I agree the gap needs to be smaller. But what you're suggesting is too much. The one thing you always seem to ignore, and it's starting to become a little annoying, is the firing arc issue. Beam arrays have a 250 degree firing arc. That's why your idea is too powerful. Something with that level of a firing arc doing the level of damage you're suggesting? I cannot in good conscience stand behind it. The cruiser captain in me is practically drooling in agreement, but the rest of me, not really.
Now if we absolutely MUST buff BAs, then I would say give them back the 20% damage they lost due to the disco ball nerf (the only thing that reynold idiot suggested that makes sense), and give them a very VERY slight acc increase (no more than 5%). But if you do that, don't do anything else. Maybe give cruisers a little more hull, so that you don't have the stupidity of an escort having 50k hull with the strongest hulled cruiser only having 13k more.
Or... reduce escort hull and shields. Make them less able to tank, and more dependent on healing/actual tanks.
In all honesty, this whole game-wide obsession with DPS (outside of PvP), is just silly.
1) Keep a 45 degree arc on a target with 20 turn rate is no more difficult than an 80 degree arc on a target with 10 turn rate.
snip
So lets take this for the proposed weapon, the Heavy Beam Array
Firing Arc: 240 degree, Forward Mount Only
Base Damage: 110 (for reference standard BAs are 100)
Firing Cycle: Exactly as DHCs (this is the important part)
Energy Drain: 8 or 9 (If 9 then tac on a 5% accuracy bonus to weapon type)
That is not broken by any stretch of the imagination, yet would be a huge boon.
I proposed a 10% damage increase with a 10 degree arc reduction with a modified firing rate and slightly lower drain and/or a 5% ACC bonus that would be foward mount only.
You say that is insanely overpowered yet propose a flat 20% damage increase and 5% Acc boost to all beams.
:eek::eek:
Oh and just for clarity the only time I get excited by a cruiser being in the ESTF is when they slap extend shields on me with the occasional hazard emitters. Although the only time I get excited by an escort is when they are out DPSing me. I just tend not to be very excitable though.
In all honesty, this whole game-wide obsession with DPS (outside of PvP), is just silly.
+1 to all the above.
First of all I'm not a top percentile player. Trying to PvP with 450ms ping is a joke but I've done it before with all ship types and I enjoy it regardless.
My main role in fleet and PUG ESTFs are similar - get a cruiser, keep people alive. Very few people seem to do the PUG tank/heal role so that's what I specialize in.
It indeed used to be that cruisers lack firepower to be competitive with escorts but with the new ship types coming out the gap is being bridged. Battlecruisers (or any tac-heavy cruiser), can with the right build, dish out major damage while being competently tanky.
Buffed with tac abilities and boosts to weapons power a 7 or 8 beam broadside can knock out multiple groups of incoming minor Borg targets and with proper spec to defences, move and shoot to manage the flow of battle. Boss target? Not a problem, there's something called Dispersal Pattern III, TCMs, and a variety of seriously OP debuffs to make the boss target a joke. Did you know you can even attack Donatra while she's cloaked?
Even the free Assault Cruiser can do the above role competently with the right build.
With the Regent (which I find stupidly powerful), a creative pilot is not, repeat not a liability for the team because it is capable of doing damage (massive damage in PvE), tanking and team healing all at once.
Perhaps not as well as a specialized damage dealer and not as well as a specialized tanker or healer, but competently well enough that the Regent remains my top choice for any serious team activity. It is a well rounded, combat capable tac-heavy cruiser.
And if I see a new enemy group incoming I can engage them at range 9.9 and blow them out of the water without needing to maneuver. It can also engage from high above or below the Z axis avoiding part of enemy weapon arcs making it uniquely flexible for 3 dimensional tactics... which are sadly little or never exploited to any great effect by close-minded experts who think purely about frontal damage output.
Often in fleet runs, a bunch of escorts (whose pilots have been here since beta) were to me, a bit slow to demolish certain targets in HSE. They were afraid to take enemy damage so remained at a range where cannon damage diminished. Occasionally, people blow up from OP plasma torpedo spread attacks. That's where a single Omega cruiser closed in to point blank range, easily tanked NPC damage and blew up said boss target by its lonesome.
ESTFs are static missions. They, unlike real life combat scenarios, do not give nasty surprises. This fixed environment should be the perfect chance for players to develop new tactics and new ship builds to win the engagement no matter what ship type is used.
Competently outfitted, any T4 and T5 ship type is generally capable of winning said ESTF, including lame space whales. The limitation is not in the ship, per se (not to mention there are plenty of very capable "multi role" ships to choose from now) but in the end users' ability to solve problems with the tools at their disposal, not just complain endlessly and expect changes to be made immediately.
STF Flight Instructor since Early 2012. Newbies are the reason why STO lives and breathes today. Do not discriminate.
Just chose my Engineer with his Sci-Ody for a few ESTFs, just to see how UP Cruisers are. They are so UP, they can tank multiple enemies (TacCube+Gate+ a few Spheres) while doing at least a third of the damage of an escort.
Now I flew Kithomer. Helped one Tac with an Star Cruiser -ugly ship btw. - and killed a cube for him, left him alone to help on the other side. He just had to destroy the transformer (somebody else did the probes) and while I destroyed 4 Gens, 1 Cube, 1 Transformer -alone- and fired with two other people on the gate, until its HP fell under 40%, then he managed to destroy the transformator (I mentioned that before: He was tac, with ATA etc.)...
There is nothing wrong with Cruisers, and let alone beams -of course I would like a them more powerful, but so would I like more powerful DHC for my Tac ). Mostly its the pilot doing one error after another.
Yesterday I flew 1on1 with a Tac in a Fleet Defiant. He is a decent player, but not one of the top. Yet, while he just scratched my shields, I depleted his, an won. I know his build, its mostly standard escort. So again, Cruiser do there role pretty nice.
The whining about users UP is more like a religious war than anything else.
Fed cruisers have no mobility to speak of, they have horrible damage potential and their defense is basically crippled by thd fact that just about anybody can sit in their rear arcs with no effort at all, and thanks to apo and consorts the whol tractor/plasma stuff does absolutly nothing to stop those people from sitting behind a fed whale forever.
Then possibly a change to ApO is needed since cycling the power has made Holds obsolete. Holds mind you which are suppossed to bE the bane of the Escort class.
There is no gamepaly reason for this, the game would not suddenly change overnight if you gave fed cruisers the mobility of klinkers (or basically klinker mobility -1) but you would remedy an injust disadvantage that FED cruisers NVER got any compensation for.
This idea has been tabled and retabled many times. A 1-2 point turnrate increase for the feds without going over the KDF existing stats.
Feds have ****ty mobility, and they do get nothing. They do not tank better, they sure as hell do not do more damage (how could they, beam arrays are such a horrible weapon) and that leaves the question: why was this done the way it was done?
Beam Arrays where great when BFaw was 100% accurate. They changed it to not be 100% accurate and the BA has never been the same since.
heck, star trek even demonstrated that crusiers are surprisingly nimble (yes they won't out turn a small agile ship, but alas: noone asks for that.) and good jack of all trades.
In my opinion the Cruiser is the jack of all trades. Good at many things but not exceling at any of them.
redo FAW so that it acts like the beam version of rapdid fire, do a scatter volley for equivalent for spam removal.
No. Keep fae as the AoE for beams and create a new Beam Rapid Fire BOff ability.
You need to remebe that not only tac captains are populating the game! Yes, tacs can buiff arrays to become a somewhat useful weapon for the duration of their buffs, but after that its back to "oh look it tickeles". Science and engineering capotains do not even get the chance.
Tac Captains only have two abilities that buff them and no one else. ApA and GDF. TacFleet helps everyone in range up to a maximum of 5 I believe, just like all the Fleet Abilities.
Well used Engineering captains in a cruisers are the epitomy of annoying damange sponge, but they just don't DO anything aside lobbing a heal once in a while (so... 6k from that aux to sif 6 is... exactly one dhc volley. wow.... that was worth it not having a tac captain instead to actuall contribute....).
That A2Sif also gives an Aux buffed All Damage Resist on top of that heal and can be repeated almost every 15 seconds.
But ok, back to basics:
klinks get mobility, tank and damage.
Feds get nothing. Bring feds up to klink levels without making them klinks (meaning no dhc for fed cruisers, so unnerf the bloody arrays already!)
I agree, the feds Cruiser need better turnrates, (or another idea is give fed cruiser a better Zero-axis spin rate to make rotating shield facings easier), but Beam Arrays where not nerfed in any way that I know of.
Just BFAW at the playerbases request since it was too OP at 100% accuracy.
On a side note; Flying a Tac toon in the worst KDF cruiser ever (BortasQu) using all Beam Arrays seemed fine to me using the techniques given here and elswhere to increase Cruiser damage and viability. Seems to me that if one wants a Tactical Cruiser then one needs to play a Tac Toon as your primary as its thier job do be the damage heavy class.
I agree, the feds Cruiser need better turnrates, (or another idea is give fed cruiser a better Zero-axis spin rate to make rotating shield facings easier), but Beam Arrays where not nerfed in any way that I know of.
Just BFAW at the playerbases request since it was too OP at 100% accuracy.
I'm not so sure you will see much of an improvement with that. An increase of 1' base turn rate will not equate to a 1' improvement on these ships because of the inertia values. Most cruiser captains seem not to be as situation aware as escort pilots seem to be and don't take precautionary action to start moving their ships to a different facing to get a new shield arc. Its pretty much not the cruisers nature anyways. It can be done, but the captain needs to be thinking two steps ahead. Any cruiser captain worth their salt knows how to use evasive maneuvers and various engineer skills to make emergency maneuvering crisper.
Zero axis spin rate might be good but I have to think more about it.
My suggestion would be to up the shield modifier for cruisers a tad (and sci' ships by the same percentage to match) to give a little bit more time for good cruiser captains to make adjustments.
I'm not so sure you will see much of an improvement with that. An increase of 1' base turn rate will not equate to a 1' improvement on these ships because of the inertia values.
I was assuming that with Turnrate changes would also be Enertia changes to help.
Most cruiser captains seem not to be as situation aware as escort pilots seem to be and don't take precautionary action to start moving their ships to a different facing to get a new shield arc. Its pretty much not the cruisers nature anyways. It can be done, but the captain needs to be thinking two steps ahead. Any cruiser captain worth their salt knows how to use evasive maneuvers and various engineer skills to make emergency maneuvering crisper.
Then they need to share this info and bring the less-caring Cruiser players up to speed.
My suggestion would be to up the shield modifier for cruisers a tad (and sci' ships by the same percentage to match) to give a little bit more time for good cruiser captains to make adjustments.
I disagree. Science already has a buffed shielding system beyond everyone else in the game and Cruiser have access to the better Heals and resists abilities. Thier shielding is not the issue as any competant Cruiser player can buff themselves to the point of bouncing multiple Escort attacks long enough to escape or attempt some other combat technique.
I was assuming that with Turnrate changes would also be Enertia changes to help.
Then they need to share this info and bring the less-caring Cruiser players up to speed.
I disagree. Science already has a buffed shielding system beyond everyone else in the game and Cruiser have access to the better Heals and resists abilities. Thier shielding is not the issue as any competant Cruiser player can buff themselves to the point of bouncing multiple Escort attacks long enough to escape or attempt some other combat technique.
Remember that horribly bad TNG episode full of carnies on the holodeck?
Juggler: "I was just juggling... and I happened to catch one in my mouth. It tasted good, so I ate it. Then before I knew it, I'd eaten every one of my worlds. It hadn't occurred to me that, once they were gone, I'd have nothing left to juggle. If you ever have a world, plan ahead. Don't eat it."
They want to juggle their worlds and eat them too.
Jack Emmert: "Starfleet and Klingon. ... So two factions, full PvE content." Al Rivera hates Klingons Star Trek Online: Agents of Jack Emmert All cloaks should be canon.
I was assuming that with Turnrate changes would also be Enertia changes to help.
Changing the inertial values would only work if it was converted to a percentage value and then changed along ALL vessels in the game to be effective. I would love to have my Excel' turning close to 30' (maybe not, I might have to install over 700 barf bags then). The inertial values are needed to represent the mass of the ship and how it reacts in overcoming the mass (and gravitational effect of pulls from every other object in the universe).
Plus inertial values can already be decreased (for a time) with AuxID, maybe AuxID needs a small boosting of effectiveness as an incentive for its use.
I disagree. Science already has a buffed shielding system beyond everyone else in the game and Cruiser have access to the better Heals and resists abilities. Thier shielding is not the issue as any competant Cruiser player can buff themselves to the point of bouncing multiple Escort attacks long enough to escape or attempt some other combat technique.
Only reason why I suggested upping science ships was to keep the parity between the two ship classes. Its just a counter idea to yours.
Remember that horribly bad TNG episode full of carnies on the holodeck?
Juggler: "I was just juggling... and I happened to catch one in my mouth. It tasted good, so I ate it. Then before I knew it, I'd eaten every one of my worlds. It hadn't occurred to me that, once they were gone, I'd have nothing left to juggle. If you ever have a world, plan ahead. Don't eat it."
They want to juggle their worlds and eat them too.
Not all Feddie' cruiser captains want that. I've spent most of my time defending against insane changes that will make cruisers OP and instead offering changes in weapons(that will have the same benefits for KDF) as well as education.
I would be happy with the following stats (Based on Mk XII common):
Fires 4 shots per cycle (Return power after last shot, as per DHCs)
Damage: 249.1, 199.22 DPS (13% increase)
Range 10km
1 second recharge
Drains 8 power when fired with other weapons
250 Degree FA
Compared to the equivalent DHC:
Fires 2 shots per cycle (As current, Return power after last shot, as current)
Damage: 383.5, 255.7 DPS
Range: 10km
2 Second recharge
Drains 12 power when fired with other weapons
+10% Critical severity
The BA would still do far less damage than a DHC due to weapon power drain as both weapons have the same Season 1.2 changes to thier drain mechanic (which returns all power at the end of the cycle).
Using a 12 second firing period the Beam Arrays would incur 480 total drain, do a theoretical 17932.2 damage at 100% power for all shots.
Using the same 12 second firing period the DHCs will incure a toatl drain of 240, do a theoretical 9204.0 damage at 100% power for all shots.
The thing is the DHCs are the most efficient weapon under the S1.2 rules since they do not fire for half of the cycle and suffer the less drain for it.
Beam Arrays will still do far less damage as thier drain will effect them more due to the firing 2 times as much in the same timespan before the return of WP at the end of the cycle.
Simply put, BA get less efficient as total the more one uses on a build. Fix thier drain mechanic and many of thier issues will go away.
Changing the inertial values would only work if it was converted to a percentage value and then changed along ALL vessels in the game to be effective. I would love to have my Excel' turning close to 30' (maybe not, I might have to install over 700 barf bags then). The inertial values are needed to represent the mass of the ship and how it reacts in overcoming the mass (and gravitational effect of pulls from every other object in the universe).
Then the feds are screwed.
Though if the KDF BCs already have better enertia values ingame that work with thier higher turnrates, I do not see why the sudden change to the games mechanics are needed just to make the feds work better if thier are changed.. The system should already be in place.
Only reason why I suggested upping science ships was to keep the parity between the two ship classes. Its just a counter idea to yours.
The lowest Shield modifier for a science vessel (feds) is 1.01 for the Science Vessel refit at VA. Every other Science vessel has a much higher Shield Modifier and are already excellent Shield Tankers.
hmm... taking my changes into account in a spreadsheet (I did post them with the stats I suggested) the number of shots fired by each weapon is unchanged however the beam array was made far more efficient given a 13% buff and drain reduction of 2, I did my own impact analysis and came out with:
Which would lead to the following:
6 beam broadside cycle (24 shots): 5977.248 (Subract reduction from power drain, something I can't calculate)
4 DHC Cycle (16 Shots): 6136 (Subract reduction from power drain)
as opposed to the current:
6 beam broadside cycle (24 shots): 5289.6 (Subract reduction from power drain, something I can't calculate)
4 DHCs being the same as shown in my impact analysis
unless I have missed something it's not a major change but it does have an imapact that fails to put DHCs out of a job but also makes BAs a far better option than they are now
unless I have missed something it's not a major change but it does have an imapact that fails to put DHCs out of a job but also makes BAs a far better option than they are now
I found no link to your spreadsheet in the original post.
Still the point that I'm trying to make is the BA's are not as effcient as the DHCs becuase they fire the full cycle instead of half the cycle (thus DHCs regaining lost power faster and envoking overall less drain) and as such that firing speed means more drain on the system from more weapons for a longer duration before the end of the cycle power returns take effect.
As Bareel already had shown, the BAs fire so much they cause thier own massive drain under the current drain mechanics (S1.2 changes) and are very ineffecient for this reason.
I feel that the drain is the only aspect they need to have fixed to solve thier issues.
The idea of upping thier base damage, adding Beam Rapid Fire abilities, etc are all good (well maybe not the 240FA Heavy beams that would do ) ideas.
Notes:
1: You will have to download to edit
2: everything other than cells C2, C3 and C9 are automated (With the exceptions of cells C10 and C11 which should also not be edited
Still the point that I'm trying to make is the BA's are not as efficient as the DHCs because they fire the full cycle instead of half the cycle (thus DHCs regaining lost power faster and invoking overall less drain) and as such that firing speed means more drain on the system from more weapons for a longer duration before the end of the cycle power returns take effect.
As Bareel already had shown, the BAs fire so much they cause their own massive drain under the current drain mechanics (S1.2 changes) and are very inefficient for this reason.
I feel that the drain is the only aspect they need to have fixed to solve their issues.
This may be the case however that may be harder than simply changing the base damage and drain amount to compensate
Or... reduce escort hull and shields. Make them less able to tank, and more dependent on healing/actual tanks.
Can't do that either, it would turn our currently super soft trinity into a hard one. After WoW I'm in such a non-hurry to get back into a trinity based game its not even funny....
I realize we seem to be stuck in a box. If we make X better then Y becomes useless but people aren'tt happy with the parameters for X and Y because they were designed in a sorta and sorta-not way...
As an example of the box I feel we are in: While I agree that our current system isn't perfect, I also prefer it stay as it is than to have Cryptic "try" to fix it. That may seem odd but I've already lived through quite a few Cryptic "rebalance" patches over at CO, you DO NOT WANT THAT in STO.
That said I have to say, its really kinda hillarious how its always about fed cruiser pilots getting annoyed their ships are actually support vessels. It just shows how little of the system they actually know, its like its an unpleasant shock for them. Heck, I didn't know either until I got around to learn how to play, well after I got to 50. And for all that, the rage is always against escorts, instead of against KDF battlecruisers, which are at least a little closer to fed cruisers than escorts by far.
How about if they spread out the existing Drain for Beam Arrays, so as to make the drain less of a upfront issue?
Say keep the total of 10 points of drain in one cycle (4seconds) per beam, keep the firing rate the same but spread the 10 point drain out to be only 2.5 drain per shot in that one cycle per beam?
shot 1shot 2 shot 3shot 4
BA1 0 2.5 2.5 2.5
BA2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
BA3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
BA4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
BA5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
BA6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
total 12.515.015.015.0 = 57.5 total drain
DHC1 0 * 12 *
DHC2 12 * 12 *
DHC3 12 * 12 *
DHC4 12 * 12 *
total 36 * 48 * = 84 total drain
Bam, BAs are now more efficient and have no need for damage stat increases or special rules just for them as they only drop down to 112.5 WP in the first 6 shots, drops to 97.5 for the second 6 shots, drops to 82.5 for the 3rd salvo and 67.5 for the last salvo before the cycle ends and WP is restored.
This of course is at 125 WP without Overcapping, DEM DOffs, Nadion Inversion, EPS consoles or any form of mitigation for drain for the purposes of an example.
Incontrast the DHCs would be at 89 WP after the first 4 shots and down 41 WP after the last 4 shots before the cycle ends and WP is restored.
Viola, The BAs strike for 24 total shots at less drain and therefore do more damage than they currently do.
This may be the case however that may be harder than simply changing the base damage and drain amount to compensate
Then Cryptic should have coded their game better to allow for changes towards balance, as the fix for BAs seems simple to me, rather than continually handicapping one class or class of vessels to compensate for the issues that spring up in another when they change something.
How about if they spread out the existing Drain for Beam Arrays, so as to make the drain less of a upfront issue?
Say keep the total of 10 points of drain in one cycle (4seconds) per beam, keep the firing rate the same but spread the 10 point drain out to be only 2.5 drain per shot in that one cycle per beam?
That's fine by me and seems far more logical than what we already have.
Bam, BAs are now more efficient and have no need for damage stat increases or special rules just for them as they only drop down to 112.5 WP in the first 6 shots, drops to 97.5 for the second 6 shots, drops to 82.5 for the 3rd salvo and 67.5 for the last salvo before the cycle ends and WP is restored.
This of course is at 125 WP without Overcapping, DEM DOffs, Nadion Inversion, EPS consoles or any form of mitigation for drain for the purposes of an example.
Incontrast the DHCs would be at 89 WP after the first 4 shots and down 41 WP after the last 4 shots before the cycle ends and WP is restored.
Viola, The BAs strike for 24 total shots at less drain and therefore do more damage than they currently do.
Again is fine by me, it also gives people a reason to use DCs again.
Then Cryptic should have coded their game better to allow for changes towards balance, as the fix for BAs seems simple to me, rather than continually handicapping one class or class of vessels to compensate for the issues that spring up in another when they change something.
This is the only thing I can see standing in the way, I did a little bit of programming at college and while I've never programmed an MMO I reckon they have done certain bits in a complex way which may require recoding of entire functions to change and others that are horrendously lazy I guess in order to save space on a hard drive, I would have programmed everything with a reference file for stats etc so that all I have to do to modify something is change the appropriate file.
So while I prefer your method of changing power drain, it would be easier to modify the stats to compensate
*snip* You gotta get it into your head already, cruisers are not a damage dealing ship class. They were never designed as such. They can do damage, but they aren't meant to be the primary damage dealers. *snip*
That said I have to say, its really kinda hillarious how its always about fed cruiser pilots getting annoyed their ships are actually support vessels. It just shows how little of the system they actually know, its like its an unpleasant shock for them. Heck, I didn't know either until I got around to learn how to play, well after I got to 50. And for all that, the rage is always against escorts, instead of against KDF battlecruisers, which are at least a little closer to fed cruisers than escorts by far.
Need more be said.
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
So the concept that only 1/3rd of the ships are good picks for the majority of the content is acceptable to you?
You remind me of the people in EQ who thought if every class could solo it would mean the end of MMOs. Pretty sure WoW demonstrated quite well the error of that thinking.
Although on that note I do kind of miss the more ... optimized attitude of the players in that game.
Maybe just a little more... I've been reading this thread for a while, and its been good drama.
People seems to be confusing ship class with weapon system. While I do agree that Beam Arrays need something to be more viable, I have no wish for the to be escalated to DHC or DC levels. But until something happens to change it, we have to work with what we got. I put together a more tactical oriented build, just to prove to someone wrong.
I have been using this layout on my Engineer for a few months with no complaints. This is also the closest I have been able to dealing decent damage (5500-6000 dps in ISE with the D'kora), while assisting the team. It is not for PVP.
Eng Consoles: Neutronium, Neutronium, Assimilated Module, Battle Module 3000 (Regent use RCS Accel)
Sci Consoles: Flow Capacitor, 2 Field Generators (Regent uses 1 or it drops the Flow Capacitor)
Tac Consoles: Damage specific consoles
I am able to assist the entire team with the debuffs, and in the process, deal some decent damage. Took me a little while to get it worked out, but it does work in PVE.
Chaining AtD1, skilled captains may be able to get cannons to work on the Regent, I haven't tried it out; in my cruisers I use beams.
"I'm not big on telepaths myself. I'm not big on guns either. But if everyone else has them, I want to make sure I can get my hands on the biggest one I can."
So the concept that only 1/3rd of the ships are good picks for the majority of the content is acceptable to you?
.........
Although on that note I do kind of miss the more ... optimized attitude of the players in that game.
Its a shame if you don't feel your cruiser characters are contributing to team content, might I suggest, as I have before, that you give our ridged head BFFs over at the KDF a chance?
Also, a more laid back attitude is the result of the game being far more casual than the more raid oriented WoW player culture.
Its a shame if you don't feel your cruiser characters are contributing to team content, might I suggest, as I have before, that you give our ridged head BFFs over at the KDF a chance?
Also, a more laid back attitude is the result of the game being far more casual than the more raid oriented WoW player culture.
As I've said before, I do have a ridgehead in a Fleet Vor'Cha and he does just fine. And it is not just the team content it is in general. I'm a ginder type player and it is borderline painful for me to fly things that ... are too slow at completing content.
And I was referring to the EQ culture. To me the WoW culture is pretty casual as well although not as much as it is here atleast back when I played it (vanilla so its been awhile). In EQ you were borderline required to have 3 specific classes in five man content. And not quite half of the classes were even capable of soloing. Not defending those decisions but it did breed a very different type of player. If you saw a level 50 warrior you knew he was a really good tank otherwise he wouldn't have gotten to level 50. Atleast until twinking took over big time but oh well I'm rambling again.
So the concept that only 1/3rd of the ships are good picks for the majority of the content is acceptable to you?
You remind me of the people in EQ who thought if every class could solo it would mean the end of MMOs. Pretty sure WoW demonstrated quite well the error of that thinking.
Although on that note I do kind of miss the more ... optimized attitude of the players in that game.
No, the concept that only 1/3 of the ships are good picks for the majority of the content is not acceptable. But what I find amusing is that they are not only acceptable but can excel at their roles.
What I don't find acceptable are people going after a ship that does what it was intended to do perfectly fine, and trying to make it into something it's not supposed to be, and then complaining when it fails miserably.
It's like trying to use an archer as a swordsman. It doesn't work. It's like taking a man-at-arms and having him operate a trebuchet. It doesn't work. It's like taking a liege lord and having him guard the women and wagons. It doesn't work. Am I ok with this? At the moment, yes, because every ship has a role, every ship has a job. And right now, Cruisers are support craft, and they do that role VERY WELL.
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
Changing drain stats I should hope is as easy as changing the value however what you suggest is to change the whole method which isn't quite so easy
Actually I was thinking they could just change the Drain value to 2.5 and leave everything else about Beams almost As-Is. The way they currently fire through a cycle should work with a 2.5 drain rating to hopefully make them more efficient.
So the concept that only 1/3rd of the ships are good picks for the majority of the content is acceptable to you?
You remind me of the people in EQ who thought if every class could solo it would mean the end of MMOs. Pretty sure WoW demonstrated quite well the error of that thinking.
Although on that note I do kind of miss the more ... optimized attitude of the players in that game.
And Guild Wars 2. Every class is expected to bring in damage, support and survival abilities, and every class can achieve all three, just in different playstyles. The gameplay seems to be innovative and entertaining enough to win it a few awards already.
Comments
....
I proposed a 10% damage increase with a 10 degree arc reduction with a modified firing rate and slightly lower drain and/or a 5% ACC bonus that would be foward mount only.
You say that is insanely overpowered yet propose a flat 20% damage increase and 5% Acc boost to all beams.
:eek:
Oh and just for clarity the only time I get excited by a cruiser being in the ESTF is when they slap extend shields on me with the occasional hazard emitters. Although the only time I get excited by an escort is when they are out DPSing me. I just tend not to be very excitable though.
+1 to all the above.
First of all I'm not a top percentile player. Trying to PvP with 450ms ping is a joke but I've done it before with all ship types and I enjoy it regardless.
My main role in fleet and PUG ESTFs are similar - get a cruiser, keep people alive. Very few people seem to do the PUG tank/heal role so that's what I specialize in.
It indeed used to be that cruisers lack firepower to be competitive with escorts but with the new ship types coming out the gap is being bridged. Battlecruisers (or any tac-heavy cruiser), can with the right build, dish out major damage while being competently tanky.
Buffed with tac abilities and boosts to weapons power a 7 or 8 beam broadside can knock out multiple groups of incoming minor Borg targets and with proper spec to defences, move and shoot to manage the flow of battle. Boss target? Not a problem, there's something called Dispersal Pattern III, TCMs, and a variety of seriously OP debuffs to make the boss target a joke. Did you know you can even attack Donatra while she's cloaked?
Even the free Assault Cruiser can do the above role competently with the right build.
With the Regent (which I find stupidly powerful), a creative pilot is not, repeat not a liability for the team because it is capable of doing damage (massive damage in PvE), tanking and team healing all at once.
Perhaps not as well as a specialized damage dealer and not as well as a specialized tanker or healer, but competently well enough that the Regent remains my top choice for any serious team activity. It is a well rounded, combat capable tac-heavy cruiser.
And if I see a new enemy group incoming I can engage them at range 9.9 and blow them out of the water without needing to maneuver. It can also engage from high above or below the Z axis avoiding part of enemy weapon arcs making it uniquely flexible for 3 dimensional tactics... which are sadly little or never exploited to any great effect by close-minded experts who think purely about frontal damage output.
Often in fleet runs, a bunch of escorts (whose pilots have been here since beta) were to me, a bit slow to demolish certain targets in HSE. They were afraid to take enemy damage so remained at a range where cannon damage diminished. Occasionally, people blow up from OP plasma torpedo spread attacks. That's where a single Omega cruiser closed in to point blank range, easily tanked NPC damage and blew up said boss target by its lonesome.
ESTFs are static missions. They, unlike real life combat scenarios, do not give nasty surprises. This fixed environment should be the perfect chance for players to develop new tactics and new ship builds to win the engagement no matter what ship type is used.
Competently outfitted, any T4 and T5 ship type is generally capable of winning said ESTF, including lame space whales. The limitation is not in the ship, per se (not to mention there are plenty of very capable "multi role" ships to choose from now) but in the end users' ability to solve problems with the tools at their disposal, not just complain endlessly and expect changes to be made immediately.
My Youtube Channel
Now I flew Kithomer. Helped one Tac with an Star Cruiser -ugly ship btw. - and killed a cube for him, left him alone to help on the other side. He just had to destroy the transformer (somebody else did the probes) and while I destroyed 4 Gens, 1 Cube, 1 Transformer -alone- and fired with two other people on the gate, until its HP fell under 40%, then he managed to destroy the transformator (I mentioned that before: He was tac, with ATA etc.)...
There is nothing wrong with Cruisers, and let alone beams -of course I would like a them more powerful, but so would I like more powerful DHC for my Tac
Yesterday I flew 1on1 with a Tac in a Fleet Defiant. He is a decent player, but not one of the top. Yet, while he just scratched my shields, I depleted his, an won. I know his build, its mostly standard escort. So again, Cruiser do there role pretty nice.
The whining about users UP is more like a religious war than anything else.
R.I.P
R.I.P
Al Rivera hates Klingons
Star Trek Online: Agents of Jack Emmert
All cloaks should be canon.
R.I.P
Though if the KDF BCs already have better enertia values ingame that work with thier higher turnrates, I do not see why the sudden change to the games mechanics are needed just to make the feds work better if thier are changed.. The system should already be in place.
R.I.P
The lowest Shield modifier for a science vessel (feds) is 1.01 for the Science Vessel refit at VA. Every other Science vessel has a much higher Shield Modifier and are already excellent Shield Tankers.
R.I.P
as opposed to the current:
6 beam broadside cycle (24 shots): 5289.6 (Subract reduction from power drain, something I can't calculate)
4 DHCs being the same as shown in my impact analysis
unless I have missed something it's not a major change but it does have an imapact that fails to put DHCs out of a job but also makes BAs a far better option than they are now
I found no link to your spreadsheet in the original post.
Still the point that I'm trying to make is the BA's are not as effcient as the DHCs becuase they fire the full cycle instead of half the cycle (thus DHCs regaining lost power faster and envoking overall less drain) and as such that firing speed means more drain on the system from more weapons for a longer duration before the end of the cycle power returns take effect.
As Bareel already had shown, the BAs fire so much they cause thier own massive drain under the current drain mechanics (S1.2 changes) and are very ineffecient for this reason.
I feel that the drain is the only aspect they need to have fixed to solve thier issues.
The idea of upping thier base damage, adding Beam Rapid Fire abilities, etc are all good (well maybe not the 240FA Heavy beams that would do ) ideas.
R.I.P
I said it was available at request so here it is.
(I believe I have successfully made it available)
Notes:
1: You will have to download to edit
2: everything other than cells C2, C3 and C9 are automated (With the exceptions of cells C10 and C11 which should also not be edited
This may be the case however that may be harder than simply changing the base damage and drain amount to compensate
Can't do that either, it would turn our currently super soft trinity into a hard one. After WoW I'm in such a non-hurry to get back into a trinity based game its not even funny....
I realize we seem to be stuck in a box. If we make X better then Y becomes useless but people aren'tt happy with the parameters for X and Y because they were designed in a sorta and sorta-not way...
As an example of the box I feel we are in: While I agree that our current system isn't perfect, I also prefer it stay as it is than to have Cryptic "try" to fix it. That may seem odd but I've already lived through quite a few Cryptic "rebalance" patches over at CO, you DO NOT WANT THAT in STO.
That said I have to say, its really kinda hillarious how its always about fed cruiser pilots getting annoyed their ships are actually support vessels. It just shows how little of the system they actually know, its like its an unpleasant shock for them. Heck, I didn't know either until I got around to learn how to play, well after I got to 50. And for all that, the rage is always against escorts, instead of against KDF battlecruisers, which are at least a little closer to fed cruisers than escorts by far.
Say keep the total of 10 points of drain in one cycle (4seconds) per beam, keep the firing rate the same but spread the 10 point drain out to be only 2.5 drain per shot in that one cycle per beam?
shot 1 shot 2 shot 3 shot 4
BA1 0 2.5 2.5 2.5
BA2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
BA3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
BA4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
BA5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
BA6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
total 12.5 15.0 15.0 15.0 = 57.5 total drain
DHC1 0 * 12 *
DHC2 12 * 12 *
DHC3 12 * 12 *
DHC4 12 * 12 *
total 36 * 48 * = 84 total drain
Bam, BAs are now more efficient and have no need for damage stat increases or special rules just for them as they only drop down to 112.5 WP in the first 6 shots, drops to 97.5 for the second 6 shots, drops to 82.5 for the 3rd salvo and 67.5 for the last salvo before the cycle ends and WP is restored.
This of course is at 125 WP without Overcapping, DEM DOffs, Nadion Inversion, EPS consoles or any form of mitigation for drain for the purposes of an example.
Incontrast the DHCs would be at 89 WP after the first 4 shots and down 41 WP after the last 4 shots before the cycle ends and WP is restored.
Viola, The BAs strike for 24 total shots at less drain and therefore do more damage than they currently do.
R.I.P
Then Cryptic should have coded their game better to allow for changes towards balance, as the fix for BAs seems simple to me, rather than continually handicapping one class or class of vessels to compensate for the issues that spring up in another when they change something.
R.I.P
That's fine by me and seems far more logical than what we already have.
Again is fine by me, it also gives people a reason to use DCs again.
This is the only thing I can see standing in the way, I did a little bit of programming at college and while I've never programmed an MMO I reckon they have done certain bits in a complex way which may require recoding of entire functions to change and others that are horrendously lazy I guess in order to save space on a hard drive, I would have programmed everything with a reference file for stats etc so that all I have to do to modify something is change the appropriate file.
So while I prefer your method of changing power drain, it would be easier to modify the stats to compensate
R.I.P
They fire once per cycle with a 1 second cooldown as oppose to DHCs 2 shots with 2 second dooldown
Changing drain stats I should hope is as easy as changing the value however what you suggest is to change the whole method which isn't quite so easy
Need more be said.
So the concept that only 1/3rd of the ships are good picks for the majority of the content is acceptable to you?
You remind me of the people in EQ who thought if every class could solo it would mean the end of MMOs. Pretty sure WoW demonstrated quite well the error of that thinking.
Although on that note I do kind of miss the more ... optimized attitude of the players in that game.
Maybe just a little more... I've been reading this thread for a while, and its been good drama.
People seems to be confusing ship class with weapon system. While I do agree that Beam Arrays need something to be more viable, I have no wish for the to be escalated to DHC or DC levels. But until something happens to change it, we have to work with what we got. I put together a more tactical oriented build, just to prove to someone wrong.
I have been using this layout on my Engineer for a few months with no complaints. This is also the closest I have been able to dealing decent damage (5500-6000 dps in ISE with the D'kora), while assisting the team. It is not for PVP.
Debuffer (Not Healer)
Ens Tac: THY1 (or FAW1, depending on mission)
LtC Tac: TT1, APB1, APB2
Lt Eng: EPtW1, AtD1
Cmd Eng: EPtS1, AtD1, DEM2, DEM3
Lt Sci: HE1, TSS2
Eng Consoles: Neutronium, Neutronium, Assimilated Module, Battle Module 3000 (Regent use RCS Accel)
Sci Consoles: Flow Capacitor, 2 Field Generators (Regent uses 1 or it drops the Flow Capacitor)
Tac Consoles: Damage specific consoles
Weapons: 7 Polarized-Disruptor Beam Arrays, 1 Wide Angle Quantum.
Skilled to level 6 in Flow Capacitors
I am able to assist the entire team with the debuffs, and in the process, deal some decent damage. Took me a little while to get it worked out, but it does work in PVE.
Chaining AtD1, skilled captains may be able to get cannons to work on the Regent, I haven't tried it out; in my cruisers I use beams.
Its a shame if you don't feel your cruiser characters are contributing to team content, might I suggest, as I have before, that you give our ridged head BFFs over at the KDF a chance?
Also, a more laid back attitude is the result of the game being far more casual than the more raid oriented WoW player culture.
As I've said before, I do have a ridgehead in a Fleet Vor'Cha and he does just fine. And it is not just the team content it is in general. I'm a ginder type player and it is borderline painful for me to fly things that ... are too slow at completing content.
And I was referring to the EQ culture. To me the WoW culture is pretty casual as well although not as much as it is here atleast back when I played it (vanilla so its been awhile). In EQ you were borderline required to have 3 specific classes in five man content. And not quite half of the classes were even capable of soloing. Not defending those decisions but it did breed a very different type of player. If you saw a level 50 warrior you knew he was a really good tank otherwise he wouldn't have gotten to level 50. Atleast until twinking took over big time but oh well I'm rambling again.
No, the concept that only 1/3 of the ships are good picks for the majority of the content is not acceptable. But what I find amusing is that they are not only acceptable but can excel at their roles.
What I don't find acceptable are people going after a ship that does what it was intended to do perfectly fine, and trying to make it into something it's not supposed to be, and then complaining when it fails miserably.
It's like trying to use an archer as a swordsman. It doesn't work. It's like taking a man-at-arms and having him operate a trebuchet. It doesn't work. It's like taking a liege lord and having him guard the women and wagons. It doesn't work. Am I ok with this? At the moment, yes, because every ship has a role, every ship has a job. And right now, Cruisers are support craft, and they do that role VERY WELL.
Actually I was thinking they could just change the Drain value to 2.5 and leave everything else about Beams almost As-Is. The way they currently fire through a cycle should work with a 2.5 drain rating to hopefully make them more efficient.
R.I.P
R.I.P
And Guild Wars 2. Every class is expected to bring in damage, support and survival abilities, and every class can achieve all three, just in different playstyles. The gameplay seems to be innovative and entertaining enough to win it a few awards already.