmate.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,553
# 22
10-30-2012, 07:02 PM
You know, if you're going to be insulting, then I see no reason to even look into your idea, and I don't think a developer will either. We are simply offering counter points to what you are suggesting, but then you proceed to not only insult us, but be exasperatingly abrasive.

I was simply pointing out the firing animation difference because I found it interesting and amusing. The main point I was making (which apparently you missed) was that the main difference is not only number of shots fired but the 10% crit severity. I think you need to stop getting annoyed when someone goes against you.

And in all honesty I fail to see how adding that 360 degree beam array will change up playstyle. You were talking about true assault cruisers, but something to remember is that most cruisers don't have the turn rate to be truly forward based firepower. You may want to take that into account. Not trying to be offensive or anything, but unless this is meant for all ship types, you might want to rethink this.

And before you quote me with anger, I would request you actually either think before you type, or stop being blinded to other opinions by your own. You put this up asking for criticism and with an open mind, and I find that anyone that disagrees with you has been met with close-minded arrogance insofar as this thread is concerned.
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
Tired of Wasting EC and Time trying to get Superior Romulan Operative BOffs? Here's a cheap and easy way to get them, with an almost 100% chance of success.
Why the Devs can't make PvE content harder.
Commander
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 268
# 23
10-30-2012, 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hereticknight085 View Post
You know, if you're going to be insulting, then I see no reason to even look into your idea, and I don't think a developer will either. We are simply offering counter points to what you are suggesting, but then you proceed to not only insult us, but be exasperatingly abrasive.

I was simply pointing out the firing animation difference because I found it interesting and amusing. The main point I was making (which apparently you missed) was that the main difference is not only number of shots fired but the 10% crit severity. I think you need to stop getting annoyed when someone goes against you.

And in all honesty I fail to see how adding that 360 degree beam array will change up playstyle. You were talking about true assault cruisers, but something to remember is that most cruisers don't have the turn rate to be truly forward based firepower. You may want to take that into account. Not trying to be offensive or anything, but unless this is meant for all ship types, you might want to rethink this.

And before you quote me with anger, I would request you actually either think before you type, or stop being blinded to other opinions by your own. You put this up asking for criticism and with an open mind, and I find that anyone that disagrees with you has been met with close-minded arrogance insofar as this thread is concerned.
If I was trying to insult you...my posts would be three words longs.

However, your personal views of me mean absolutely nothing to the topic at hand, so lets stay on topic.

Now...when you say most cruisers don't have the turn rate to properly use beams. Tough. If your cruiser has the turn radius of The Hindenburg, that is not my problem. Buy a respec token, and spend some ECs to build a proper character / ship.

My cruisers have no issues with turn rate...because I took the time to invest in the right skills, and equip the right stuff. There is no shortage of guides online.

On that note, since when is a weapon that can fire at 360 degrees hindered by turn rate? That seems...very odd. This 360 beam array, would in fact, help people who struggle with turn rate. And yes...escorts could technically use this as well...but they are better off with cannons due to their turn rate.

So yes...what I am proposing is for all ship builds. Everyone can use this...just some, better than others. That seems to be the norm in ALL GAMES. Everyone can use it, some, just better than others.

And, for the record, only three people have had staunch opposition to this idea...and their arguments against it were terrible. The guy in post #16 came in here and spewed totally incorrect information, and rebuttals based on incorrect information.

I think it was you who opposed the idea based on the notion that it is "repetitive" when the devs seems to love repetition. They rehash the same ships, with a different mesh, and then sell it for money. Either this game is based on repetition, or there is so much repetition, that more repetition should not matter.

Don't get me wrong, I love this game, and I think the devs have done an excellent job IMO. However, there have been some slight oversights that could go with a bit of fixing. You have dual beam banks, you have dual canons. You have single beam arrays, you have single cannons. However...you only have 1 turret that works with cannons, and nothing that works with beams. At the very core, I am proposing that the logical pattern to weapon types be completed.

of course there has to be some way to distinguish the 360 beam array from the turret, and I totally agree with that. However...people who say "we don't need it" are the close minded ones. We did;t need the temporal destroyers. We didn't need omega marks. We didn't need lockboxes...but they are there. They are there to enhance the game for the players and to add new content.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,553
# 24
10-30-2012, 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nakedcrook View Post
If I was trying to insult you...my posts would be three words longs.

However, your personal views of me mean absolutely nothing to the topic at hand, so lets stay on topic.

Now...when you say most cruisers don't have the turn rate to properly use beams. Tough. If your cruiser has the turn radius of The Hindenburg, that is not my problem. Buy a respec token, and spend some ECs to build a proper character / ship.

My cruisers have no issues with turn rate...because I took the time to invest in the right skills, and equip the right stuff. There is no shortage of guides online.

On that note, since when is a weapon that can fire at 360 degrees hindered by turn rate? That seems...very odd. This 360 beam array, would in fact, help people who struggle with turn rate. And yes...escorts could technically use this as well...but they are better off with cannons due to their turn rate.

So yes...what I am proposing is for all ship builds. Everyone can use this...just some, better than others. That seems to be the norm in ALL GAMES. Everyone can use it, some, just better than others.

And, for the record, only three people have had staunch opposition to this idea...and their arguments against it were terrible. The guy in post #16 came in here and spewed totally incorrect information, and rebuttals based on incorrect information.

I think it was you who opposed the idea based on the notion that it is "repetitive" when the devs seems to love repetition. They rehash the same ships, with a different mesh, and then sell it for money. Either this game is based on repetition, or there is so much repetition, that more repetition should not matter.

Don't get me wrong, I love this game, and I think the devs have done an excellent job IMO. However, there have been some slight oversights that could go with a bit of fixing. You have dual beam banks, you have dual canons. You have single beam arrays, you have single cannons. However...you only have 1 turret that works with cannons, and nothing that works with beams. At the very core, I am proposing that the logical pattern to weapon types be completed.

of course there has to be some way to distinguish the 360 beam array from the turret, and I totally agree with that. However...people who say "we don't need it" are the close minded ones. We did;t need the temporal destroyers. We didn't need omega marks. We didn't need lockboxes...but they are there. They are there to enhance the game for the players and to add new content.
Thank you for your explanation. I only have two more points to make that are argumentative, and then one point to make that is a suggested change.

1) Cruiser turn rates. Even with skills there is only so much you can do to increase the turn rate on a cruiser. And before you tell me learn to build/learn to play/respec, I'll tell you that I have looked into the builds online, and many of them admittedly say that for a cruiser you're better off not trying to get better turn, instead taking advantage of the ship's tankiness. And I also don't have issues with my cruiser's turn rate. I never have, and never will as far as I can tell. It does what I need it to do.

On a side note, I never said 360 degrees was affected by turn rates, just that the weapon you're trying to combine it with, the DBB, was affected by it. Only reason that ever came up.

2) I still fail to see why there is a need for it since you have turrets. Unless you are planning on making it affected by all the beam abilities, which then opens up a whole new can of worms. That being said, on to suggestive point.

I did find your statement of "You have dual beam banks, you have dual canons. You have single beam arrays, you have single cannons. However...you only have 1 turret that works with cannons, and nothing that works with beams. At the very core, I am proposing that the logical pattern to weapon types be completed." to be very interesting. Never thought of it that way.

I would suggest that if you did want this weapon, with it's 360 degree firing arc, give it something that would actually make me want it. Me being any player who could possibly use it. Give it something that makes it worthwhile. Something that makes it a viable alternative to turrets. The biggest problem with beam weapons is their power consumption, and how their firepower drops off drastically at lower power than cannons. They make up for it by being better range weapons, but tbh, I would prefer a lower power:damage ratio (at least as power loss goes). If your beam turrets had that, or even a lower power consumption rate (say 5 per weapon instead of the 10 you see on normal BAs and DBBs), then I would jump on them and grab em in a second (or less).

Add in some kind of incentive like that, and you're gold.
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
Tired of Wasting EC and Time trying to get Superior Romulan Operative BOffs? Here's a cheap and easy way to get them, with an almost 100% chance of success.
Why the Devs can't make PvE content harder.
Commander
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 268
# 25
10-30-2012, 08:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hereticknight085 View Post
I would suggest that if you did want this weapon, with it's 360 degree firing arc, give it something that would actually make me want it. Me being any player who could possibly use it. Give it something that makes it worthwhile. Something that makes it a viable alternative to turrets. The biggest problem with beam weapons is their power consumption, and how their firepower drops off drastically at lower power than cannons. They make up for it by being better range weapons, but tbh, I would prefer a lower power:damage ratio (at least as power loss goes). If your beam turrets had that, or even a lower power consumption rate (say 5 per weapon instead of the 10 you see on normal BAs and DBBs), then I would jump on them and grab em in a second (or less).

Add in some kind of incentive like that, and you're gold.
Now we are getting somewhere.

So in order to consider stats for such a weapon, you would need to look at what is on the opposing scale, and what you are trying to compliment it with.

For the basis of stat building...lets look at what the Phaser turret offers. I will be using MK 12 VR borg items from the Omega store on DS9.

Quote:
Phaser Turret

Energy Damage

360' targeting arc
to target: 101.4 Phaser Damage ( 135.2 DPS)
to self: -8 Weapon Power when firing other weapons
to target: 2.5% Chance: Disable 1 Subsystem for 5 sec
Now...lets compare dual cannons and dual beam banks before we can come up with final stats

Quote:
Dual Phaser Banks

Energy Damage

90' targeting arc
to target: 293 Phaser Damage ( 234.4 DPS)
to self: -10 Weapon Power when firing other weapons
to target: 2.5% Chance: Disable 1 Subsystem for 5 sec
Quote:
Dual Phaser Cannons

Energy Damage

45' targeting arc
to target: 196.1 Phaser Damage ( 261.5 DPS)
to self: -10 Weapon Power when firing other weapons
to target: 2.5% Chance: Disable 1 Subsystem for 5 sec
So what we have is this:

Beams - wider arc, more accurate, slower attack speed, lower DPS, harder hit per shot
Cannons - smaller arc, less accurate, faster attack speed, higher DPS, weaker hit per shot

The energy drain seems to be the same.

Take into account that Damage per shot for the beam bank is 293 and the damage per shot for the dual cannon is 196.1. The cannon only does 66.9% of the damage that a beam bank is doing PER SHOT.

However...in terms of DPS

The dual cannon does 261.5 DPS and the dual beam bank does 234.4 The dual beam banks only do 89.6% of the DPS that a dual cannon does.

So...we could possibly imagine a 360 beam turret looking...almost like the turret. The differneces come in when dealing with rate of fire, DPS, damage per shot, and accuracy. This would be a pretty close representation of what we would end up with.

Quote:
360 Phaser Beam Array

Energy Damage

360' targeting arc
to target: 151.5 Phaser Damage ( 121.1 DPS)
to self: -8 Weapon Power when firing other weapons
to target: 2.5% Chance: Disable 1 Subsystem for 5 sec
the above was calculated by scaling BOTH the damage per shot and the DPS exactly.

101.4 / 66.9% = 151
135.2 x 89.6% = 121.1

much like:

196.1 / 293 = 66.9%
234.4 / 261.5 = 89.6%

The incentives come in when you don't need to know both cannon skills and beam skills to accomplish a turret/beam hybrid ship. The incentives are streamlined Boff abilities, more specialization, and, well...consistency.

The 360 beam array would match the basic turret in terms of arc, but would obviously fire slower, like beams do, butn would be more accurate.

This is the best I could come up with off the top of my head based on what we have in game as of right now.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,192
# 26
10-31-2012, 12:35 AM
Just saying that the new STF reward set will include 360 beam...kinetic cutting beam that is. I would love "beam turrets" as well, just because I do not like the sound of turrets much.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 144
# 27
10-31-2012, 01:18 AM
I sure wouldn't mind a 360 beam array on my escort, I am running 4 dhc in the front and 2 turrets plus tric in the aft at the moment. Beam fire at will would work wonders for incoming projectiles while only sacrificing a bit of dps when alpha striking.

A cruiser on the other hand might not have any use for a 360 beam array, even if you try to make a cruiser a bit more head on you will really lose out on dps because you aren't using the ship like it is suppoed to be used, namely to broadside. Escorts will stay in the rear because your aft dps is 50% less than your fore dps = You will be easier prey and all they have to do is to press Tactical team every now and then.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,620
# 28
10-31-2012, 02:13 AM
Honestly I always thought beams got the short end of the stick.
There are 4 cannon type weapons (5 if you count the quads) and only 2 beam type weapons. I think there should be a beam based turret and a heavy dual beam bank. Just to even things out. Hell it would be neat to expand that further by adding a single heavy cannon and a single beam bank or heavy beam array.
Actualy reading things pefore posting will make you look smarter than yelling loudly. Reading comprehension is aparently a lost art.

Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abriham Lincoln
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,078
# 29
10-31-2012, 03:23 AM
personally i do not see a big deal in adding a 360 degree beam that has same or close dps as a turret.

But as somebody else suggested, it would be easier to add turrets to certain abilities, like fire at will, or subsystem targeting.

but if people care about the animation so much, i think it is just easier to change the animation of turrets into bursts of beams. So that they don't look like projectiles and more like strings.

for all the arguments against the 360 degree beam, i think they are not gamebreaking in any way...actually i think they don't change much...thats probably the reason they won't ever be implemented. Just adding certain abilities to turrets is the easier way, period.
Go pro or go home
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 347
# 30
10-31-2012, 04:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nakedcrook View Post
Anyone with a beam cruiser must of asked this question at one point or another: "where are the 360 degree beam arrays?" Why don't they exist as an option for Beam Boat cruisers? I think they would be a great addition to the game and solve quite a few problems. Here is my reasoning why:

For the record...I am talking about the introduction of a new class of weapon...not modifying the existing beam arrays to become 360. The entire point of this thread is to put forward the idea of the 360 degree beam array

1. Turrets do not work well with beam arrays / dual beam banks.

I have experimented with a federation cruiser that had 4 dual beam banks on front, and 4 turrets on aft. The end result was not very impressive. Throughout my tests, not once did the turrets fire at the same time as the dual beam banks. The turrets and the dual beam banks did not work very synergistically, as opposed to cannons and turrets which CAN fire at the same time.

2. A 360 beam array would give cruisers an extra bit of firepower during direct assaults.

Lets face it...the DPS that an escort can do with cannons/turrets puts a beam cruiser to shame. The ability to have 360 beam turrets on aft for a cruiser would allow players to construct a sort of assault cruiser build intended for direct assaults, instead of limiting the iconic Galaxy Class and Soveriegn class to "extra guns" for escorts

3. For an escort...4 turrets on aft means 8 hard points on front. Cruisers don't stand a chance

This is undeniable. This has to be one of the greatest advantages that escorts have. It gets worse when you have the zippy Defiant flying around, out turning, and out maneuvering cruisers, just laying waste to shields.

Cruisers should be able to counter this with a head-on assault of their own. Forget patches to add further debuffs to escort shields, or buffs to cruiser turn rates...360 turrets would solve most of the problems of cruisers not being "strong enough" according to some players.

4. 360 beam arrays will be the weakest of the beam weapons

This would also be undeniable. The greater your firing arc, the less damage that it should do...this is balance 101. I am sure everyone could agree on this.

5. 360 Beam arrays will compliment Dual beam Banks like the turrets compliment Dual Canons

Fair is fair right? This would enable the players, "us", to expand on the possible builds for our ships, giving us more options, more choices, and expanding the type of play-style. THis would increase the amount of styles of ships, and thus, creating more diversity in PVP arenas or improving performance in PVE.

====

It is not like introducing 360 beam arrays would break the game. It would not enable cruisers to be uber or godly. There is obvious drawbacks to using the weaker 360 beam arrays as opposed to the standard (and stronger) 250 beam arrays. 360 beam arrays are for players who want to maximize forward damage at the expense of aft damage. 360 beam arrays are for players who prefer head on attacking as opposed to attacking while running away. It is almost self balancing.

Naturally, as firing arc increases...DPS and base damage goes down...that is called balance, and I would expect that with 360 beam arrays.

We already have 360 degree beam arras for shuttles. The assets are there, the code is there, the foundation is there. The Devs just need to expand on it. Adding 260 degree beam arrays for all the weapon types would be an excellent way to expand player choice, and the way we play in both PVE and PVP. It will defiantly shake things up...and give people an excuse to play the game to get this new class of weapon.

If you guys have any input on this idea, or criticisms...please...feel free to post.
1) Theyre not supposed to, beam boats with DBBs have enough coverage to maintain DPS just fine without turrets

2) Thats what DBBs are for

3) Where is this uber escort that has 4 aft hardpoints?

4) Then they would do the same job as turrets, only be worse at it, with a progressive power drain

5) Regular beam arrays already do that. Most cruisers are beam boats for a reason .. plus the power drain (as mentioned) from 360 beam arrays would be progressive and potentially cause a loss of DPS in comparison to if you used turrets
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 05:04 AM.