Lt. Commander
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 137
# 1 Energy weapons need an update
01-28-2013, 08:37 AM
These are the current choices for energy weapons:

Dual Heavy Cannons: 45 firing arc
Dual Cannons: 45 firing arc
Dual Beam Bank: 90 firing arc
Singe Cannon: 180 firing arc
Beam Array: 250 firing arc
Turrets: 360 firing arc

These are what the choices for energy weapon types should be:

Dual Heavy Cannons: 45 firing arc
Dual Cannons: 90 firing arc
Dual Beam Bank: 135 firing arc
Single Cannon: 180 firing arc
Beam Array: 250 firing arc
Turrets: 360 firing arc

Here's what the Tactical Bridge Officer abilities should look like:

Rapid Fire: Improves the next attack by all energy weapons against a single target.
Fire at Will: Improves the next attack by all energy weapons against multiple targets.


STO has become a game with a wide variety of new and interesting ships. It's really quite terrible that the turn rate of a ship either qualifies it for using Dual Heavy Cannons, or it auto-reverts back to a beam array broadside boat. While some niches for other weapon types exist, they're mostly impractical.

The biggest losers tend to be the newest ships, which deviate from the turn rate norms of their predecessors. Using the Jem'Hadar Heavy Escort Carrier for example, we see the perfect illustration of an Escort with cruiser-like properties and a lower turn rate. However, It's forced to choose between DHC's or drop down to single cannons, when the perfect weapon for it would most likely be somewhere in between.

Likewise, there is really no reason for penalizing people for mixing cannon type and beam type weapons by having each tactical bridge officer ability be different. Many of the "imbalance" cries in the game stem from tactical layouts that are designed for a mix of different class energy weapons, only to find themselves worse off for following the natural flow of the ship. I remember reading a long time ago, that this might come to pass eventually. Now's the time!

Turn rate should dictate up-time, up-time dictates what weapon is best for a ship. Having a huge ship pool full of different turn rate ships is worthless if there aren't options to build them properly.

/end rant on random maintenance thoughts
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=93695767000&dateline=  1347284393
Lag Industries STO/TOR Guild
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,161
# 2
01-28-2013, 08:47 AM
DHCs vs. DCs... spike vs. rapid sustained (w/o increased proc). Always wondered why the DCs didn't proc more - allowing players to make the choice between going for the spike or gambling on proc rates.

Where are the Dual Turrets with reduced arcs but greater damage?

What about Heavy Beam Lances? Narrow arc burn...

What about Beam Turrets along the lines of the Cutting Beam?

Where's cone Beam and AoE Cannon?

Pulse Beams?

Changeable ammo instead of changeable weapons?

Yep, one can go on for quite a while putting together a quick list of things and then fleshing it all out...
Vice Admiral Geist, Klingon Science Officer
V.S.S. Oracle, D'Kyr-class Science Vessel
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,192
# 3
01-28-2013, 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by virusdancer View Post
DHCs vs. DCs... spike vs. rapid sustained (w/o increased proc). Always wondered why the DCs didn't proc more - allowing players to make the choice between going for the spike or gambling on proc rates.

Where are the Dual Turrets with reduced arcs but greater damage?

What about Heavy Beam Lances? Narrow arc burn...

What about Beam Turrets along the lines of the Cutting Beam?

Where's cone Beam and AoE Cannon?

Pulse Beams?

Changeable ammo instead of changeable weapons?

Yep, one can go on for quite a while putting together a quick list of things and then fleshing it all out...
They are in our dreams, future lotery boxes and our pockets.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 137
# 4
01-28-2013, 08:51 AM
I'm all for adding new stuff, but at the moment, I'd just like them to make useful what we already have.

I would think it to be in their best interest, since they went to all the trouble of designing them in the first place.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=93695767000&dateline=  1347284393
Lag Industries STO/TOR Guild
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 315
# 5
01-28-2013, 09:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxlagind View Post
These are the current choices for energy weapons:
Dual Beam Bank: 90 firing arc
...
Beam Array: 250 firing arc


These are what the choices for energy weapon types should be:

...
Dual Beam Bank: 135 firing arc
...
Beam Array: 250 firing arc
A specific question about what you propose, wouldn't this nullify the broadside advantage you get with beam arrays? In other words, it seems that beam arrays on front will be useless now since you can now get the overlap with duals as well.

I'm talking specifically about slow turning cruisers btw.
Kobayashi Maru
Join Date: Sept 2008


"Holographic tissue paper for the holographic runny nose. Don't give them to patients." - The Doctor
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 137
# 6
01-28-2013, 09:06 AM
Quote:
A specific question about what you propose, wouldn't this nullify the broadside advantage you get with beam arrays? In other words, it seems that beam arrays on front will be useless now since you can now get the overlap with duals as well.

I'm talking specifically about slow turning cruisers btw.
For good reason, whatever changes they make should not be designed by me

I do stand by my initial point though, that we now have a huge variety of ships, and very little ways to customize them. Perhaps only changing the Tac Boff abilities of AoE and Single fire to include all energy weapons, not just cannons or beams, would be the step the game needs.

At the moment, I'm sitting in the JHEC, realizing that DHC's aren't that great for a ship that turns so slow, but also realizing that 180 degree single cannons are going too far the other way. What I probably want is something around 90 degrees. Unfortunatly, the only weapon sitting there is a beam, which (as I have to have turrets aft) does not mesh with the build, and end up being worse than Single Cannons.

I guess I just feel like with all the ships we have now, I can't believe that Dual Cannons and Dual Beam Banks are still mostly worthless.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=93695767000&dateline=  1347284393
Lag Industries STO/TOR Guild

Last edited by voxlagind; 01-28-2013 at 09:09 AM.
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,465
# 7
01-28-2013, 09:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kobayashlmaru View Post
A specific question about what you propose, wouldn't this nullify the broadside advantage you get with beam arrays? In other words, it seems that beam arrays on front will be useless now since you can now get the overlap with duals as well.

I'm talking specifically about slow turning cruisers btw.
Except you wouldn't. Overlap doesn't occur on arcs below 180 degrees.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,161
# 8
01-28-2013, 09:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxlagind View Post
I'm all for adding new stuff, but at the moment, I'd just like them to make useful what we already have.

I would think it to be in their best interest, since they went to all the trouble of designing them in the first place.
Increased arc does make sense for DCs since otherwise...well...yeah, DCs...um...but would that also come at a reduction in damage for the increased arc?

DBBs to 135 though? Guess that's a case of looking for that middleground between what DCs would be and what SCs are, eh? Again, a reduction in their damage? Eliminating the potential usefulness of BO?

ERF and EFAW? What about BO? Would there be an EO? Would EFAW work like FAW or CSV? Would there end up being ERF, EFAW, EO, and ESV? If so, are they all going to trigger CDs? So you'd lose the ability to BO/CRF or FAW/CSV? Would there be additional Tac abilities added to make up for the overall grouping being reduced from two to one? Would it be a case of finding yourself using Torps/Mines if you weren't already?
Vice Admiral Geist, Klingon Science Officer
V.S.S. Oracle, D'Kyr-class Science Vessel
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 137
# 9
01-28-2013, 09:15 AM
Quote:

Increased arc does make sense for DCs since otherwise...well...yeah, DCs...um...but would that also come at a reduction in damage for the increased arc?

DBBs to 135 though? Guess that's a case of looking for that middleground between what DCs would be and what SCs are, eh? Again, a reduction in their damage? Eliminating the potential usefulness of BO?

ERF and EFAW? What about BO? Would there be an EO? Would EFAW work like FAW or CSV? Would there end up being ERF, EFAW, EO, and ESV? If so, are they all going to trigger CDs? So you'd lose the ability to BO/CRF or FAW/CSV? Would there be additional Tac abilities added to make up for the overall grouping being reduced from two to one? Would it be a case of finding yourself using Torps/Mines if you weren't already?

Yeah, weapon damage would have to be retuned. As for the other stuff, I have no idea really. BO could still exist for just beams, as could Target Subystems. Cannon users have plenty of burst as it is, and don't need a cannon equivalent. Really, the change would be a slight buff for users of non-DHC's ideally (which they could use).

As far as new abilities, I don't see it as absolutely necessary, only thing being removed would be FAW (as it's rolled into CSV). At that point, the best move would probably be to move APD down in ranks, making APD1 an ensign, APD2 a Lt (note, doing this would mean that the new APD2 would have the same effect APD1 has now), and APD3 up to Lt. Commander. This would allow for cruisers who like to "tank" in PvE to use the new DOFFs in the ensign slots, as they'll now need the Lt. slot for the AoE or single target buff.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=93695767000&dateline=  1347284393
Lag Industries STO/TOR Guild
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,161
# 10
01-28-2013, 09:25 AM
But FAW and CSV are different. If you're rolling FAW into CSV, you're making a Beam Cone Attack and losing the Beam AoE Attack. Somebody that was used to using FAW to grab aggro or even just to spam the spam around them would run into issues...they've lost the 360 potential arc of their attack (and if the Cone was facing Fore, the Aft Beams would not fire).
Vice Admiral Geist, Klingon Science Officer
V.S.S. Oracle, D'Kyr-class Science Vessel
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 08:20 AM.