test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Broadside firing arcs for T7

brian334brian334 Member Posts: 1,910 Arc User
I think T7 is inevitable. I could be wrong, but previously we were told by 'reliable sources' that T6 was never going to happen, until we got T5U and stopped believing that one. So, there are some things I'd like to see in a T7 vessel, one of which is hardpoints on the sides of the ship. This would, of course, be a huge bonus to cruiser types which tend to use wide angle weapons. But it could also be very beneficial to other vessel types.

I will begin by defining the Broadside Firing Arc: a centerline set at 90 degrees from the ship's axis of travel, set on the horizontal plane of the ship, (the Y axis of an x/y/z coordinate system.)

On the ship's layout this would be from 1-3 weapons slots on either side of the ship, in addition to the usual fore-and-aft weapons. The default for a typical T7 would be one additional weapon slot on each side, (total 2,) but some designs may move additional slots from fore or aft arcs to the new Broadside slots.

Weapons which could be slotted in the new Broadside hardpoints would come in three types, Broadside, Normal, and Point Defense:

Broadside weapons are heavier, and include Dual Heavy Cannons, with a new category of Broadside Weapons which are more powerful weapons with a longer recharge rate and a higher power cost. The Broadside Weapons could only be slotted in a Broadside weapon slot.
The firing arc for Broadside Weapons would be an arc 45 degrees fore and aft of the Broadside axis, and 45 degrees up and down, (90 degree arc of fire.)
Because Broadside weapons are more powerful, they can acquire targets at longer range: up to 15km. This would only apply to weapons which can only be mounted in Broadside weapons slots, so your usual DHCs retain their 10km range while Broadside Cannons gain the extended range, but cannot be mounted in any slot other than a Broadside slot.

Normal weapons which can currently be slotted fore and aft can also be slotted in the Broadside slots. Arrays, cannons, turrets, and dual beam banks would all have their listed firing arcs, with the exception that any 360 degree weapon slotted in a Broadside weapon slot will be reduced to a 270 degree arc.

Point Defense weapons would be created which do not fire except upon small craft and destructible projectiles, and they attack these without need for the player to target or fire them. It is a wholly automated function: when an enemy small craft or torpedo enters their firing arc within 5km, they open fire until the target is destroyed, then attempt to acquire another target.
I would advocate the Point Defense weapons be allowed to be slotted on lower tier ships in any fore or aft weapon slot. In such a position the PD weapon would have a 360 degree firing arc, as it would when placed in a fore or aft slot on a ship built with Broadside Weapons Slots.

Another idea would be to limit Carriers, Escorts, and Raiders to PD weapons only in Broadside slots, and to limit Science Vessels and Raptors to normal or PD weapons. This would leave the big guns to cruisers and battlecruisers. In this case, I would advocate four types of Broadside Weapons Slots:

Broadside Main Weapons Slots = capable of mounting any weapon type, including the Experimental Heavy Weapons.
DHC Weapons Slots = capable of mounting any weapon type, excluding the Broadside and Experimental weapons.
Normal Weapons Slots = capable of mounting all current weapons plus PD weapons, excluding DHCs.
Point Defense Weapons Slots = capable of mounting the proposed PD weapons and turrets and 360 degree arrays, with the latter two restricted to 270 degree firing arc.

Weapons restricted to Aft weapons slots, (mines,) would still be restricted to aft weapons slots. So I guess that makes five kinds of weapons slots.

Comments

  • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 45,253 Arc User
    Devs have already said there are NO plans for T7.
    66998372863950ee98cf7da9786e2ea9-db80k0m.png
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out a Delta Pack, Temporal Pack, and Gamma Pack
    The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • brian334brian334 Member Posts: 1,910 Arc User
    So I have heard. I heard the same thing said about T6, which was probably true at the time it was said. This is a brainstorming session, so take it for what it is.
  • leemwatsonleemwatson Member Posts: 2,861 Arc User
    T7 are FCT material, and this idea is way, way too OP, considering broadsiding already exists. The absolutely ONLY way this idea would work is for the Dev's to redesign ships to follow canon arcs and hardpoints, and only on slow moving/turning large Cruisers and above.
    "You don't want to patrol!? You don't want to escort!? You don't want to defend the Federation's Starbases!? Then why are you flying my Starships!? If you were a Klingon you'd be killed on the spot, but lucky for you.....you WERE in Starfleet. Let's see how New Zealand Penal Colony suits you." Adm A. Necheyev.
  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,250 Arc User
    edited December 2018
    brian334 wrote: »
    So I have heard. I heard the same thing said about T6, which was probably true at the time it was said. This is a brainstorming session, so take it for what it is.

    There's some more basic problems with the concept of T7 which would need to be brainstormed first before tackling this specific topic. You're basically getting way ahead of yourself in choosing to ignore the very specific refutation of T7 in the foreseeable future on the basis that at some undefined point in the past (possibly years before Delta Rising) T6 was ruled out (assuming of course the devs said in specific language that it absolutely wasn't going to happen, as opposed to the much more likely "no plans for it at this time" [which based on the timing could darn well have been true.] Ergo, why you need a citation to begin this topic because it could easily be invalidating to your premise. It's not enough that ideas change in development. You need to show that they can change on a timescale where T7 could be a relevant discussion topic now. With recent dev comments RE. T7 it could be years before they feel compelled to give it more serious consideration.)

    To that, the proposal isn't in keeping with T7. Tiers generally increase the number of available weapons by one. You've suggested adding multiple side-facing hardpoints in addition to normal weapons. Technically, this would be somewhere on the order of magnitude of T8 (+2 weapons) for just one weapon added either side, T10 for two (+4 weapons).

    Ergo, absolutely OP and I also question whether adding more weapons to the sides of ships would be the best way to increase the ability of a ship to broadside (if one really wanted to go that route) as opposed to simply allowing a ship to slot beam arrays to increase fore/aft firepower. Basically this would probably backfire. Instead of looking at weapons and trying to find a sledgehammer solution to a simple gameplay problem (ie. what if there was something Cryptic could add that would interact with an existing playstyle?) consider something along the lines of a trait, console, or specialization mechanic that would assist broadsiding (which are both much more direct and feasible.)
    Post edited by duncanidaho11 on
    Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
    RDrirz1.png

    New mission: Shattered Relic [SSF3-2 | ICO]
    For the latest Tardigrades and Foundry news: @Gorgonops_SSF
    Looking for something new to play? The interactive Foundry Mission Database has you covered.
  • somtaawkharsomtaawkhar Member Posts: 4,795 Arc User
    edited December 2018
    brian334 wrote: »
    I think T7 is inevitable. I could be wrong, but previously we were told by 'reliable sources' that T6 was never going to happen, until we got T5U and stopped believing that one.
    The "no T6 ship" thing was always a misrepresentation like the "No end-game connie!" meme was.

    We were told there would be no T6 until the level cap got updated, which it did, and we got T6 after that. The level cap is already capped out, and Cryptic has developed systems like specializations to allow for more character leveling beyond the cap without needing to raise the cap again.

    There is nothing that would facilitate the increase to T7 ships, especially when there's still a list miles long of T1-5 ships that need to get a T6 version, and when any new mechanics could be implemented as new specialized ships like the pilot escorts, intel, command, and other ships were.
  • azrael605azrael605 Member Posts: 8,314 Arc User
    FCT
    #TASinSTO
    #IStandWithCBS
    Bring on Discovery season 2 and Age of Discovery.
  • baddmoonrizinbaddmoonrizin Member Posts: 4,420 Community Moderator
    There are no plans for T7. /Thread
    GrWzQke.png
    Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator
    Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of PWE/Cryptic
    Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of PWE/Cryptic
    Contact Customer Support --> https://support.arcgames.com
This discussion has been closed.