test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

How do you arm your Avenger (if you have one)?

starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,643 Arc User
This is for research: A friend is doing work on a Star Trek mod for Star Wars: Empire at War, The Trek Wars: Revival, and wanted to know how people typically kit out the Avenger and/or Arbiter Battlecruiser (it's going in the free play section of the mod, not the campaign).

This poll is just about energy weapons; every Starfleet capital ship in the mod has torpedoes fore and aft already. And there weren't enough poll option slots to split between DCs and DHCs or list mixed loads, so just put what you have the most of.

How do you arm your Avenger (if you have one)? 39 votes

dual cannons front, turrets rear
30%
duncanidaho11spencerb96xxxhellspawnyxxxseaofsorrowstunebreakersalazarrazejtoney3448raygor76starswordctasshenacasualstothelematiker 12 votes
dual cannons front, beam arrays rear
2%
dante8175 1 vote
dual beams front, turrets rear
0%
dual beams front, beam arrays rear
38%
gaevsmanmustrumridcully0dracounguispatrickngopostagepaidtomilakdagomay86sisko09tm706w00qdarkbladejkjamieblanchardtvalavulcandiscojercaptmack68 15 votes
single cannons front, turrets rear (cannon broadside)
0%
single cannons front, beam arrays rear
0%
all beam arrays (beam broadside)
23%
protoneousquesteriusrattler2stouteskyle223cattheraven2378djf021tyler002tacticoolfugga#9235 9 votes
all turrets
5%
jslynjade1280 2 votes
"Two ways to view the world, so similar at times / Two ways to rule the world, to justify their crimes / By Kings and Queens young men are sent to die in war / Their propaganda speaks those words been heard before"
— Sabaton, "A Lifetime of War"
9MUythl.png
(Vaporware thanks to Foundry shutdown. Thanks a frakking bunch, Cryptic.)
«1

Comments

  • patrickngopatrickngo Member Posts: 9,810 Arc User
    dual beams front, beam arrays rear
    there is only one way to properly arm a large starfleet vessel;

    Beams.

    any other choice is simply not properly starfleet.
    whatever.

  • darkbladejkdarkbladejk Member Posts: 1,593 Community Moderator
    dual beams front, beam arrays rear
    dual banks forward with arrays/omnis rear. Main reason is because she doesn't turn as fast as I like for my cannon builds to be able to turn. Usually I prefer the defiant as a minimum benchmark turn rate for my cannon builds. just my personal preference though.
    "Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations

    Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
  • captainkoltarcaptainkoltar Member Posts: 564 Arc User
    Beam arrays and torpedoes here.

    For me, the Avenger is clearly a cruiser rather than an escort, therefore it should have beams.
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,643 Arc User
    dual cannons front, turrets rear
    Surprised at the results so far, I figured more people would try to run it with DHCs. I've done pretty well with that.
    "Two ways to view the world, so similar at times / Two ways to rule the world, to justify their crimes / By Kings and Queens young men are sent to die in war / Their propaganda speaks those words been heard before"
    — Sabaton, "A Lifetime of War"
    9MUythl.png
    (Vaporware thanks to Foundry shutdown. Thanks a frakking bunch, Cryptic.)
  • avoozuulavoozuul Member Posts: 2,207 Arc User
    I used to try it with cannons but I found beams more effective, however I last stopped using my antiproton weapons for a disruptor build and have only made a beam version since then.
  • salazarrazesalazarraze Member Posts: 3,068 Arc User
    edited January 3
    dual cannons front, turrets rear
    My unoptimized setup is similar to my other unoptimized ships. 1 front Neutronic Torp for TS3 fun. 4 dual cannons (NOT DHC's) and 3 turrets. It usually parses out around 80-90k. Pretty tanky too for the most part.
  • jslynjslyn Member Posts: 1,592 Arc User
    all turrets
    I did not use the Avenger for very long, but I used the All Turrets set up that I normally use on my for-fun Galaxy-X. That includes the Console Slot Turrets. Pure Machinegunny Joy.
  • davefenestratordavefenestrator Member Posts: 6,632 Arc User
    For my Arbiters it 's usually beam arrays and a torp.

    I tend to include a torpedo on every ship for the flavor and also the fun of torpedo spread after a gravity well.
  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,541 Arc User
    dual cannons front, turrets rear
    3 DHC's front, 2 torps front, 3 turrets rear. I set mine up as a torpedo and kinetic damage boat (ex. using spatial charge launcher console from lock box and console from the NX) to alpha strike big targets like gateways with explosions. It's a lot of fun for a change of pace. My Kurak though is running a Dual Beam Bank + Omni build (in trying to be more sensibly good.)
    Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
    Last missions:
    Evolution's Smile [SSF:3-3]
    Epoch, Part 2 [AEI]
    Transcendence, Part 4
    Memorial Tour

    For the latest Tardigrades and other creative output: @Gorgonops_SSF
    Looking for something new to play? The interactive Foundry Mission Database has you covered.
  • tyler002tyler002 Member Posts: 1,446 Arc User
    all beam arrays (beam broadside)
    I normally tend to stick with Federation standard (1 torp fore/aft, the rest conventional beams) for all my ships except for special cases like the Defiant Class.
    tumblr_p7auh1JPC61qfr6udo4_500.gif
  • stoutesstoutes Member Posts: 4,219 Arc User
    all beam arrays (beam broadside)
    I prefer an Avenger as a beamboat, it's neither a Cruiser nor an Escort, it's preferable to play it with beams as it's just a tad too slow to compete with true Escorts.
  • anazondaanazonda Member Posts: 8,379 Arc User
    With a Full body armor... Or a shiel... oh... Not talking marvel...

    Sorry... I'll stick to reading this instead.
    Don't look silly... Don't call it the "Z-Store/Zen Store"...
    Let me put the rumors to rest: it's definitely still the C-Store (Cryptic Store) It just takes ZEN.
    Like Duty Officers? Support effords to gather ideas
  • dracounguisdracounguis Member Posts: 5,363 Arc User
    edited January 3
    dual beams front, beam arrays rear
    My exact setup wasn't listed: beams with one DHC or quad cannon.
    Sometimes I think I play STO just to have something to complain about on the forums.
  • discojerdiscojer Member Posts: 423 Arc User
    dual beams front, beam arrays rear
    Beam Banks in front. It's agile enough for that, but IMHO, not for cannons. But then I only use cannons on pilot ships, even my character who uses the NX Refit uses beam banks in front.
  • casualstocasualsto Member Posts: 516 Arc User
    dual cannons front, turrets rear
    Mostly DBB+omnies or DHC/DC+turrets. Mostly running phasers on Arbiter before it was cool from the dps standpoint.
  • questeriusquesterius Member Posts: 6,718 Arc User
    all beam arrays (beam broadside)
    starswordc wrote: »
    Surprised at the results so far, I figured more people would try to run it with DHCs. I've done pretty well with that.

    To be honest, i haven't used the Avenger much lately so it still holds the beam array/omni setup.
    I have a DHC/turret setup on my Kurak, but i don't feel i get the most out of the ship using that setup
    https://sto.gamepedia.com/Kurak_Battlecruiser

    This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
  • jamieblanchardjamieblanchard Member Posts: 354 Arc User
    dual beams front, beam arrays rear
    As with most of my ships I tend to go either all arrays, with an omni riding in the back, or duals up front with arrays and omni in the back. Maybe a torpedo up front if I'm using a set, such as quantum phaser one you get from Sunrise.
    Resident TOS, G.I. Joe and Transformers fangirl.

    And knowing is half the battle!

    Too shy, shy! Hush hush, eye to eye!
  • postagepaidpostagepaid Member Posts: 2,239 Arc User
    dual beams front, beam arrays rear
    I've never been a huge fan of cannon weapons in STO and the avenger is one of the first ships that I can recall using DBB's up front as more than a stopgap while levelling.

    Not a nimble as an escort but could take more of a beating so to me it was a better ship, never really been a fan of escorts in STO either although will admit to them being kind of fun on console despite the woeful implementation of skill wheels.
  • seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 7,242 Arc User
    edited January 4
    dual cannons front, turrets rear
    stoutes wrote: »
    I prefer an Avenger as a beamboat, it's neither a Cruiser nor an Escort, it's preferable to play it with beams as it's just a tad too slow to compete with true Escorts.

    If I may pose a question.. what does this mean exactly?

    Dual Beam Banks are the hardest front facing weapons to use. If you can keep Dual Beams on target, it's literally twice as easy to keep cannons on target since Scatter Volley has a 90' arc instead of 45'. The Arbiter/Avenger is more then agile enough, especially with Competitive Engines. If you use the Withering Barrage trait from the T6 Defiant you can essentially keep Scatter Volley up all the time (well, 99% of the time) and permanently increase your firing arc to 90'.

    You could literally swap your DBB's for Cannons, put some turrets in the back and just change the Fire At Will in your rotation to Scatter Volley and double (or more) your DPS for the exact same effort.

    Dual Beams are not 'bad,' but their big problem is that they perform worse then cannons for more expended effort. I am kind of surprised at the number of people using them.
    wDYkQHL.jpg

    Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
  • patrickngopatrickngo Member Posts: 9,810 Arc User
    dual beams front, beam arrays rear
    stoutes wrote: »
    I prefer an Avenger as a beamboat, it's neither a Cruiser nor an Escort, it's preferable to play it with beams as it's just a tad too slow to compete with true Escorts.

    If I may pose a question.. what does this mean exactly?

    Dual Beam Banks are the hardest front facing weapons to use. If you can keep Dual Beams on target, it's literally twice as easy to keep cannons on target since Scatter Volley has a 90' arc instead of 45'. The Arbiter/Avenger is more then agile enough, especially with Competitive Engines. If you use the Withering Barrage trait from the T6 Defiant you can essentially keep Scatter Volley up all the time (well, 99% of the time) and permanently increase your firing arc to 90'.

    You could literally swap your DBB's for Cannons, put some turrets in the back and just change the Fire At Will in your rotation to Scatter Volley and double (or more) your DPS for the exact same effort.

    Dual Beams are not 'bad,' but their big problem is that they perform worse then cannons for more expended effort. I am kind of surprised at the number of people using them.

    say WHUT?

    Let's go over this statement....

    Dual heavy cannon: 45 Degree arc.

    Dual Beam Bank: 90 degree arc.

    so basically you're claiming that a weapon with HALF the arc of engagement, is HARDER to stay on target with?? Is that what you're claiming?

    Um, geometry would like to have a word with you?

    Further, the AOE powers:

    CSV (Cannon Scatter Volley) begins at Lt.

    Beam Fire at Will begins at Ensign.

    what this means, is that you can run the maximum BFAW plus the top attack pattern on an escort build, or run maximum BFAW on anything with a Lieutenant Commander Tactical seat (such as, Oh...An avenger battlecruiser.)

    Further, the cycle rate is quicker on the beams, and as they sit lower in the requirements, you can operate a larger portion of your more effective weaponry with them, while still having room for other things (like attack patterns, tactical teams, etc.)

    further, beam weapons are compatible with subsystem targeting attacks (in the really very rare situation where they're applicable) and the duty officers to boost them are dirt common. (unlike Cannons, which have relatively few Doffs that boost them, and those duty officers are INCREDIBLY rare), you also have more 'other' abilities to boost them (Ship traits, etc.) meaning it's not only easier to keep them on target, but also easier to boost the variety of special abilities related to them, at lower cost and with less investment.

    with a wider arc of engagement...and unless you've sunk skill points into "Long Range Targeting", Beams drop off less quickly in damage than cannons do. (If you haven't, you miss a lot more often with the narrow arc weapons, and they do less damage, forcing you to close and keep closing, an act that makes you MORE VULNERABLE)

    further, dual heavy cannons take longer between firing cycles, so while the initial burst is higher, (assuming you have the target positioned to take the full fury), you have longer to wait between weapons fires, (allowing the Dual Beam Bank to cycle additional shots more quickly, at longer range, with a wider arc of engagement against faster, or higher defense modifier foes.)

    so, no, you're wrong.

    at least, the published numbers and presence of upgrades and abilities that boost their performance suggests strongly that you're wrong.

    Particularly as one looks at the 'base numbers';

    Dual Heavy Cannon (white quality, generic model) DPS base number for a Mk XV is 886. DPV is 1108 (unbuffed)

    Dual Beam Bank (white quality, Generic model) DPS base number for a Mk XV is 800. DPV is 1000 (unbuffed)

    However, with a DBB you're more likely to GET that volley, at longer ranges, against a moving target, because the arc of engagement is nearly twice as large and unbuffed, the damage drop-off is still significantly less for range on a toon that isn't primary skilled into min/maxing energy weapons damage.

    ceterus paribus, (all things being equal) the DBB is significantly more likely to be in a position to fire on a ship with a turn rate of 9 (unbuffed), and also more likely to be in a position to fire on a higher-turn-rate ship, allowing the user to get those shots, and it cycles faster, using less energy, meaning follow-on shots are more likely to have energy to use at the baseline level (aka without specializations, special consoles and/or duty officer support).

    There are more Duty officers of good quality, and more common, to boost your beam powers than there are to boost your cannon powers at every level of rarity, and they're more widely distributed in duty officer packs, as doffing rewards, and through normal, non-pay gameplay (not including the exchange, obviously, where the price often reflects the rarity.)

    it is not only much easier to hit with DBB's than DHCs, but buffs are cheaper and more available, they fire faster, use less energy, have a longer reliable range, and are simpler to build for (requiring lower levels of seating to get better performance from).

    They're also more available, with good types dropping more reliably in rep boxes, as mission rewards, etc. etc. (and it's generally cheaper to craft them.)

    Cannons require significantly larger resources to get maximum performance from, are more difficult to bring to bear, cycle less often and therefore do less damage aggregate since targets DO get out of the way and the crude AI we've got at least has sense enough to try to get behind you or turn an angle (even if you're cloaked as you make your approach) and are harder to 'pin down' without the aid of a dedicated crowd-controller. (though there are premium items and traits out there that help with this, we're comparing EASE of build here. It's EASIER to get good performance on a slower turning ship with DBBs than with DHC's. This only gets more pronounced as you add on to the rest of the ship's build. the harder it is to keep a target inside that 45 degree sweet spot, the less effective your dual heavies really are.)



    whatever.

  • patrickngopatrickngo Member Posts: 9,810 Arc User
    dual beams front, beam arrays rear
    if you really want to test the above, take your shuttle, say, run it once with DHC and once with a DBB. guess which one is easier to engage with, and has the ability to be buffed from the pilot seat. this does expand to Cruiser levels (Battlecruiser levels, really), it's easier to get good numbers and kills with beams, than with cannons.

    whatever.

  • tunebreakertunebreaker Member Posts: 1,220 Arc User
    dual cannons front, turrets rear
    patrickngo wrote: »
    -snip-

    What you're saying in trying to rebut Sea consists almost entirely of lies, misconceptions and antiquated knowledge.

    Sure, Sea made a mistake in saying that while using DC's, it's *easier* to keep enemies in arc and used a common misconception about CSV (namely, while CSV indeed scans the 90' arc area, it doesn't magically widen the firing arc of D(H)C's, it just makes your weapons that have wider arcs than 45' to potentially hit additional targets that are outside that further away from your main target than what your DCs can hit, but still inside the 90' firing arc that CSV scans).

    However, he is completely correct in saying that cannons have immensely higher DPS potential than beams and you have to be incredibly klutz with your piloting if beams indeed perform better for you. The DPS penalty from FAW cripples beam dmg output heavily, meanwhile CSV offers a dmg boost instead (at least on CSV2/3, and you should really use the highest enhancement possible). On a ship with Cmdr Tactical, FAW3+APB3 won't even come close to the combination of CSV3+APB1 (or 2, if 2 Lt. Cmdr tac seats are open as you also preferably want KLW3).

    Cycle time differences have hardly anything to do with DPS, as it only affects weapon power management very mildly. In reality it will only be a problem on very starter builds. And sure, DHCs use 12 weapon power instead of 10, but then again DC's exist which also use 10 and turrets only use 8.

    Subsystem targeting abilities, as well as doffs that affect them (or specifically beam abilities, I'm not sure which doffs you're exactly talking about) have also hardly any impact since no one in their right mind uses them.

    Damage dropoff has been equal for beams and cannons already for years, since skilltree revamp in... 2016, I guess?

    Then we have Withering Barrage which extends your CSV to have an ideal uptime of 93.333...% (sorry Sea, I had to correct that :D ). With lag and activation struggles, let's put it at 90%. Still, that comes with the only disadvantage of "sacrificing" a trait slot. While beams have an equivalent to that, Redirecting Arrays, that trait *forces* you to draw aggro, making it really viable only on tanks. On top of that, BFAW's minimum CD is 20s, higher than CSV's 15s.

    Also, let's take a look at the DPS league - high-end cannon builds (on ships with turn rates lower than Arbiter's, like good old Scimitar, or new Vaadwaur Juggernaut) are breaking 300k DPS, meanwhile there are hardly any beam builds doing 150k+. Those few that are, are using single beams.

    So yeah, I'll give you that it's slightly easier to get your enemies in sights using DBBs, and that Sea messed up explaining the firing arcs, but you're dead wrong trying to push the agenda as if beams are somehow stronger. They are so far behind cannons in terms of actual performance that it's sad, and I'd actually love to see BFAW getting performance boost from Cryptic.
  • patrickngopatrickngo Member Posts: 9,810 Arc User
    dual beams front, beam arrays rear
    patrickngo wrote: »
    -snip-

    What you're saying in trying to rebut Sea consists almost entirely of lies, misconceptions and antiquated knowledge.

    Sure, Sea made a mistake in saying that while using DC's, it's *easier* to keep enemies in arc and used a common misconception about CSV (namely, while CSV indeed scans the 90' arc area, it doesn't magically widen the firing arc of D(H)C's, it just makes your weapons that have wider arcs than 45' to potentially hit additional targets that are outside that further away from your main target than what your DCs can hit, but still inside the 90' firing arc that CSV scans).

    However, he is completely correct in saying that cannons have immensely higher DPS potential than beams and you have to be incredibly klutz with your piloting if beams indeed perform better for you. The DPS penalty from FAW cripples beam dmg output heavily, meanwhile CSV offers a dmg boost instead (at least on CSV2/3, and you should really use the highest enhancement possible). On a ship with Cmdr Tactical, FAW3+APB3 won't even come close to the combination of CSV3+APB1 (or 2, if 2 Lt. Cmdr tac seats are open as you also preferably want KLW3).

    Cycle time differences have hardly anything to do with DPS, as it only affects weapon power management very mildly. In reality it will only be a problem on very starter builds. And sure, DHCs use 12 weapon power instead of 10, but then again DC's exist which also use 10 and turrets only use 8.

    Subsystem targeting abilities, as well as doffs that affect them (or specifically beam abilities, I'm not sure which doffs you're exactly talking about) have also hardly any impact since no one in their right mind uses them.

    Damage dropoff has been equal for beams and cannons already for years, since skilltree revamp in... 2016, I guess?

    Then we have Withering Barrage which extends your CSV to have an ideal uptime of 93.333...% (sorry Sea, I had to correct that :D ). With lag and activation struggles, let's put it at 90%. Still, that comes with the only disadvantage of "sacrificing" a trait slot. While beams have an equivalent to that, Redirecting Arrays, that trait *forces* you to draw aggro, making it really viable only on tanks. On top of that, BFAW's minimum CD is 20s, higher than CSV's 15s.

    Also, let's take a look at the DPS league - high-end cannon builds (on ships with turn rates lower than Arbiter's, like good old Scimitar, or new Vaadwaur Juggernaut) are breaking 300k DPS, meanwhile there are hardly any beam builds doing 150k+. Those few that are, are using single beams.

    So yeah, I'll give you that it's slightly easier to get your enemies in sights using DBBs, and that Sea messed up explaining the firing arcs, but you're dead wrong trying to push the agenda as if beams are somehow stronger. They are so far behind cannons in terms of actual performance that it's sad, and I'd actually love to see BFAW getting performance boost from Cryptic.

    I'm not looking at High end potential, the number of people able to squeeze the kind of performance you're talking about is VERY VERY LOW, relies on highly controlled conditions and isn't the kind of build a vanilla player can spend the time to achieve.

    There's "Potential" DPS, with the right traits, right equipment, right duty officers, right bridge officers, and right ship...

    and then, there's advice that is of use to people who don't make the game a (sometimes second) career.

    aka your "Practical" or "PUG" DPS, where you're not routinely running with a good team whose disables and crowd control can be counted on to keep the target in your sights in a queue you've been running for hours, daily, over the course of years.

    DPS'ing is a very specialized, very developed, and sometimes very expensive hobby. for a non DPS League Player the longer uptime and simpler, more general and easier to buff Dual Banks are a generally better choice. For the DPS leagues, it's really "Flavour of the quarter" and what's in ascendence can and does change based on what Cryptic feels the need to sell in next month's collector's set.

    You can give one of those builds to a casual, in a pug, and they won't get anywhere close to what a DPS League champion gets with his team, on a queue he's played repeatedly over the course of years.

    therefore, DPS league stats are an edge case. It's like comparing an Indianapolis professional driver to your weekend hobbyist-you can put the weekend hobbyist behind the wheel of an indy car and they're not going to get the kind of numbers a pro driver with a good team backing him or her gets-it's just not going to happen, and an Indycar expert with a good team can be stuck in a '64 Falcon (the one with the one-lung six cylinder and 3 speed transmission) and they'll likely beat the TRIBBLE out of your average highschool teacher on the track.

    but that's practice, it's keeping up with whatever the current meta is, and that's all it is. Note I'm not 'refuting' your position-for DPS awards, right now, in this moment, DHC is king...until they buff something else and Nerf it into the ground again.

    otoh, beams are fairly consistent performers that are easy to make work well, especially on slow-turning, non-cloaking, non-romulan ships, and they're more reliably going to perform in a PUG environment which is what the majority of players who read these forums are doing-they don't require hours of practice, and they're not reliant on teamwork and idealized conditions to do the job. (mind I'm saying this as a primary KDF player whose builds are primarily cannon builds, but I've also been playing and developing piloting habits since 2012 in this game. Most people haven't been doing that.)






    whatever.

  • seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 7,242 Arc User
    edited January 4
    dual cannons front, turrets rear
    patrickngo wrote: »
    -snip-

    What you're saying in trying to rebut Sea consists almost entirely of lies, misconceptions and antiquated knowledge.

    Sure, Sea made a mistake in saying that while using DC's, it's *easier* to keep enemies in arc and used a common misconception about CSV (namely, while CSV indeed scans the 90' arc area, it doesn't magically widen the firing arc of D(H)C's, it just makes your weapons that have wider arcs than 45' to potentially hit additional targets that are outside that further away from your main target than what your DCs can hit, but still inside the 90' firing arc that CSV scans).

    However, he is completely correct in saying that cannons have immensely higher DPS potential than beams and you have to be incredibly klutz with your piloting if beams indeed perform better for you. The DPS penalty from FAW cripples beam dmg output heavily, meanwhile CSV offers a dmg boost instead (at least on CSV2/3, and you should really use the highest enhancement possible). On a ship with Cmdr Tactical, FAW3+APB3 won't even come close to the combination of CSV3+APB1 (or 2, if 2 Lt. Cmdr tac seats are open as you also preferably want KLW3).

    Cycle time differences have hardly anything to do with DPS, as it only affects weapon power management very mildly. In reality it will only be a problem on very starter builds. And sure, DHCs use 12 weapon power instead of 10, but then again DC's exist which also use 10 and turrets only use 8.

    Subsystem targeting abilities, as well as doffs that affect them (or specifically beam abilities, I'm not sure which doffs you're exactly talking about) have also hardly any impact since no one in their right mind uses them.

    Damage dropoff has been equal for beams and cannons already for years, since skilltree revamp in... 2016, I guess?

    Then we have Withering Barrage which extends your CSV to have an ideal uptime of 93.333...% (sorry Sea, I had to correct that :D ). With lag and activation struggles, let's put it at 90%. Still, that comes with the only disadvantage of "sacrificing" a trait slot. While beams have an equivalent to that, Redirecting Arrays, that trait *forces* you to draw aggro, making it really viable only on tanks. On top of that, BFAW's minimum CD is 20s, higher than CSV's 15s.

    Also, let's take a look at the DPS league - high-end cannon builds (on ships with turn rates lower than Arbiter's, like good old Scimitar, or new Vaadwaur Juggernaut) are breaking 300k DPS, meanwhile there are hardly any beam builds doing 150k+. Those few that are, are using single beams.

    So yeah, I'll give you that it's slightly easier to get your enemies in sights using DBBs, and that Sea messed up explaining the firing arcs, but you're dead wrong trying to push the agenda as if beams are somehow stronger. They are so far behind cannons in terms of actual performance that it's sad, and I'd actually love to see BFAW getting performance boost from Cryptic.

    I will just quote this and use it as my reply.

    I apologize for the mistake I made in firing arc, I am human.. sue me. I don't use DBB's anymore and thought they had the same arc, that was incorrect, my bad. Thank you to Tune for the reply, he corrected the mistake and summed it up nicely.

    patrick, I will not respond to you if you're going to be a child. If you want to have an actual discussion, I am game.. but I have yet to see you ever manage to pull this off. I have long made a habit of not reading anything you post and from the 3 lines of your reply that I actually read, I can see that rule is well founded.

    As for my personal experience, I ran a DBB Arbiter for a long time.. it was my 'go to'ship for Damage Output for quite a while and I really enjoyed playing it. Dual Beam Banks are still fine.. they still work, they're not trash.. no one is saying that. WIth the buffs given to cannons recently however, Cannons have surpased them by a large margin.. this is not my opinion it's a mathematical and quantifiable fact. Because of this, I swapped my DBB loadout for Dual Cannons and enjoyed a massive damage boost as will most people.

    If you prefer to run DBB's, there is nothing wrong with that.. play what you like and have fun. If you find it's difficult or that the damage isn't what you wish it would be.. try swapping them for cannons. Anyone that wants to discuss it in an adult and civil fashion, I am game.
    wDYkQHL.jpg

    Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
  • coldnapalmcoldnapalm Member Posts: 7,145 Arc User
    However, he is completely correct in saying that cannons have immensely higher DPS potential than beams and you have to be incredibly klutz with your piloting if beams indeed perform better for you. The DPS penalty from FAW cripples beam dmg output heavily, meanwhile CSV offers a dmg boost instead (at least on CSV2/3, and you should really use the highest enhancement possible). On a ship with Cmdr Tactical, FAW3+APB3 won't even come close to the combination of CSV3+APB1 (or 2, if 2 Lt. Cmdr tac seats are open as you also preferably want KLW3).

    Out of curiosity...how are you getting FAW3+APB3 or APB1+CSV3 on an arbiter? You are looking at a straight up FAW3 vs CSV2 comparison. FAW3 loses 30 accuracy while CSV2 loses 40. So doing a beam boat in the case of the arbiter with FAW3 vs CSV2 isn't that bad of an idea unless you have a lot of acc. Although to be fair, I would probably load up on BO3 over FAW3 at this point...and BO3 vs CRF2...you shot 50 more shots with CRF, but BO3 gives you 50% more damage per shot so that is wash. Each shot does 10% more damage with CRF2 but BO does that massive alpha strike and has an additional 50% crtD. Which is why I like BO3 better. But honestly, there is a LOT of other variables that makes it so once choice or the other can end up better...like what are you doing with that LTC uni. Do you have global cooldown mechanics. What looks cooler. Important things like that.
  • seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 7,242 Arc User
    dual cannons front, turrets rear
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    However, he is completely correct in saying that cannons have immensely higher DPS potential than beams and you have to be incredibly klutz with your piloting if beams indeed perform better for you. The DPS penalty from FAW cripples beam dmg output heavily, meanwhile CSV offers a dmg boost instead (at least on CSV2/3, and you should really use the highest enhancement possible). On a ship with Cmdr Tactical, FAW3+APB3 won't even come close to the combination of CSV3+APB1 (or 2, if 2 Lt. Cmdr tac seats are open as you also preferably want KLW3).

    Out of curiosity...how are you getting FAW3+APB3 or APB1+CSV3 on an arbiter? You are looking at a straight up FAW3 vs CSV2 comparison. FAW3 loses 30 accuracy while CSV2 loses 40. So doing a beam boat in the case of the arbiter with FAW3 vs CSV2 isn't that bad of an idea unless you have a lot of acc. Although to be fair, I would probably load up on BO3 over FAW3 at this point...and BO3 vs CRF2...you shot 50 more shots with CRF, but BO3 gives you 50% more damage per shot so that is wash. Each shot does 10% more damage with CRF2 but BO does that massive alpha strike and has an additional 50% crtD. Which is why I like BO3 better. But honestly, there is a LOT of other variables that makes it so once choice or the other can end up better...like what are you doing with that LTC uni. Do you have global cooldown mechanics. What looks cooler. Important things like that.

    Good points, and yes.. the Arbiter can only take Scatter Volley 2 which is a common downside unfortunately. On mine, I run Scatter Volley 2, APB1 and I use the Hostile Acquisition console to make up for the loss of accuracy. The Vengeance suffers the same drawback which is the primary reason why none of the fed ships have ever really truly caught up to the mighty Scimitar. :wink:
    wDYkQHL.jpg

    Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
  • patrickngopatrickngo Member Posts: 9,810 Arc User
    dual beams front, beam arrays rear
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    However, he is completely correct in saying that cannons have immensely higher DPS potential than beams and you have to be incredibly klutz with your piloting if beams indeed perform better for you. The DPS penalty from FAW cripples beam dmg output heavily, meanwhile CSV offers a dmg boost instead (at least on CSV2/3, and you should really use the highest enhancement possible). On a ship with Cmdr Tactical, FAW3+APB3 won't even come close to the combination of CSV3+APB1 (or 2, if 2 Lt. Cmdr tac seats are open as you also preferably want KLW3).

    Out of curiosity...how are you getting FAW3+APB3 or APB1+CSV3 on an arbiter? You are looking at a straight up FAW3 vs CSV2 comparison. FAW3 loses 30 accuracy while CSV2 loses 40. So doing a beam boat in the case of the arbiter with FAW3 vs CSV2 isn't that bad of an idea unless you have a lot of acc. Although to be fair, I would probably load up on BO3 over FAW3 at this point...and BO3 vs CRF2...you shot 50 more shots with CRF, but BO3 gives you 50% more damage per shot so that is wash. Each shot does 10% more damage with CRF2 but BO does that massive alpha strike and has an additional 50% crtD. Which is why I like BO3 better. But honestly, there is a LOT of other variables that makes it so once choice or the other can end up better...like what are you doing with that LTC uni. Do you have global cooldown mechanics. What looks cooler. Important things like that.

    Ding! there we are. CSV3 vs--- because BFAW caps out as a Lt.Commander power, while CSV3 is a full-on Commander level ability, as you note here.

    To get the full potential of CSV3 you have to have a CDR uni or Tactical, and a LtC uni or tactical for the attack pattern.

    at minimum you need to be able to seat a tac commander boff.

    forgive me if I'm wrong here, but CMDR on a Vengeance is engineering, not Tactical OR universal. (lemme check the entry...yup, I remembered it right, LTC Tac and Ens. Tac, with a LT. universal) with the arbeiter having the same seating, meaning that for CSV2, you can only seat...(looking it up) Beta 1, or attack pattern Delta. no APB2 with CSV2, though with BFAW2, you CAN load Beta 2, Delta 2, or Omega 1.

    this is correct, yes?

    So stacking APB3 is pretty much out of the question for your cannons build unless you go with the lowest rank cannons abilities, as well also applying to Omega 2 (or even 1), and while this is fine, it's not going to get you 300K DPS, which was @tunebreaker's implication in his(? I really don't know who's on the other end of the keyboard, sorry) argument, as well as Sea of Sorrows.

    On a ship with the seating, they're absolutely right-to a point, but we're talking the Avenger here, which is like a slower-turning, heavier, and better seated version of a Vor'cha (but without the integral cloak or ability to carry more than one science console) with a base turn rate of 9 (instead of 10).

    even sinking the Universal into a tactical slot, doesn't buy you much, as it's only a lieutenant seat on the base model Avenger, though you CAN do it on the Tier Six Abiter class cruiser (available for 3000 zen in the C-store), this only lands you the ability to go to CSV2, if you want a decent attack pattern to go with it-still not in that magical realm of the upper, flakymost crust of DPS'ers, though you're certainly going to be more of a glass cannon.

    On the flip hand, you can double down on your beam skills more easily even here, though with an aux 2 battery build, iirc, that becomes somewhat redundant, and you'll have to find some means to make better use of all that extra tac powers, since it doesn't net you any more than the Lt. science (generally used for heals), a Cdr. Engineering (there are some nice things one can do there, but hardly record-shattering off the main list), and of course, that sad little ensign tactical who doesn't really have much to do on a cannons boat (that isn't carrying a big torpedo, which really isn't much use now, is it? I seem to recall much howling went on about a ship with a CDR tac, LTC tac, and Ens. Tac because it's a wasted slot...or somesuch.)

    When the team is good, Glass cannons that slowly lumber and turn are fine, and will do some impressive damage...in the right hands.

    practiced hands. That have lots of experience in the game and have probably played through several metas already, and have all the necessary gear and traits accumulated from all the necessary lockboxes, event ships, other ships, and box ships, with the needed combinations (sometimes intended, sometimes not so much) that said pilot won't die when a mob breathes unbuffed fire at him.

    but for general purposes, a beam build will work where a glass cannon will accumulate ship injuries (Pugging. With Strangers. in Advanced) and "Draw Aggro" in spite of having threat reduction consoles, investments in threat reduction, threat control with 'non threatening", stealth consoles, and the like. which I suppose gives the chance to tactically respawn in PvE...better bring your spare parts bag, especially if your ship handles like an Avenger, because you'll need it.

    but I'm now curious...

    What's the highest DPS someone has gotten...Running an Avenger or Arbiter? in the DPS leagues, I mean. we know about the 300K and the 200K and so on, but what's the best performance @Tunebreaker or @Sea of Sorrows has seen (or posted) using an Avenger or an Arbiter?

    just to put things into perspective, mind...

    whatever.

  • tunebreakertunebreaker Member Posts: 1,220 Arc User
    edited January 4
    dual cannons front, turrets rear
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    However, he is completely correct in saying that cannons have immensely higher DPS potential than beams and you have to be incredibly klutz with your piloting if beams indeed perform better for you. The DPS penalty from FAW cripples beam dmg output heavily, meanwhile CSV offers a dmg boost instead (at least on CSV2/3, and you should really use the highest enhancement possible). On a ship with Cmdr Tactical, FAW3+APB3 won't even come close to the combination of CSV3+APB1 (or 2, if 2 Lt. Cmdr tac seats are open as you also preferably want KLW3).

    Out of curiosity...how are you getting FAW3+APB3 or APB1+CSV3 on an arbiter? You are looking at a straight up FAW3 vs CSV2 comparison. FAW3 loses 30 accuracy while CSV2 loses 40. So doing a beam boat in the case of the arbiter with FAW3 vs CSV2 isn't that bad of an idea unless you have a lot of acc. Although to be fair, I would probably load up on BO3 over FAW3 at this point...and BO3 vs CRF2...you shot 50 more shots with CRF, but BO3 gives you 50% more damage per shot so that is wash. Each shot does 10% more damage with CRF2 but BO does that massive alpha strike and has an additional 50% crtD. Which is why I like BO3 better. But honestly, there is a LOT of other variables that makes it so once choice or the other can end up better...like what are you doing with that LTC uni. Do you have global cooldown mechanics. What looks cooler. Important things like that.

    I never said that particular comparison was about Arbiter. Note how I wrote "On a ship with Cmdr Tactical", because Patrick earlier said "what this means, is that you can run the maximum BFAW plus the top attack pattern on an escort build".

    However, even when comparing Arbiter's case, CSV2 to FAW3, former will be a lot stronger option.
    patrickngo wrote: »

    What's the highest DPS someone has gotten...Running an Avenger or Arbiter? in the DPS leagues, I mean. we know about the 300K and the 200K and so on, but what's the best performance @Tunebreaker or @Sea of Sorrows has seen (or posted) using an Avenger or an Arbiter?

    I don't know the exact high scores, but there are quite a people who have done 200k+ with Arbiters.
  • coldnapalmcoldnapalm Member Posts: 7,145 Arc User
    120k arbiters are something you see often enough. 150k is not unheard of. A bit below 180k is the highest I have seen. These are all pretty much cannon boats.
Sign In or Register to comment.