test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Upcoming changes to Team shared cooldowns *LIVE as of Mar 6th, 2014*

123457»

Comments

  • virusdancervirusdancer Member Posts: 18,687 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    No, I do it because I enjoy it. Hence my longed winded explanation of how to make it more viable.

    Grouping for Foundry missions?

    edit: I guess it's just a case that I've built all my ships for PvP for so long, which tends to be a fine build for doing solo missions/grinding, and has never really been problematic for any of the PvE queues - so I've had the tendency of ending up with aggro from having 3-6 Threat while not running any -Th consoles...but it's never been a case of thinking of it as being a tank. "Tanky DPS", "Tanky Heals", "Tanky Support" perhaps - where it's just about survivability - the 3-5 Threat is not there for grabbing aggro, it's there for the additional damage resistance.
  • wrathofachilleswrathofachilles Member Posts: 931 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Having played pve and pvp since the changes to the teams, I don't see the doom and gloom either. Good players who actually pay attention to what their enemies are doing are waiting for your to use your counter to clear something before they hit you with something else. If you use your science team simply to heal your shields cause they are low or if you haven't spec'ed into sensors to be able to easily ride out a jam or scramble (or if you respec into something else since you can now carry a sci team without it being such a waste) and clear it with sci team instead, then BAM subnuke. Or if you have more than one sci captain against you, if you sci team to clear a nuke, the second one can nuke you and you're screwed, unless your team helps out... but either way, subnuke was always very hit or miss, it was either a guaranteed kill or people could ride it out, it's just had a touch of its OP-ness knocked off, but it's still formidable, it just requires a bit more thought and effort.

    Most people except heal boats weren't even bothering to carry eng or sci team, now more people will be carrying both.

    And yes, like many DOOM! sayers, I was thinking "holy TRIBBLE, this is gonna ruin everything, everyone's gonna have back to back every team and never die!" But... people still die. And as I went over all my builds and was looking at how I'm going to fit all three teams into them where I used to only carry tac team, I realized... I don't want to lose many of the powers i would have to sacrifice to get even one copy of eng and sci team in, and I also don't want to sacrifice the doffs to get them all to global. So this doesn't magically make everyone an uber tank, they will have to sacrifice something somewhere to slip it in.

    Is there the possibility of super heal tanks with all three abilities on global plus super aux to structural and hazards and transfer shield strength... yes, but it seems in the grand scheme that those ships already existed and are only getting a bit of a buff, and the community will surely figure out ways of dealing with them as they always have... or they'll fail to, some times those heal boats/teams with the heal boats get to win.

    To address some other things in the thread:

    Crew, I would like to see it stay, and I think the elephant in the room is... crew/crew damage isn't working as intended. It's not that it's working as intended and still failing, it's that it's not even working as intended. So how about we fix it to work properly and THEN go from there. I mean... duuuuur:

    Patient: "Doc, my arm is broken..."

    Doc: "Oh, I'm sorry, that's not working well at all, lets cut it off."

    Um, no. Fix it.

    People have brought up good points:

    Make torp crew damage the lesser of two evils, percent or static number rather than the greater.

    Make Crew revival a percentage so that large crews get up to speed as quickly as small crews, logically larger crews/ships have larger medical facilities to get their crew back up and running just as quickly if not more so than small crew/ships.

    On the damage resistance that showed up recently in the thread:

    I agree, make 0% damage resistance the maximum minimum resistance possible, no -% resistance. Also, if it doesn't work this way already, it should have diminishing returns. I'm not gonna use proper numbers, but if I have 40% resist and an additional 30 points of resistance sticks me at 45 or 50% resist, a -30 resistance from an attack pattern should put me back to 40% resist. Thus, just as it is harder to gain higher resistance, it's harder to significantly lower resistance as well. Additionally, there may need to be a maximum amount of debuff resistance possible just so that everyone doesn't give up on armor entirely since a few attack pattern beta/deltas will constantly be stripping you. Maybe... I dunno.

    In regard to healing in the game in general, I think it might actually be best to make all heals self only except for extend shields, and the team abilities. It doesn't make sense to transfer your auxiliary power to someone else's structural integrity field. As far as I know, we have only seen one ship use their structural integrity field to buff the structural integrity field of another and only in one instance, and that was voyager using their structural integrity field to buff the generational ship, and they had to dock with that ship in order to do so. Thus long distance buffing of structural integrity in combat... no.

    Hazard emitters could be a small AOE that clears hazards from the area, and thus could be a benefit to friendly ships stuck in the same hazard. Perhaps instead of removing the clearing from hazard emitters as many have suggested, we should remove the heal from it. Hazard emitters does not imply "repair the hull" it says "clear these hazards".

    As for transfer shield strength... Hmm... I have two ideas here:

    1. This could be the new "tac team distribution" skill as it transfer shield strength between facings, except tac team distribution has ruined the whole concept of shield facings in the game and has largely contributed to OP dual heavy cannon builds... not to mention the changes to weapon drain mechanics. Weapon drain mechanics used to make all energy weapon builds, particularly dual heavy cannons difficult because you had to give up turn/armor consoles for EPS to compensate for energy drain, thus lowering surviveability, so there was a give and take, and before tac team shield distribution, a all dual heavy cannon escort couldn't just park and pwn, as their forward shield facing would come down and their squishy hull would be exposed and... pop.

    so 2. It could be more literal in that it takes a portion of your shield points and transfers them to a friendly ship. So if you have four full 20k shield facings, why not pull 10k from each facing to give to a friendly in need. The skill could also have multiplying magic where you sacrifice 5k in each facing and your friendly gets 10k... perhaps not so drastic, but you get the idea.

    Anyway, if cross healing were largely limited to the team abilities, i think it would help deal with the potential problems of *too much* healing. I think it would also introduce the, yes, you have tac teams, eng teams, and sci teams, but are you going to use them on you, or someone else, you have limited crew/teams, and they can't be here AND there, so that's the choice. However, if you are using aux to structural on yourself (now self only) the choice to send an eng team to your friend in need is less of an issue.

    Also, to the "how are we sending teams?" Transporting teams from one ship to another shouldn't be an issue, the issue of transporting through shields has become less of an issue with each iteration of trek, and since we are in the future, the logic is that it has become a non-issue.

    However, I do have a problem with sensor scramble allowing us to heal our enemies... because... what? They matched shield frequencies so we could send them our team and then forced them at phaser/disruptor point so heal their shields/hull/distribute their shields? No. So I think an added benefit to scramble sensors should be that it locks down cross healing, even if just for a moment or two, that could be quite potent.

    But to reiterate: Lets remove tac team distribution as a mechanic in general and buff manual distribution. Some say: "waaaaah, this makes tac team less useful than eng/sci team!" Well, I don't know what you're smoking, tac team has a longer up-time than eng team and sci team, and a non-cleared attack pattern beta/delta/fire on my mark can be ooooh so deadly, not to mention the utter havoc that rains down from an uncleared boarding party, so I beg to differ.

    And in regard to boarding party, I would like to +1 to the idea someone posted about boarding party being a "laying in wait" ability that, when activated, will spring on your enemy target the moment you bring a shield facing down (or perhaps bring it down sufficiently for transporters to penetrate, say, below 25%). The old boarding party shuttles are so passe, not to mention ridiculously ineffective in faw/mine/gravwell/tykens/warpplasma/everything else land. So lets buff that super underused engineering ability as well please. If borg can transport their boarding parties, so can we.

    So... yeah, I think that's touched on most everything I came across reading through this whoooooole thread, lol.
  • wrathofachilleswrathofachilles Member Posts: 931 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Oh, oops, nope. It didn't. I also want to touch on that bit about beam faw and overload not really performing as intended, like faw producing more damage on one target when it's meant to be AOE and overload not being a real damage boost since it screws your subsequent damage due to power drain.

    For one, I'd like to suggest making faw more like scatter volley, instead of firing at everything willy nilly, let it be that 90, maybe 180 cone of your target, so it's normal damage at anything in the cone (so ultimately multiplied in that it hits multiple enemies).

    However, ultimately, I would really like to see the elimination of fire at will as a skill, and make all weapon abilities affect all weapons. So scatter volley would work on beams and cannons and be normal damage against anything in the cone. Overload would overload all weapons for a nice burst, read: all weapons, all turrets, dual beam banks, beam arrays, dual heavy cannons, all on one ship, overload at once. It will require a rebalance, but it would eliminate the dissatisfying sensation of one's beam array overloading instead of their dual beam banks without us having to micromanage our weapon firing on top of everything else. And rapid fire would work on all weapons as a straight damage increase to one target.

    So, scatter volley= AOE

    Overload= uber burst with a down side (I actually suggest a cut to weapon damage rather than power drain since power drain is such a joke nowadays)

    rapid fire=enhanced single target pressure damage.

    I would also like for scatter volley and rapid fire to work on torpedoes. Scatter volley makes every torpedo shot for the duration fire one torp at every enemy in the cone for the duration, and rapid fire makes the torps fire more quickly creating volleys.

    Spread is removed as a skill and high yield becomes a buff to torp damage that could work on top of spread-volley and rapid fire.

    Weapon target subsystem I would also like to see become a buff that works on top of rapid fire/scatter volley that gives every attack for the duration a chance to drain power from the subsystem or disable it.

    I feel that these changes would bring the powers more in line with what we see in the show, would bring them more in line with what seems to be their intention, and would also provide for a bit more diversity in tactical builds. Mixing cannons and beams and torps would no longer be an entirely obvious kick to min-max's nethers.

    I think it would strip some unnecessary complexity and false choice from tactical by reducing power competition, but would add some layers at the same time via new synergies.
  • donrahdonrah Member Posts: 348
    edited March 2014
    Oh, oops, nope. It didn't. I also want to touch on that bit about beam faw and overload not really performing as intended, like faw producing more damage on one target when it's meant to be AOE and overload not being a real damage boost since it screws your subsequent damage due to power drain.

    For one, I'd like to suggest making faw more like scatter volley, instead of firing at everything willy nilly, let it be that 90, maybe 180 cone of your target, so it's normal damage at anything in the cone (so ultimately multiplied in that it hits multiple enemies).

    However, ultimately, I would really like to see the elimination of fire at will as a skill, and make all weapon abilities affect all weapons. So scatter volley would work on beams and cannons and be normal damage against anything in the cone. Overload would overload all weapons for a nice burst, read: all weapons, all turrets, dual beam banks, beam arrays, dual heavy cannons, all on one ship, overload at once. It will require a rebalance, but it would eliminate the dissatisfying sensation of one's beam array overloading instead of their dual beam banks without us having to micromanage our weapon firing on top of everything else. And rapid fire would work on all weapons as a straight damage increase to one target.

    So, scatter volley= AOE

    Overload= uber burst with a down side (I actually suggest a cut to weapon damage rather than power drain since power drain is such a joke nowadays)

    rapid fire=enhanced single target pressure damage.

    I would also like for scatter volley and rapid fire to work on torpedoes. Scatter volley makes every torpedo shot for the duration fire one torp at every enemy in the cone for the duration, and rapid fire makes the torps fire more quickly creating volleys.

    Spread is removed as a skill and high yield becomes a buff to torp damage that could work on top of spread-volley and rapid fire.

    Weapon target subsystem I would also like to see become a buff that works on top of rapid fire/scatter volley that gives every attack for the duration a chance to drain power from the subsystem or disable it.

    I feel that these changes would bring the powers more in line with what we see in the show, would bring them more in line with what seems to be their intention, and would also provide for a bit more diversity in tactical builds. Mixing cannons and beams and torps would no longer be an entirely obvious kick to min-max's nethers.

    I think it would strip some unnecessary complexity and false choice from tactical by reducing power competition, but would add some layers at the same time via new synergies.

    I agree with your ideas in post #183.

    As for beam overload, I'd like to put my 2 cents in. I'd like to see it used as a single target punch attack. That is, all the weapons facing a single target would fire all at once without any drain (it would be like all of the weapons are a single weapon) until after firing. So the power of that attack would be most devastating with beam arrays, followed by cannons/turrets, and then DBB's.

    Target subsystems, in my opinion, ought to be applied to all energy weapons and each weapon gets to fire on the targeted subsystem. This probably means the power drain would either have to be removed or severely reduced. Also, the target's subsystem would be immune to further disables for 30 seconds, but the others could still be disabled. So each weapon would have a discreet 20% chance to disable the targeted subsystem, but, after that, it's immune for 30 seconds after the subsystem has been restored. That way, a coordinated team of disablers can't spam the ship into helplessness. They could take out all four subsystems, but only every 30 seconds.

    I like the idea of hazard emitters being an aoe hazard clearing ability. Maybe with 1k radius? All hazards within that radiius would be cleared. That means things like EWP would disappear from that area, plasma burns would clear from any ships in the effect, and Aceton Beam too.


    I'd also like to add a change to the energy vs kinetic dichotomy. As it stands, kinetic is far inferior to energy damage. Energy weapons damage shields and hull equally, while torpedoes are severely handicapped when they hit shields. I propose, that the torpedo resist be reduced to 50% and a 50% resist against energy be applied to the hull. That way, both weapons have equal utility. If you bring all energy weapons, you're going to find yourself at a disadvantage when the shields go down. If you also bring torpedoes, you can be effective on shields and hull. Also, a dedicated slot for torpedoes (sci 1 fore and aft, cruiser/carrier 2 fore and aft, escort 2 fore and 1 aft) would fit with this. I'd also recommend having limited ammo for torpedoes, but allowing multiple torpedo types in combat. I think this would add some variety to combat, having the ability to choose the right torpedo for a particular moment (e.g. shields are up, so use transphasic or shields are down, use photon/quantum or the enemy is tightly grouped, use tricobalt/gravimetric.). Combat would certainly be more dynamic.

    Spread should stay, but with a recharge penalty on that launcher (so it has time to "reload"). A full spread would be 5 torpedoes maximum, but the reload time is multiplied by the torpedoes individual recharge (e.g. 8 for quantum, 6 for photon, etc.). So a full spread of photons will take 30 seconds to reload and a full spread of tricobalts would take 150 seconds. To prepare a spread, activate TS the appropriate number of times and a counter will appear on the icon to indicate how many torpedoes will fire. Then, press fire. I think this would be fun because it gives you more control over how your fire your torpedoes and it has appropriate risks to balance the advantages. It's also more in line with how it worked on the show. But lose the 100% chance to hit.

    Then, High Yield Torpedo would become Torpedo: Maximum Yield. This would boost the damage of the torpedo by a predetermined amount (TBD through testing). When you select Maximum Yield, there's a 2 second prefire delay for each torpedo you set to maximum yield. It can be combined with Torpedo: Spread, but the preparation time would apply to each torpedo (i.e. 5 torpedoes would create a 10 second delay before firing). So tap T:MY and T:S each 5 times and you have a full spread of torpedoes at maximum yield. This will be very time consuming to perform, but it will also be very powerful if you can time it correctly. You will also have to bear in mind that the more torpedoes you fire, the fewer you will have.

    In addition, I think torpedoes should have a faster velocity, but a slower turning speed so as to make it possible to dodge them if you can perform evasive maneuvers correctly and out-turn the torpedo(es).
    Go here and show your support for a better Foundry!
  • wrathofachilleswrathofachilles Member Posts: 931 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    donrah wrote: »
    I agree with your ideas in post #183.

    As for beam overload, I'd like to put my 2 cents in. I'd like to see it used as a single target punch attack. That is, all the weapons facing a single target would fire all at once without any drain (it would be like all of the weapons are a single weapon) until after firing. So the power of that attack would be most devastating with beam arrays, followed by cannons/turrets, and then DBB's.

    Target subsystems, in my opinion, ought to be applied to all energy weapons and each weapon gets to fire on the targeted subsystem. This probably means the power drain would either have to be removed or severely reduced. Also, the target's subsystem would be immune to further disables for 30 seconds, but the others could still be disabled. So each weapon would have a discreet 20% chance to disable the targeted subsystem, but, after that, it's immune for 30 seconds after the subsystem has been restored. That way, a coordinated team of disablers can't spam the ship into helplessness. They could take out all four subsystems, but only every 30 seconds.

    I like the idea of hazard emitters being an aoe hazard clearing ability. Maybe with 1k radius? All hazards within that radiius would be cleared. That means things like EWP would disappear from that area, plasma burns would clear from any ships in the effect, and Aceton Beam too.


    I'd also like to add a change to the energy vs kinetic dichotomy. As it stands, kinetic is far inferior to energy damage. Energy weapons damage shields and hull equally, while torpedoes are severely handicapped when they hit shields. I propose, that the torpedo resist be reduced to 50% and a 50% resist against energy be applied to the hull. That way, both weapons have equal utility. If you bring all energy weapons, you're going to find yourself at a disadvantage when the shields go down. If you also bring torpedoes, you can be effective on shields and hull. Also, a dedicated slot for torpedoes (sci 1 fore and aft, cruiser/carrier 2 fore and aft, escort 2 fore and 1 aft) would fit with this. I'd also recommend having limited ammo for torpedoes, but allowing multiple torpedo types in combat. I think this would add some variety to combat, having the ability to choose the right torpedo for a particular moment (e.g. shields are up, so use transphasic or shields are down, use photon/quantum or the enemy is tightly grouped, use tricobalt/gravimetric.). Combat would certainly be more dynamic.

    Spread should stay, but with a recharge penalty on that launcher (so it has time to "reload"). A full spread would be 5 torpedoes maximum, but the reload time is multiplied by the torpedoes individual recharge (e.g. 8 for quantum, 6 for photon, etc.). So a full spread of photons will take 30 seconds to reload and a full spread of tricobalts would take 150 seconds. To prepare a spread, activate TS the appropriate number of times and a counter will appear on the icon to indicate how many torpedoes will fire. Then, press fire. I think this would be fun because it gives you more control over how your fire your torpedoes and it has appropriate risks to balance the advantages. It's also more in line with how it worked on the show. But lose the 100% chance to hit.

    Then, High Yield Torpedo would become Torpedo: Maximum Yield. This would boost the damage of the torpedo by a predetermined amount (TBD through testing). When you select Maximum Yield, there's a 2 second prefire delay for each torpedo you set to maximum yield. It can be combined with Torpedo: Spread, but the preparation time would apply to each torpedo (i.e. 5 torpedoes would create a 10 second delay before firing). So tap T:MY and T:S each 5 times and you have a full spread of torpedoes at maximum yield. This will be very time consuming to perform, but it will also be very powerful if you can time it correctly. You will also have to bear in mind that the more torpedoes you fire, the fewer you will have.

    In addition, I think torpedoes should have a faster velocity, but a slower turning speed so as to make it possible to dodge them if you can perform evasive maneuvers correctly and out-turn the torpedo(es).

    I think 20% chance for each weapon fired to get a disable is a bit heavy handed... seems almost guaranteed to get a disable. This is why I think more of a each pulse has a 1% chance to disable and some percent chance to drain x amount of power from the subsystem might be a little less infuriating and potentially exploity. Though I do agree with the lockout on a disable afterward as too many ships using the same disable could potentially rain havoc, especially stacked with phaser procs and whatnot.

    I was thinking a little bigger than 1km on the clear radius for hazard, but I'm not sure I guage game distance in my mind all that well... sufficient distance that one could fly past a friendly ship in trouble to clear their peril without having to scrape shields... so what ever distance would be appropriate for that, lol.

    I like the idea to make torpedoes more relevant, after all, many people don't even bother with them in general... don't equip them, don't spec for them. In a star trek game, that seems pretty wrong.

    This is why I would like to get the spread/rapid fire mechanic I mentioned in post 184 implemented. Ships with few tactical slots would have more choices, and obviously, so would tac heavy ships, without having to choose to focus too hard on torps vs. energy, or cannons vs. beams.

    Though I think giving cruisers the biggest buff with torps wouldn't go over well, so just a dedicated fore and aft torp/kinetic slot for every ship would be fine if we were to do it, but I think the devs and some of the players would find this "power creep" Shifting the dynamic so that torps are more relevant should have them finding their way into the weapon slots each ship already has available to it.

    In regard to the other torp ideas though... it seems overly complicated. The devs have been saying they're trying to take the game in a direction that is easier to learn/understand exactly how things work, what things do, and to make the game generally more accessible. I don't think that limited torpedoes or real crew deaths would do anything for that. I don't think the average player, particularly not while leveling up... ermagerd, the sloooooow warp speeds, wants to have to keep heading back to base to stock up. Also, the dodging torpedoes via actual maneuvering... I don't think this game uses physics to determine whether an object will hit or miss you, it's not a simulation game, it's just background math that we see interpreted visually. So I think the game would probably need a completely different code from the ground up for that sort of thing.... but maybe not, I don't know the ins and outs of the programming of the game. Though your torp ideas are very ST: Bridge Commander, a game I liked very much, and maybe those things could be implemented here. But I strongly suspect that whole "have totally rebuild the game" thing.
  • cmdrskyfallercmdrskyfaller Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    yeah, do tell this to the one that killed a gateway in 45s with his beam scimitar o.O

    Seriously? Do you realize Scimitars are CMDR tactical? The boff slots are the whole point of this argument...the scimitar is a 'tactical' cruiser for all purposes... and its boff slots essentially qualify it as an escort (cmdr tactical).

    Beams have become stronger than cannons, you are the only one who don't won't to admit it.

    This is an opinion based on your perception. Look at the numbers and the math for the reality of things.
    I saw a beam scimitar kill a group of spheres before i killed 1.

    Since you are making a comparison here (apparently) I will assume you are using cannons.

    Unless you are also in a scimitar you need to understand the scimitar has insane damage bonuses not only from singularity buffs but also from 5 tactical consoles plus the same tactical boff layout of a cruiser.

    ...and if you ARE in a scimitar and using cannons and failing to beat a beam scimitar you seriously need to work on your build.

    ALSO: lets consider the PVP.
    Almost any good PVP ship has an hangar bay: cannon boats are quite defenseless against fighter pets.

    but beam boats are perfect for this.

    ...which is why escorts, which are the FAST ships, are the escort capable vessels by default.
    and guess: cruisers are beam boats, escorts are cannon boats.

    Yes, exactly. But then again you seem to be using the scimitar as a point of comparison..which is literally an escort glued to a cruiser hull. What won't cryptic do for money? ;)
    Tanks are quite unkillable by a single ship, and with this "enhancement" they will become even more unkillable.

    and guess: cruisers are tanks, escorts no.

    Do I need to continue ?

    You need to research a bit more. Cruisers are SUPPOSED to be tanks yes. They do tank...but escorts tank much better....which is my point about this change so idiotic. Now escorts tank even better than before.

    We both seem to agree that escorts should NOT tank... yet they do. See the problem there? Do you know where that problem comes from?

    TT shield autobalance and +defense +immunity to holds from Atk Omega. Take away those 2 things and escorts DROP out of the tanking game. Instantly.

    Removing STeam and ETeam from the TTeam shared timer now allows them to tank significantly better since ET and ST at ranks 1 and 2 practically heal the bulk of their max shield and hull HP with one instant click, short duration timer.
  • donrahdonrah Member Posts: 348
    edited March 2014
    I think 20% chance for each weapon fired to get a disable is a bit heavy handed... seems almost guaranteed to get a disable. This is why I think more of a each pulse has a 1% chance to disable and some percent chance to drain x amount of power from the subsystem might be a little less infuriating and potentially exploity. Though I do agree with the lockout on a disable afterward as too many ships using the same disable could potentially rain havoc, especially stacked with phaser procs and whatnot.

    I was thinking a little bigger than 1km on the clear radius for hazard, but I'm not sure I guage game distance in my mind all that well... sufficient distance that one could fly past a friendly ship in trouble to clear their peril without having to scrape shields... so what ever distance would be appropriate for that, lol.

    I like the idea to make torpedoes more relevant, after all, many people don't even bother with them in general... don't equip them, don't spec for them. In a star trek game, that seems pretty wrong.

    This is why I would like to get the spread/rapid fire mechanic I mentioned in post 184 implemented. Ships with few tactical slots would have more choices, and obviously, so would tac heavy ships, without having to choose to focus too hard on torps vs. energy, or cannons vs. beams.

    Though I think giving cruisers the biggest buff with torps wouldn't go over well, so just a dedicated fore and aft torp/kinetic slot for every ship would be fine if we were to do it, but I think the devs and some of the players would find this "power creep" Shifting the dynamic so that torps are more relevant should have them finding their way into the weapon slots each ship already has available to it.

    In regard to the other torp ideas though... it seems overly complicated. The devs have been saying they're trying to take the game in a direction that is easier to learn/understand exactly how things work, what things do, and to make the game generally more accessible. I don't think that limited torpedoes or real crew deaths would do anything for that. I don't think the average player, particularly not while leveling up... ermagerd, the sloooooow warp speeds, wants to have to keep heading back to base to stock up. Also, the dodging torpedoes via actual maneuvering... I don't think this game uses physics to determine whether an object will hit or miss you, it's not a simulation game, it's just background math that we see interpreted visually. So I think the game would probably need a completely different code from the ground up for that sort of thing.... but maybe not, I don't know the ins and outs of the programming of the game. Though your torp ideas are very ST: Bridge Commander, a game I liked very much, and maybe those things could be implemented here. But I strongly suspect that whole "have totally rebuild the game" thing.

    Well, I did the math. If the chance to disable is multiplicative, each weapon would increase the chance to disable by 20%. Therefore, with eight beam weapons affected, there would be a 71.663616% [20 * 1.2^7] chance to disable that system. Then, that system would be immune from being disabled for 30 seconds. That's with 8 beams, the very best you can hope for. The chance decreases as the number of weapons are fewer. Besides that, there are plenty of ways to restore disabled systems quickly. So a ship, under a coordinated attack, could be disabled completely momentarily, but EPtX and batteries would negate some or all of that in short order. The disable is really just be a way to interrupt the enemy, to stop an alpha strike or create an opportunity to land an alpha strike of your own.

    1k for Hazard Emitters would be sufficient if you just pass them on their dorsal side and activate it. You might want to target your ally so you know how close you are, though.

    You won't have to run back to ESD for torpedoes if you use them efficiently. I'm thinking they should replenish automatically between missions. So you do your STF and use up your torps, no worry. When you start another, you'll have a full compliment again. You just have to have the item in the slot.

    Okay, so 1 fore and 1 aft torp slot. That sounds good. However, my thinking is to have the ability to fire more than one kind of torpedo through the same launcher. Three seems about right. So you can have your 60 photons, 30 quantums, and your 10 tricobalts and both launchers would share these three slots. It would take exactly 15 minutes to fire all of those torpedoes individually from a single launcher. It might take half as much time if you use both launchers, but you have to figure in time to bring that launcher to bear on the target too.

    Or maybe the torpedo mechanic should work like the Omega Plasma Torpedo? You can fire up to 5 and then they reload over time.
    Go here and show your support for a better Foundry!
Sign In or Register to comment.