test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options
Weapon power usage is unbalanced favoring escorts. Why?
peter1z9
Member Posts: 0 Arc User
Why does a Mk XI Beam array (168DPS) use the same amount of weapon power as a Mk XI Dual Cannon (244DPS), and only 2 less power than a Dual Heavy Cannon (244 DPS but with more crits)?
It seems to me that this unfairly nerfs Cruisers that should in theory mount 8 Beam arrays due to their poor maneuverability. In actuality however, the more energy weapons you use the more you end up with diminishing returns from each one. It also seems to me that all the other energy weapons are horribly inefficient compared to Dual and Dual Heavy Cannons. This thread makes a good reference to this: http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?p=2750495
For reference, here's the different energy weapon types and power usage for standard Mk XI phaser weapons from the STO Wiki:
Type/Firing Arc/DPS/-x weapon power when firing other weapons
Turret/360/132/-8
Beam Array/250/168/-10
Single Cannon/180/202/-10
Dual Beam Bank/90/219/-10
Dual Cannons/45/244/-10
Dual Heavy Cannons/45/244(+crits)/-12
Why isn't it something like this?:
Type/Firing Arc/DPS/-x weapon power when firing other weapons
Turret/360/132/-4
Beam Array/250/168/-6
Single Cannon/180/202/-8
Dual Beam Bank/90/219/-9
Dual Cannons/45/244/-10
Dual Heavy Cannons/45/244(+crits)/-12
I also thought that since Cruisers are the biggest ships they should have much bigger and better warp cores than the other ships, allowing them to handle the power requirements of eight energy weapons much better than they actually do.
It seems to me that this unfairly nerfs Cruisers that should in theory mount 8 Beam arrays due to their poor maneuverability. In actuality however, the more energy weapons you use the more you end up with diminishing returns from each one. It also seems to me that all the other energy weapons are horribly inefficient compared to Dual and Dual Heavy Cannons. This thread makes a good reference to this: http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?p=2750495
For reference, here's the different energy weapon types and power usage for standard Mk XI phaser weapons from the STO Wiki:
Type/Firing Arc/DPS/-x weapon power when firing other weapons
Turret/360/132/-8
Beam Array/250/168/-10
Single Cannon/180/202/-10
Dual Beam Bank/90/219/-10
Dual Cannons/45/244/-10
Dual Heavy Cannons/45/244(+crits)/-12
Why isn't it something like this?:
Type/Firing Arc/DPS/-x weapon power when firing other weapons
Turret/360/132/-4
Beam Array/250/168/-6
Single Cannon/180/202/-8
Dual Beam Bank/90/219/-9
Dual Cannons/45/244/-10
Dual Heavy Cannons/45/244(+crits)/-12
I also thought that since Cruisers are the biggest ships they should have much bigger and better warp cores than the other ships, allowing them to handle the power requirements of eight energy weapons much better than they actually do.
"Our Bugs are working as intended" - Cryptic
Post edited by peter1z9 on
0
Comments
Comments in RED
firing arc...
beam array: 250
dual cannon: 45
it's not a little difference, it's a great difference
Using beam array you haven't to face your opponent, and a cruiser using beam array can always fire to approacing enemies and heavy torpedos
a bigger ship also need/use more power... however I suspect your build is not optimal, my sub-optimal engeenear officer on his cruiser has good dps using 8 beam arrays. Why don't you simply post your build and ask about some advice?
But do not forget that cruisers are support ships, if you want pure dps you have to fly escorts (and sacrifice resistance).
Playing STO spamming FAW is like playing chess using always the computer's suggested moves
I think cruisers do deserve access to more passive bonus energy than the flat +15 that all ships get. This more accurately reflects their supposedly superior onboard power systems. They should not have to use BOFF abilties to get temporary power bonuses when they should have more total power at all times.
Beam Array/250/168/-10
vs
Dual Cannons/45/244/-10
In exchange for a 205 degree improvement, beam arrays have 69% of the dps of the Dual Cannons while using the same amount of power. I've seen other people wanting higher dps beam arrays, but that's not the answer. They should absolutely be lower than Dual Cannons and Dual Heavy cannons. I would just like them to be able to sustain their DPS better than they currently do.
Cruisers only get 10% more shields than escorts (comparing free cruisers vs free escorts), have a pitiful +5 power level bonus over escorts (free fed cruisers have +5 all power levels vs +15 weapons power on free fed escorts), have less than half the turn rate of the escorts, and only have a 20.5% better hull.
So the warp cores have to generate power to keep the structural integrity field of the ship intact, power the impulse engines, stabilize the warp field, power all of the ships many systems, keep the EPS conduits stable, provide consistent shielding across the entire hull, power the main deflector etc. So that larger warp core basically has to do that for a ship that is much much larger than your average escort and uses up much more energy to do these things. Your escort has to do the same, but the energy usage is much lower, since it's a much smaller ship. Especially the defiant and bug. Those ships are TINY. And they have large warp cores. If you watch the show, you will see the Defiant's warp core takes up almost it's entire engineering deck, and they have to walk around it to get anywhere. If you look at the Enterprise-D, you will see a large warp core, but there is room to move around it etc.
Gross Power Output on those larger ships is roughly 20-25x that of the smaller ships, but gross power usage is also roughly 20-25x that of the smaller ships. The end result: net power output is about the same in proportion.
Can't use the "larger warp core" argument, sorry buddy.
each type has its own best
cruisers are the best tanks science vessles are best heal/buffers and and escorts are dps. now cruisers can heal/buff and science vessles can kinda tank...escorts can kinda heal/buff
but if a escort ever tries to tank....call it kenny...
Wrong.
You get to shoot one gun for free, and after that all weapons firing drain power.
Dual heavy cannons consume 12 power for 2 seconds and then sleep for 3 seconds.
Beam arrays consume 10 power for 4 seconds and then sleep for 1 second.
Dual heavy cannons have a short "duty cycle" meaning they spend more time sleeping than draining. Combined with the fact that you get one gun for free without drain every 2 seconds, what this means is that dual heavy cannons are very power efficient because they don't step on eachother's toes too much.
Beam arrays, are horrendously power inefficient, because every beam array is draining power 80% of the time you're shooting, and you only get a "free" gun every 4 seconds instead of every 2 seconds.
All of this conspires to make beam arrays far worse than they look on paper. There is simply no comparison in the power requirements of a full on beam broadside versus a cannons boat. To beam broadside effectively with 6 arrays, you will need around +50 power to guns to offset the drain. (Cruiser captains who go around with 8 arrays... You need +70 power. Good luck.)
Bear in mind this is just to reach parity before tactical abilities. Cannon tactical abilities are hands down superior to those available for beams.
Can't see how this is right.
Most of the times all the energy weapons fire very near simultaneously - few people make an effort to moderate their weapon cycles like that - there wouldn't be a lot of gain either way.
"you only get a "free" gun every 4 seconds instead of every 2 seconds"
What are you talking about. They all take 5 or 6 seconds or so to cycle and lag makes it near impossible to take any advantage of this by firing each gun with a 2 second delay (which will work with at most three cannons or 2 phaser banks).
He's dead, Jim.
Problem solved.
But the OP is way off. Weapon Power does not favor Escorts. Thats like saying Shield Power favors Cruisers. The Power stats don't favor anyone, they just are what they are.
R.I.P
With buff analysis:
https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=1D51A419418C36C7!188&authkey=!ADiUy3ASzT0bwIE
Notes:
Only edit cells C9, C13 and C14 as everything else is automated
This does not account for power drain as I do not know the power mechanics in game therefore figures are not 100% accurate
You may need to download to edit
However I do back Biteme's comments on modifying the power mechanics of the game, I think this would be a viable alternative/short term solution
More accurately, Power levels favor those who know how to play to their strengths, weaknesses and idiosyncrasies.
True, very true. If you are just flying on one setting all the time then you are doing it wrong.
R.I.P
I honestly feel it would solve the problems of Beam Arrays as it would keep them from choking themselves powerwise but keep them balanced to the rest of the weapons ingame.
My belief is that the sheer amount of Fire being cranked out by BA's is what is dropping thier WP into the basement before the cycle ends and WP is regenerated, thus resulting in the bulk of thier shots as being underpowered.
R.I.P
Would not a passive drain resist/reduction on cruisers/sci ships (due to their larger reactor capacity perhaps?) be a better way to go? Otherwise you'd possibly have beamship escorts zipping around, not worrying about facing while dishing out serious amounts of hurt.
And I fully agreed with you from the first time you posted it, the only place we disagree is in the ease of deployment
They do, most standard cruisers get +5 to each subsystem, variants often get +10 & +10, for a total of +20 overall.
Escorts only get +15, but its all pumped directly into weapons usually.
Power consoles are pretty meh, at most you're getting 4 points out of them. For a cruiser, you're generally going to be much better served by armor, RCS, or specialty consoles.
EPS consoles were mandatory back in the days when you could actually drain your weapon power to zero just by firing your weapons. Nowadays, with 6 into the EPS skill, they're effectively useless.
This is false. Weapons only use power during their firing cycle, and then all the weapon power they use is immediately returned to the ship.
Think of weapons as reserving weapons power, rather than draining it. The weapons power isn't lost - it's just being reserved by the weapon and then returned once it's done firing.
Because of this the EPS console would do absolutely nothing for you while you are firing weapons. IMO you would be better off with a Neutronium Alloy or an RCS console.
The only way to keep your weapons power higher while firing weapons is to increase your weapons power. Increase skills like Warp Core Potential and Weapons Specialization, use energy boosting consoles like the Assimilated Module and Plasma Distribution Manifold, and use abilities like Emergency Power to Weapons, Auxiliary to Battery, or Energy Siphon.
Deployment? With Cruiser options up to a LTC tac slot (i'm ignoring the lockboxes and special ships) one should be able to use BRF up to T3 .
R.I.P
Only because you don't want him to use it.
I could just as easily turn around and say no one is dull enough to design a military boat with just enough. I could just as easily turn around and say no one is dull enough to designed a ship meant to be weighted with extra power to have 'just'.
Having that extra power and hull is the key point of what classifies a cruiser as a cruiser. Sacrificing everything else for speed and weapons power (like it really does ... :rolleyes:) is what classifies a escort as a escort. At least it should, see OP.
Edit: Going back to the carrier example with x10 power plants? I'm willing to bet 90% of those could run just fine on one plant, and the remaining 10% on two. The designer gave it extra because they knew it was going to take a pounding without any really way to escape a ship killer. So they gave it the extra bulk to live long enough to bite back long enough to make a difference and protect the multi-billion dolor investment.
The ethic behind a ship killer is dropping everything down to one, maybe two redundancy to free weight for speed and weapons. Meaning they don't have the spare power to play with, or the ability to suck up 50mm shells without braking stride.
Sure we can... there are no quantitative figures demonstrating how much more power additional ship sizes require vs. warp core power generation and efficiency -- if you have any official figures, then please link them here.
The fastest Fed ships are usually in the 9.8 (Enterprise-D) to 9.9 (Intrepid Science Ship) warp speeds, while the Defiant tops out at Warp 8. Since the Warp Speed scale is logarithmic, the Enterprise-D is supposed to have power levels that dwarf smaller ships like the Defiant. If larger ships do require dramatically more power to maintain SIF's at warp speeds, then shuttles would be the fastest ships in Star Trek, but we see exactly the opposite results.
EDIT: BTW, warp field power requirements are INSANE -- to accelerate a single atom to warp for a single second, you need the entire energy output of our sun. So going up 1 warp factor is many magnitudes higher than the last digit.
Another interesting point: directed energy beams like lasers have no theoretical limit to how much energy they can transmit.
But the machinery generating said beam most definitely has functional limits to how much energy can be channeled without destroying itself.
This is also true... Most materials on earth break down after hitting a certain thermal limit. Stellar objects like pulsars have no such issues, and they can output energy beams that can reach across the cosmos.
1) A fictional device having a fictional limit is entirely under the control of the author. The author could say it's made of cheddar cheese, or figured a way to use a thermal super-conductor like He-2 to move heat away as fast as it's generated.
2) Sounds like a argument for more weapons mounts.
Fanfiction! ZOMG! Read it now!
kate-wintersbite.deviantart.com/art/0x01-Treachery-293641403
No, no, I'm talking about the power mechanic changes
R.I.P
oh! My bad! All this debate gets a little confusing after a while.:D
R.I.P
True, lots of required figures are missing to properly calculate how warp power scales with engine size. We are also missing the power requirement numbers for a star ship as size increases. We do know one thing: Larger Fed Star ships are usually much faster than smaller vessels. I'm guessing their increased warp core sizes have something to do with this, but it would only be a guess