Go Back   Star Trek Online > Information and Discussion > Star Trek Online General Discussion
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,132
# 141
02-21-2013, 07:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
Please elaborate on how an existing anti drain ability not being powerful enough to counter existing weapon drain mechanics on a macro scale clashes with the statement that existing anti drain mechanics are not currently strong enough to counter existing weapon drains.



You'll notice I made zero quality judgements about whether you should or should not be forced into a specific loadout.
...

What?

I just pointed out that one of the existing anti-drain mechanics that was tested did in fact produce a decent amount of damage gain; and therefore your statement about the purpose of the OP was not entirely accurate.

I also said nothing about being forced into builds. I just pointed out that the argument could be made, that if something can be done, but can't be done well, then perhaps it isn't working right. It would certainly be grounds to re-examine it.
Exploration suggestions thread - give it a read

BTW, you'd pronounce it 'Cap'n Manks'

I protest the removal of exploration clusters
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,465
# 142
02-21-2013, 07:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by capnmanx View Post
...

What?

I just pointed out that one of the existing anti-drain mechanics that was tested did in fact produce a decent amount of damage gain; and therefore your statement about the purpose of the OP was not entirely accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
On the contrary, his point was that existing drain mechanics, specifically the power inefficient nature of non-DHC weapons, are not fully counterable by existing anti-drain capabilities.
Emphasis mine, since you clearly didn't see it the first time. I chose my words carefully.

Quote:
Originally Posted by capnmanx View Post
I also said nothing about being forced into builds. I just pointed out that the argument could be made, that if something can be done, but can't be done well, then perhaps it isn't working right. It would certainly be grounds to re-examine it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by capnmanx View Post
You make it sound like we aren't supposed to be able to run 7 beams at once; but then why do we have the means, and why do we have that one ability that lets it work on occasion? There is a case to be made that it is not working as intended.
Again, emphasis mine.

If you're going to contest a point, please be consistent.

In addition, simply because something can be done, doesn't mean it should inherently be able to be done well. You can make a balloon out of lead, or a plane out of concrete, but it doesn't mean they're going to work better than a plane or balloon of different design or implementation.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 228
# 143
02-21-2013, 07:48 AM
Ok, the reason why the OP saw such a huge improvement with NI, as opposed to such a small improvement with EPTW/manifolds/leech, is because even at 160ish weapon power he was still dipping below 125 while firing. With NI, he had almost no dip.

Look folks, I'm going to be bluntly honest, beams work fine. I have 2 engineers, one fed one klingon, Fleet Ambassador/ Fleet Vor'Cha respectfully. I average 6-7k dps parsed Infected elite runs. Ive run literally hundreds of Infecteds since starting to play STO, so my pool of test run are more than sufficent.

Beams lack only one thing that DHC's have, big burst. Knowing beams as well as I do, I took my tac officer in a Fleet Defiant and built a pve broadside beamscort. Bfaw3 + Omega 3 and APA is nothing to sneeze at, toss in a couple torp spreads, and I am pulling 11-13k dps parsed dps infected elite.

Is it fair to have to overstack power for beams compared to DHC's, no. But if you do, you're not going to have a problem pulling you're own weight and then some in PvE

Brody/Salander/Tsamsiyu ToSVets.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 174
# 144
02-21-2013, 08:09 AM
This is sort of like a scientist demanding gravity take it easy because it pulls too hard. That gravity might actually listen in this case doesn't make it a less shoddy approach to problem solving. So you've hooked up eighty beams and created some hideous Frankenstein monster and it doesn't work and now you're upset.

Well? Who said it would work in the first place? Part of experimenting with those sorts of exotic weapons loadouts is going to be trial and error. So okay, that wacky idea didn't work. Now you try something else. If everything worked and every unique snowflake loadout doled out an equal amount of DPS then the game would be even less involved than it already is, and experimenting with weapons setups wouldn't be fun because everybody gets a cookie and every paper gets an A.
Career Officer
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 25
# 145
02-21-2013, 08:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by momaw View Post
3.) Torpedo launchers have pathetic DPS output. Even less than drain-crippled beam fire. This wouldn't be an issue if torpedoes did enough spike damage to justify taking your beams off target for a kill shot, but only way to even come close to having a torpedo strike be a kill shot is to massively buff it with tactical captain and boff abilities. Guess which ships are not typically used by tactical captains and have few tactical boff options?
I have to interject on this point...I have seen and experienced the "business end" of a Chel Grett armed with nothing but transphasic, rapid-reload transphasic, and Breen transphasic cluster torpedos, and ship gear that enhances torpedos, mines and shield penetration. The build in question put ZERO POINTS in any energy weapon captain skill, allowing those points to be spent elsewhere for survivability. They fly at the minimum energy weapon power of 25 in every power mode.

And the captain in question is an Engineer.

Their damage output is through the roof. To say that torpedo launchers have pathetic DPS output is wrong...the man is getting it DONE.
Captain
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,394
# 146
02-21-2013, 08:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pompouluss View Post
This is sort of like a scientist demanding gravity take it easy because it pulls too hard.
The weakest of the forces does take it easy once you achieve escape velocity.

Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,132
# 147
02-21-2013, 09:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
Emphasis mine, since you clearly didn't see it the first time. I chose my words carefully.





Again, emphasis mine.

If you're going to contest a point, please be consistent.

In addition, simply because something can be done, doesn't mean it should inherently be able to be done well. You can make a balloon out of lead, or a plane out of concrete, but it doesn't mean they're going to work better than a plane or balloon of different design or implementation.
You are twisting my words. Again, I never said anything about being forced into builds. You are making an assumption that running 7 beams is meant to result in these problems; I am not making that assumption. I don't know whether it is or not; I think there is a case to be made for re-examining the issue to make sure the results are the ones the devs intended. That is all.

To think, I only can in here to point out that range has nothing to do with the matter at hand...
Exploration suggestions thread - give it a read

BTW, you'd pronounce it 'Cap'n Manks'

I protest the removal of exploration clusters
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 298
# 148
02-21-2013, 09:17 AM
I'd honestly think you are doing something wrong. I've got 6 Phaser beam array's, the Omega Plasma Torpedo, and the Borg Cutting Beam on my Galaxy-X, and from that distance (Assuming the target has no shields) I can do easy 700 to 900 damage per beam. If i'm within 5K of the target it's easy 1100 or better. With full shields the Phasers don't seem to have much trouble stripping them off, so I can't really say there's anything wrong with them. They seem to function as I would expect them to, but i'm usually broadsiding things like crazy, so dps, and shield stripping is fairly easy to do with 6 beams.

Of course i'm flying the X with my Engineer, so power really isn't a problem for me. I did fly an Excelsior with Disruptor beams for a good while, and damage was just though the roof on that thing, but it's been a while since I did anything with that captain. I'd say look at your spec points and what type of beams you are using. I've got XI purple Acc CritD and CritH phaser beams arrays on my X, so i'd imagine the Disruptor beams would be as good if not better damage considering the procs.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,241
# 149
02-21-2013, 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eulifdavis View Post
Beams are fine. If you're trying to match cannon DPS, you're doing it wrong. Beams =/= cannons. Larger firing arc = lesser damage output. It's really that simple.

Beams will never achieve the same damage output of cannons. If you want that much damage, start flying a ship that can load cannons.
problem with that logic: escorts turn on a dime so firing arc is irrelevant. A cruiser or sci ship bringing to bear 8 or 6 beams should be competitive vs a 4 fore cannon escort (before buffs of course).

I think the real problem is that beams do not have enough benefit over cannons to be competitive.

Its not a power drain issue though. I think its a niche/utility issue.

Beams can be made more useful by:

1- Increasing effective max damage range. For example, have beams do max damage out to 6km and have up to 20% loss of damage by 10km. Cannons oth, should have noticeable damage loss by 6km (40% dmg loss) and be near useless at 10km. Full dmg 2km and under.

2- Beam weapons should have higher chance to proc effects than cannons. Why? They're lasing the target not peppering it all over with cannon rounds. More focused energy=better chance of triggering effect. Rather than 2.5% make it 10%. There is precedence to this with the mission-acquirable 10% proc chance beam array. Not only does this make a ton of sense, it also works with cruiser and sci ship reliance on non-dps to achieve their weapon roles.


Cosmetic change but vital: Rather than a beam firing 4 or 5 pulses per cycle, have it fire just one or two beams long duration beams for the duration of the attack and have those beams 'pulse' like a lance weapon does. Not only would it make it look more canon and helps reduce FPS loss.
http://media.tumblr.com/160cacdb395f8340dac90864182ebe16/tumblr_inline_mx9yxhItkb1qg9pkt.jpg
Lieutenant
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 62
# 150
02-21-2013, 11:02 AM
Well, In canon galaxy class ships have 12/14 Phaser arrays, And you don't see it's power being completely drained per volley.
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 02:55 AM.