Currently, we have a fire all phasers, fire all torpedos and fire all weapons key binds, however, we need Fire All Forward Weapons and Fire all Rear weapons as well.

This is a very needed thing for tactical ships using cannons, cause firing rear weapons can sometimes cause major problems when you aren't wanting them to go off...

Key binds in general need a bit of a facelift. I should be able to hit the key/mouse button rather than have to select from a special list if it's not an a-z or 1-0 key.

Also, when is joystick control going to be added into the game?

Other thoughts, provide an interface for the steel series "wow" mouse and the G15 keyboard. Many many gamers use these two devices for quality of play and it would befit you to add in full support.

Which weapons are covered by by which key? Does fire all phasers also fire turrets and cannons? Is fire torpedoes only for torpedoes?

The whole thing could use some more customization and clarification.

By default, the 3 "fire alls" we have are "all energy weapons", "all projectile weapons", and "all weapons" which are space, ctrl-space, and alt-space I believe. They're in the keybinds tab in the options screen.

I agree on the forward/backwards thing though. And I think they need to add HUD bind commands for individual weapon slots. Since it got archived, this was a list of improvements I had suggested in beta for weapons in the UI:

Add directional "fire all" support
Add a "Fire All/Energy/Projectile Aft" and "Fire All/Energy/Projectile Forward" command and allow us to bind those or drag those to hotbars. At least then I can choose to fire half my weapons when I want to versus all of them. And by allowing me to specify energy vs projectile I can only fire forward beams, etc.

I know that this may not seem that useful if you're coming straight on or away from a target because then your other side's weapons won't fire anyways, but I'm thinking more of cruisers and science vessels where you can broadside, and it might be preferable to cycle forward and aft broadsides in that scenario to cut down the power drain and increase damage as a result

Allow weapon slot designation (Aft 1-4, Forward 1-4)
Basically, I think that weapons should by designated by their slot, not what's in them. This allows us to use macros that say "Fire weapon in slot 1" for example, which enables recursive macroing capabilities to allow us to cycle weapons. Say for example I have 4 forward beam arrays, call them Fwd1-Fwd4. I could write a macro then that did the following, assuming Fwd1 is on autofire:
1) Press button4 to fire Fwd2, then rebind button4 to next time fire Fwd3
2) Press button4 to fire Fwd3, then rebind button4 to next time fire Fwd4
3) Press button4 to fire Fwd4, then rebind button4 to next time fire Fwd2, repeating the cycle

Now I can cycle my weapons with a single button. You can do this currently if you put all your attacks in a tray and do callouts to the tray specifically, but this approach means you don't have to worry about that. It also makes sense if you do this to enable the next suggestion, which is the big one.

Allow weapon "clustering"
Give us the capability to fire 2 energy weapons from 1 action. As a compromise, I'd say only allow us to merge the same weapon type (array, dual beams, etc). So I could say fire the arrays in slots 1-2 at once.

For ease of implementation, I'd say given my suggestion above on named weapon positions link Fwd1-2, Fwd3-4 together and force folks to slot appropriately if they want to use this. The main reason I ask for this is to have fewer buttons. If I have 8 attacks, and say 2 of them are torpedoes, I'm left with 6 attack buttons. If I could chain them, I could leave 1 forward and 1 aft on autofire, and now leave myself with 2 buttons to worry about. Or. for the sake of argument, I could have a ship with 8 beam arrays and only have 4 buttons to worry about.