Yeah, I would much rather see other things get buffed.
If - like with DHCs - everyone uses them everywhere, then thats like a very obvious sign that they need a nerv.
Yeah so everyone uses them.. Me too but so what. Balance is more important than some people crying over some lost dps..
cannons are fine
beams are fine
escorts are awesome
cruisers suck
solution: make energy levels more important
eng-cruisers are designed to have huge energy levels, but everyone flies around with 125 energy in weapons = cruisers can't keep up with Escorts even when both use beams.
idea:
uncap the energy scaling from 125 and let it go to 200 or 400 or whatever
increase effectiveness of sub-system energy so that cruisers can for example have 300 energy in beams, while escorts can have maybe 150
(math is for Cryptic to do not for me, i'm just throwing example numbers around that will not work anyway but get my point across)
i don't fly anything that has
- less than 4 Tac Console Slots
- less than 7-8 Weapon slots
- no Lt. Cmdr. TAC slot
simple reason: with less DPS than that you can't kill anything in PvP and even slow things down in STFs for everyone.
My feeling is that beams are fine. They are WAD and don't need to be made better.
Cannons are fine.
On Beams we obviously disagree.
"Working as Designed" or not, as a Player i do NOT feel like i am doing much damage or even that i'm effective enough to beat any Escort out there (if my beams on a Cruiser can not kill a single escort in PvP that is just tanking it out... then i can just as well use a flashlisght to point at them).
The energy drain can be easily countered by some engineering buffs and batteries, that is NOT the problem for me, it is the base DPS vs. Escort defenses, it just doesn't hurt enough, and there are very few engineering skills that do anything positive to provide DPS with your weapons (be it over duration or spike damage), just like there are no Cruisers with any Cmdr. Tactical skills.
If i use Beams on my Escorts, they are very effective, because i can buff them with Attack Pattern Alpha and Omega (Armitage with 2x Dual Beam Banks, 3x Beams and lots of Photons works wonderfully in any situation, it is the perfect mix between Escort and Cruiser, DPS like hell and it can TANK), but on the usual Cruisers you can at best hope for APOmega 1 ...which is just not enough to hurt anything.
Add to that, that Escorts all learned how to tank pretty good by now, i myself do not feel squishy in my Escorts at all, not even in my Bird of Prey (only the STF invisible instakill torps get me one shotted of course, other than that i rarely see it explode).
Escorts now all have 2 copies of Tactical Team, Tactical Team was not not working like it does not back when Beams were initially designed.
Now you have to deplete the complete Shields of an Escort and it shield heals before you can do any hull damage. You can't just deplete one facing and get an opening or force him to run....
Cruisers are also forced to use tactical team, otherwise Escorts have an easy time to get an opening in the Shield facing.
One Cruiser alone just can not hurt an Escort anymore, not against a GOOD Escort Pilot.
I feel squishier in my Jem'Hadar Dreadnought than i do in my B'Rel (and i don't even have the Fleet version yet.).
In my experience even Turrets with Rapid Fire and Scatter volley on a Cruiser are more effective than Beams.
Yes maybe i fly it wrong, or maybe the Beams really have suffered too much over time.
"Working as Designed" means nothing but that somebody at some point designed them to work the way they do now.
That doesn't make them untouchable.
Serious Re-evaluation is needed.
Gecko, get in a Galaxy Class or a Regent Class and go PvP.
Go 1on1 with some Escort pilots and see what happens...
and when you got a feel for it... then come back and tell us that beams + cruisers are fine.
Beams on Escorts are fine, because of the DPS BUffs, Beams on Cruisers are just weak.
IMHO the Problem is less the weapon itself, but that the Cruisers just fell behind the DPS curve.
Only 2 - 3 TAC consoles, no TAC cmdr. BOffs, and Escorts that learned to tank and getting better at it, all together makes Cruisers just flying Stones, no one shoots at you, no one is impressed by you pointing your flashlight beams at them.
Maybe the trick is too re-evaluate how much dps energy in sub-systems adds to a Weapon, and go through all the Ships and give the big Ships with the huge Warp Cores just a lot more energy to work with from the start.
EVERY Ship comes with the same base energy levels 4x 50 and +10 or 2x +5 in one or two sub-systems, that energy can easily be moved to another system by moving the slider, if this Ship Specific energy bonus is worth anything then it is when energy is LOW, so it is not helping much at all period.
I'd say, give all Cruisers 400 Energy to put in all systems, give Science Ships 350 and Escorts 110 (as is).
Than add a more brutal energy scaling effect for everything across the board... don't cap it, don't add diminishing returns... and then we might get somewhere with this.
If Tactical stuff is not what you want to give us (for obvious reasons) without taking something else away, then make the things better that we should already be good at, that is tanking and Energy levels.
Personally i do not touch a Ship in STO if it does not have 7-8 Weapon Slots, 4 - 5 Tac consoles and at least a Lt. Cmdr. Tactical BOff, because without all of that you will just not be up to par. (and i am not one to TRIBBLE around with Crowd Control Wizzards or Energy Drain builds... i got a ship, that ship has weapons, those weapons have to hurt, and it has Energy Shields and Hull for tanking, everything else is 0815 Magic MMO for me, not SciFi Star Trek).
Lots of Cruisers and SCI ships just don't keep up with the Escorts.
Ultimately, the problem is that there should never be a situation where one cruiser and one escort fight.
Why is that?
Most of the engagements in Star trek where 1 vs. 1 or 1 vs 2 or even 3.
Why should a Star Trek game be completely different?
I think that's the main problem STO has. There are some people still thinking in standard MMO lines.
Star Trek Online HAS to be differend due the nature of Star Trek ships. If you do what Cryptic did, you change them so much untill they are the complete opposite to what they are in Star Trek.
5 vs. 5 should be a better benchmark for a ships performance? A 1 vs. 1 gets you much better resuls in estimating where your weaknesses and strengths are. A 5 vs. 5 or 100 vs 100 puts so many variables into account the result says you NOTHING about your ships performance.
I still don't get why Cryptic had to make their Star Trek game so radical different to everything established in the Shows or Movies. Is it to attract first and foremost MMO players, so they can instantly feel like home?
Was it more important to press Star Trek into ancient MMO mechanics instead of making a STAR TREK game that deserves that name?
I'm sorry i just don't understand this.
If it where up to me, i would let ships be primaryly balanced for 1 vs 1, just as they are supposed to be. Iwould make starfleet Cruisers more independent so they can take defensive AND offensive "roles" in combat. Give them better weapons, similar to Klingon Cruisers. (which CAN do a difference in PvP.)
On the other hand, nerfing cannons would lead us nowhere, it would be escorts too who couldn't do any serious damage.
So we had a PvP where NO one could seriously be a treat to the other.
@Geko i see you just do your job, just as anyone else.
But i really have a question i would love to be answered since 3 years.
Why did Cryptic make the most iconic ships (starfleet Cruiser) also the most boring?
Not being able to deliver any serious firepower is just lame. Klingon Cruisers can effectively use DHCs, Starfleet/KDF Escorts are DHC Monsters, even science ships have some means to pose a threat to their enemies.
But why on earth (and in all Federation space) did you make the most important ships in Star Trek also the most boring ones?
Couldn't they get a equivalent to DHCs? Something like Heavy Beam arrays (restricted for forward weapons lots and starfleet Cruisers only) which have Beam array fireing arc, do DHC like damage with a high "reload" time?
Something like this wouldn't break the "balance" at all but it wouldn't doom them to the role of the permanent victim as they are now.
My feeling is that beams are fine. They are WAD and don't need to be made better. The outlier are the cannons, and, in a perfect world (see what I did there), I would bring cannon power drain in line with beams instead of making beams more powerful. The analogy I was suggesting is that if everything good, and one thing is OP, its healthier for the game to bring the OP item down in line with all the other items instead of raising all items to the level of the one OP item.
If you look at STO as a Star Trek you HAVE to say no.
The problem is NOT that Cannons are OP, it is that Beams are just not strong enough. Beam arrays are the second weakest weapons in the game, only topped be turrets which can at least add some more damage to the front. They are pathetic simple said.
I can understand people thinking about just removing all weapons from their cruisers, because they don't do a difference anyway. Is that whyt people should do? Do you think it is fun or "exiting" to fly such boring ships?
Did it ever occur to you that people could become frustrated with this game if their favourite ships are also the most boring and inferior ones? A game never should make such blatant differences IMO.
On one hand DHCs are to only way to deliver Damage, on the other Hand Beam arrays (some of the strongest energy weapons in Star Trek)are just patetic. Using them doesn't make a difference. If you don't belive me try it. Feel free and go to ker'rat, without any assitance. Just your Cruiser (preferably a Galaxy Class) and try a fight against a good PvP player. If you keep saying that Beam Weapons (or the Galaxy Class) are alright, then we have nothing more to discuss....
Personally i don't like PvP, i never do CaH and i absolutely HATE going Arenas. For me it's just lame game design to make the primary Starfleet ships the most boring ones. Honestly if STO had a serious competitor who would have made his game more true to Star Trek i would have gone a long time ago.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
The question I was asked was basically "my beams are not as good as cannons, can you make them better".
My feeling is that beams are fine. They are WAD and don't need to be made better. The outlier are the cannons, and, in a perfect world (see what I did there), I would bring cannon power drain in line with beams instead of making beams more powerful. The analogy I was suggesting is that if everything good, and one thing is OP, its healthier for the game to bring the OP item down in line with all the other items instead of raising all items to the level of the one OP item.
My comment was suggesting the question should evaluate what the real problem is.
I meant no subtext to suggest if enough players complained, there would be justification to nerf cannons.
Again, we have no plans to nerf cannons in any way. I cant make it any more clear than that.
If cannons and beams were the same you would have endless boring fights. I really think your out of touch with the game. We've seen this before around season 2/3 when changes were made to space combat. You need to have ships that can throw spike damage. Especially since there are more passives with all the reps and kits etc.
Beams do more damage at longer ranges and players can sit at 10km doing more damage, where as escorts have to get in close putting themselves in harms way. Escorts are meant to go in, open up the enemies weaknesses, allowing other ships to follow in.
It concerns me that a person such as yourself would even contemplate making a fundamental change such as this to the game. How about you concentrate on bug fixes and new content, then when this game is in a reasonable state of affairs maybe revisit this.
I think when he was taking about 14 year old pvpers, he was refering to behaviour and maturity. Some of you guys have fantastic ideas for improvement - but your presentation in a mature and polite manner is what is lacking.
I can only hope that Al can by-pass that and take a serious look at those ideas.
I think when he was taking about 14 year old pvpers, he was refering to behaviour and maturity. Some of you guys have fantastic ideas for improvement - but your presentation in a mature and polite manner is what is lacking.
I can only hope that Al can by-pass that and take a serious look at those ideas.
You mean just as mature as making an entire shipclass out of your favourite ship.
Just as mature as making your least favourite ship the most boring one?
Lol.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
I think when he was taking about 14 year old pvpers, he was refering to behaviour and maturity. Some of you guys have fantastic ideas for improvement - but your presentation in a mature and polite manner is what is lacking.
I can only hope that Al can by-pass that and take a serious look at those ideas.
I do not know how it is in US, but here in Europe, if I would call in public my company's customers 14years old, or that they behave so, I would be looking for new job.
Truth is, even if there was some 14 years old pvpers around, they would probably have much deeper knowledge of STO combat system than him. His "good advice" about power insulators just shows that.
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
I do not know how it is in US, but here in Europe, if I would call in public my company's customers 14years old, or that they behave so, I would be looking for new job.
Truth is, even if there was some 14 years old pvpers around, they would probably have much deeper knowledge of STO combat system than him. His "good advice" about power insulators just shows that.
His "feeling" that Beam weapons are alright is probably just as well-grounded as his feelings about how Star Trek ships should work, lol.
I can only agree to your statement about calling customers 14 year olds. Where i come from you wouldn't have to worry about cleaning your desk anymore.
Personally, i just can't comprehend why there have to be people in charge of a Star Trek product, without the most simple knowledgs how things in Star Trek work.
STO is like a Star Wars game that is about building up a business empire.lol.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
The problem with Al, even if he is a bit more outspoken than DStahl is that in the end, like Stahl, he says one thing and does another, or revamps his comments when he gets caught saying things that are actually good ideas, but to far to the players benefit.
I think the cannon nerf idea was great. They shouldn't be able to tank. Every escort should be a glass cannon, huge DPS and no solo survivability. Their hull healing and shield abilities should be lesser than a cruisers.
Another great idea was made above by adjusting power levels so cruisers have a higher amount than escorts, allowing them to use their healing skills more keeping escorts alive, which is much more symbiotic.
I think the cannon nerf idea was great. They shouldn't be able to tank. Every escort should be a glass cannon, huge DPS and no solo survivability.
How does nerfing cannons effect their ability to tank and add to your idea of huge DPS and no survivability? Your statement does not make sense to me, no offense.
I find the lack of system mastery disturbing. Both by the player base and the Dev team.
Weapon Energy Drain System is Broken
I already explained why in a previous post but let me throw two more things on the pile for you to consider. IF they changed beam arrays to drain 9 power and DHCs to drain 15 power per shot very little would change with their actually performance. It would be a 5% percentage change in actual DPS from current in practice.
Tanking is Broken
Total HP is without a doubt the least important aspect of your tank. Most of the time it is irrelevant. Resistance rates combined with regeneration/heal speed is what matters and more with shields than hull because of the silly nature of NPC damage output. Do people realize that EpTS 1 literally doubles your tank in game? Or that Tac Team 1 is the strongest survival tool? You can give cruisers 200k hull and it would change nothing.
* > +
A DHC packing escort has the following with a tac captain. Base Damage * Armor Mod * Attack Speed Buff * APA buff * GDF buff * Fleet buff * Weapon power Buff when they deal damage. Oops forgot the Crit multiplier oh well.
A Sci ability has the following for effective boosts. Base Ability effect + skill mods.
And some wonder why they end up being weak? They lack that all important synergy effect in their abilities. Shield stripping, for example, if tachyon beam applied a significant penalty to the targets power insulator skill, possibly even making it negative, so other stripping effects had a boost it would be closer to how damage works now.
How does nerfing cannons effect their ability to tank and add to your idea of huge DPS and no survivability? Your statement does not make sense to me, no offense.
No offense taken...:) Actually your correct, that statement was totally wrong.
Although I'm sure we've all see an uber escort camped in front of a tac cube pounding away while tanking most everything the cube throws at it, invisible torps aside. That shouldn't happen.
No offense taken...:) Actually your correct, that statement was totally wrong.
Although I'm sure we've all see an uber escort camped in front of a tac cube pounding away while tanking most everything the cube throws at it, invisible torps aside. That shouldn't happen.
This I can agree with, even as a primary escort driver. The things that I can get away with should not be and actually make me a worse player- I get lazy.
First, if you feel a weapon is underperforming, use a different one... That is a simple logic that most people forget. I, too, feel like beams are light on damage, so other then my experimental beam (because I want to use my built in SST, and the 3pc is pretty snazzy as well...) I simply don't use them... Wow...
Second, if nobody uses beams, the developers notice, and then ask the question why. If the developers are saying that beams are fine then enough people are using them and performing adequatly that they feel there is no need for a change. If people don't use something that is when it starts to get noticed.
If you fly around with beams and then complain that they aren't good enough, not only are you not doing everything in your power to solve the situation for yourself, you are giving a false perception to the developers that you actually like your beams.
I once again match my character. Behold the power of PINK!
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
The analogy I was suggesting is that if everything good, and one thing is OP, its healthier for the game to bring the OP item down in line with all the other items instead of raising all items to the level of the one OP item.
2 words: Bug Ship.
See what I did there? What are you plans to bring this OP item down in line with the other escorts?
See what I did there? What are you plans to bring this OP item down in line with the other escorts?
Good point now let's look at Fe/scorts (Fleet Defiant and Kumari) vs. KDF scorts. Os there is a nerf incoming to the 5th tac consoles, and the forward weapon slot of the kumari? I mean if you see a bump in the road....
First, if you feel a weapon is underperforming, use a different one... That is a simple logic that most people forget. I, too, feel like beams are light on damage, so other then my experimental beam (because I want to use my built in SST, and the 3pc is pretty snazzy as well...) I simply don't use them... Wow...
Second, if nobody uses beams, the developers notice, and then ask the question why. If the developers are saying that beams are fine then enough people are using them and performing adequatly that they feel there is no need for a change. If people don't use something that is when it starts to get noticed.
If you fly around with beams and then complain that they aren't good enough, not only are you not doing everything in your power to solve the situation for yourself, you are giving a false perception to the developers that you actually like your beams.
I'm missing something in your post:
a constructive counterproposal.
What is someone in for example a Support Cruiser supposed to use instead?
First, if you feel a weapon is underperforming, use a different one... That is a simple logic that most people forget. I, too, feel like beams are light on damage, so other then my experimental beam (because I want to use my built in SST, and the 3pc is pretty snazzy as well...) I simply don't use them... Wow...
Second, if nobody uses beams, the developers notice, and then ask the question why. If the developers are saying that beams are fine then enough people are using them and performing adequatly that they feel there is no need for a change. If people don't use something that is when it starts to get noticed.
If you fly around with beams and then complain that they aren't good enough, not only are you not doing everything in your power to solve the situation for yourself, you are giving a false perception to the developers that you actually like your beams.
So then your answer to the problem is everyone drive around in escorts. Because everyone knows most cruisers can't use cannons. Hell, it'd be nice if they could use turrets actually, but again, most can't. Fed side I think the only cruiser that can use cannons, is the Dread. Almost every KDF ship can use cannons, but Cryptic neutered their cruisers so badly tactically ((Best I think is Lieutenant Tac slot)) that their useless anyways, and you end up getting better DPS with beams.
How sad is that.
Not using beams is like asking people not to spend money on the game until Cryptic fixes the problems that have been around since beta. Not gonna happen.
First, if you feel a weapon is underperforming, use a different one... That is a simple logic that most people forget. I, too, feel like beams are light on damage, so other then my experimental beam (because I want to use my built in SST, and the 3pc is pretty snazzy as well...) I simply don't use them... Wow...
Second, if nobody uses beams, the developers notice, and then ask the question why. If the developers are saying that beams are fine then enough people are using them and performing adequatly that they feel there is no need for a change. If people don't use something that is when it starts to get noticed.
If you fly around with beams and then complain that they aren't good enough, not only are you not doing everything in your power to solve the situation for yourself, you are giving a false perception to the developers that you actually like your beams.
Conversely, you could also be giving the devs the impression that the weapons you're using instead of beams are overpowered, and thus need to be nerfed down to beam array's level of functionality...
Conversely, you could also be giving the devs the impression that the weapons you're using instead of beams are overpowered, and thus need to be nerfed down to beam array's level of functionality...
I'm missing something in your post:
a constructive counterproposal.
What is someone in for example a Support Cruiser supposed to use instead?
Single cannons/turrets
Edit: There seems to be a mental block on the playerbase when it comes to single cannons. A single cannon + turret beats 2x beam arrays in damage on their own, and then you get to use cannon skills instead of beam skills... And they can be used on every ship... and they front face so you can fire your torps too... And they get better returns from DEM... And they are better on power... and and and... but cruisers are broken beacuse beams suck... Mental block. People just forget single cannons exist.
I once again match my character. Behold the power of PINK!
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
Balance solely for the sake of balance is of use to no-one. And by the by, balance between player weapon types does not equate to game balance.
No, but in this case it would be fine. the problem isn't that beams are too low and cannons too high, its that the gap is too wide.
Nobody likes to hear that lowering somebodys damage is the same as raising somebody elses, but in this case it wouldn't matter. the only difference is the cannon people would feel like they lost something.
Doesn't matter really, because even if they did lower cannons to beam efficiency we would just wait a few patches and all the numbers go up again...
Either way, balance is achieved.
I once again match my character. Behold the power of PINK!
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
Edit: There seems to be a mental block on the playerbase when it comes to single cannons. A single cannon + turret beats 2x beam arrays in damage on their own, and then you get to use cannon skills instead of beam skills... And they can be used on every ship... and they front face so you can fire your torps too... And they get better returns from DEM... And they are better on power... and and and... but cruisers are broken beacuse beams suck... Mental block. People just forget single cannons exist.
Nobody forgets that , the fact that cannons are better at everything on everything is the point that people take offense with. It invalidates a player class, a whole bunch of BO abilities, kills variety, narrows tactical choices for group play, looks plain silly, and makes mucho gear that people have grinded for obsolete.
So far only two people think that this is good game design. one is you, the other.....read my sig
No, but in this case it would be fine. the problem isn't that beams are too low and cannons too high, its that the gap is too wide.
Nobody likes to hear that lowering somebodys damage is the same as raising somebody elses, but in this case it wouldn't matter. the only difference is the cannon people would feel like they lost something.
You really need to stop looking at weapon damage in a vacuum. The relationship between player damage output, player defensive capability, NPC damage and defensive capability all need to be evaluated collectively. Making massive changes to one part of that equation without touching the others will do nothing beneficial.
First, I didn't say it was good design, I said there were solutions that you can take for yourself to solve the problem. I said I felt beams were weak. I just do something about it instead of fly around using them anyway and complaining.
Second, beams being weak does not invalidate an entire player class. It invalidates an entire type of player who refuses to adapt.
I once again match my character. Behold the power of PINK!
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
First, if you feel a weapon is underperforming, use a different one... That is a simple logic that most people forget. I, too, feel like beams are light on damage, so other then my experimental beam (because I want to use my built in SST, and the 3pc is pretty snazzy as well...) I simply don't use them... Wow...
Second, if nobody uses beams, the developers notice, and then ask the question why. If the developers are saying that beams are fine then enough people are using them and performing adequatly that they feel there is no need for a change. If people don't use something that is when it starts to get noticed.
If you fly around with beams and then complain that they aren't good enough, not only are you not doing everything in your power to solve the situation for yourself, you are giving a false perception to the developers that you actually like your beams.
You are only half right. Sure, it might make the devs notice that people don't seem to like them; but it'll also make them think the worst is already over since everyone has just stopped using them. Problems nobody seems to care much about don't get made priorities.
I just say give beams and the Science/cruisers a buff. I would go for the escort hull and shield nurf idea but whats the point of healing them when they are only going to need it the next 5 seconds again? However, it will allow cruisers or science ships to focus on their community given "role".
"You want to keep your DPS up? Keep your escort buddies alive!" This is how I think it should be. Not X-wings on steroids.
You really need to stop looking at weapon damage in a vacuum. The relationship between player damage output, player defensive capability, NPC damage and defensive capability all need to be evaluated collectively. Making massive changes to one part of that equation without touching the others will do nothing beneficial.
But, you are saying that the differences would be enough to matter. They would not. Your average pug player is between 2-4k dps. I know, I run my parser all the time. High end players are at 6-9k, 9-11k for tacs.
The difference in lowering cannons or raising beams is going to be *NOWHERE* near a 7k DPS difference...
The system here is really really really loosely tuned...
I once again match my character. Behold the power of PINK!
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
Comments
If - like with DHCs - everyone uses them everywhere, then thats like a very obvious sign that they need a nerv.
Yeah so everyone uses them.. Me too but so what. Balance is more important than some people crying over some lost dps..
cannons are fine
beams are fine
escorts are awesome
cruisers suck
solution: make energy levels more important
eng-cruisers are designed to have huge energy levels, but everyone flies around with 125 energy in weapons = cruisers can't keep up with Escorts even when both use beams.
idea:
uncap the energy scaling from 125 and let it go to 200 or 400 or whatever
increase effectiveness of sub-system energy so that cruisers can for example have 300 energy in beams, while escorts can have maybe 150
(math is for Cryptic to do not for me, i'm just throwing example numbers around that will not work anyway but get my point across)
i don't fly anything that has
- less than 4 Tac Console Slots
- less than 7-8 Weapon slots
- no Lt. Cmdr. TAC slot
simple reason: with less DPS than that you can't kill anything in PvP and even slow things down in STFs for everyone.
non tl'dr version:
Cannons are fine.
On Beams we obviously disagree.
"Working as Designed" or not, as a Player i do NOT feel like i am doing much damage or even that i'm effective enough to beat any Escort out there (if my beams on a Cruiser can not kill a single escort in PvP that is just tanking it out... then i can just as well use a flashlisght to point at them).
The energy drain can be easily countered by some engineering buffs and batteries, that is NOT the problem for me, it is the base DPS vs. Escort defenses, it just doesn't hurt enough, and there are very few engineering skills that do anything positive to provide DPS with your weapons (be it over duration or spike damage), just like there are no Cruisers with any Cmdr. Tactical skills.
If i use Beams on my Escorts, they are very effective, because i can buff them with Attack Pattern Alpha and Omega (Armitage with 2x Dual Beam Banks, 3x Beams and lots of Photons works wonderfully in any situation, it is the perfect mix between Escort and Cruiser, DPS like hell and it can TANK), but on the usual Cruisers you can at best hope for APOmega 1 ...which is just not enough to hurt anything.
Add to that, that Escorts all learned how to tank pretty good by now, i myself do not feel squishy in my Escorts at all, not even in my Bird of Prey (only the STF invisible instakill torps get me one shotted of course, other than that i rarely see it explode).
Escorts now all have 2 copies of Tactical Team, Tactical Team was not not working like it does not back when Beams were initially designed.
Now you have to deplete the complete Shields of an Escort and it shield heals before you can do any hull damage. You can't just deplete one facing and get an opening or force him to run....
Cruisers are also forced to use tactical team, otherwise Escorts have an easy time to get an opening in the Shield facing.
One Cruiser alone just can not hurt an Escort anymore, not against a GOOD Escort Pilot.
I feel squishier in my Jem'Hadar Dreadnought than i do in my B'Rel (and i don't even have the Fleet version yet.).
In my experience even Turrets with Rapid Fire and Scatter volley on a Cruiser are more effective than Beams.
Yes maybe i fly it wrong, or maybe the Beams really have suffered too much over time.
"Working as Designed" means nothing but that somebody at some point designed them to work the way they do now.
That doesn't make them untouchable.
Serious Re-evaluation is needed.
Gecko, get in a Galaxy Class or a Regent Class and go PvP.
Go 1on1 with some Escort pilots and see what happens...
and when you got a feel for it... then come back and tell us that beams + cruisers are fine.
Beams on Escorts are fine, because of the DPS BUffs, Beams on Cruisers are just weak.
IMHO the Problem is less the weapon itself, but that the Cruisers just fell behind the DPS curve.
Only 2 - 3 TAC consoles, no TAC cmdr. BOffs, and Escorts that learned to tank and getting better at it, all together makes Cruisers just flying Stones, no one shoots at you, no one is impressed by you pointing your flashlight beams at them.
Maybe the trick is too re-evaluate how much dps energy in sub-systems adds to a Weapon, and go through all the Ships and give the big Ships with the huge Warp Cores just a lot more energy to work with from the start.
EVERY Ship comes with the same base energy levels 4x 50 and +10 or 2x +5 in one or two sub-systems, that energy can easily be moved to another system by moving the slider, if this Ship Specific energy bonus is worth anything then it is when energy is LOW, so it is not helping much at all period.
I'd say, give all Cruisers 400 Energy to put in all systems, give Science Ships 350 and Escorts 110 (as is).
Than add a more brutal energy scaling effect for everything across the board... don't cap it, don't add diminishing returns... and then we might get somewhere with this.
If Tactical stuff is not what you want to give us (for obvious reasons) without taking something else away, then make the things better that we should already be good at, that is tanking and Energy levels.
Personally i do not touch a Ship in STO if it does not have 7-8 Weapon Slots, 4 - 5 Tac consoles and at least a Lt. Cmdr. Tactical BOff, because without all of that you will just not be up to par. (and i am not one to TRIBBLE around with Crowd Control Wizzards or Energy Drain builds... i got a ship, that ship has weapons, those weapons have to hurt, and it has Energy Shields and Hull for tanking, everything else is 0815 Magic MMO for me, not SciFi Star Trek).
Lots of Cruisers and SCI ships just don't keep up with the Escorts.
Most of the engagements in Star trek where 1 vs. 1 or 1 vs 2 or even 3.
Why should a Star Trek game be completely different?
I think that's the main problem STO has. There are some people still thinking in standard MMO lines.
Star Trek Online HAS to be differend due the nature of Star Trek ships. If you do what Cryptic did, you change them so much untill they are the complete opposite to what they are in Star Trek.
5 vs. 5 should be a better benchmark for a ships performance? A 1 vs. 1 gets you much better resuls in estimating where your weaknesses and strengths are. A 5 vs. 5 or 100 vs 100 puts so many variables into account the result says you NOTHING about your ships performance.
I still don't get why Cryptic had to make their Star Trek game so radical different to everything established in the Shows or Movies. Is it to attract first and foremost MMO players, so they can instantly feel like home?
Was it more important to press Star Trek into ancient MMO mechanics instead of making a STAR TREK game that deserves that name?
I'm sorry i just don't understand this.
If it where up to me, i would let ships be primaryly balanced for 1 vs 1, just as they are supposed to be. Iwould make starfleet Cruisers more independent so they can take defensive AND offensive "roles" in combat. Give them better weapons, similar to Klingon Cruisers. (which CAN do a difference in PvP.)
On the other hand, nerfing cannons would lead us nowhere, it would be escorts too who couldn't do any serious damage.
So we had a PvP where NO one could seriously be a treat to the other.
@Geko i see you just do your job, just as anyone else.
But i really have a question i would love to be answered since 3 years.
Why did Cryptic make the most iconic ships (starfleet Cruiser) also the most boring?
Not being able to deliver any serious firepower is just lame. Klingon Cruisers can effectively use DHCs, Starfleet/KDF Escorts are DHC Monsters, even science ships have some means to pose a threat to their enemies.
But why on earth (and in all Federation space) did you make the most important ships in Star Trek also the most boring ones?
Couldn't they get a equivalent to DHCs? Something like Heavy Beam arrays (restricted for forward weapons lots and starfleet Cruisers only) which have Beam array fireing arc, do DHC like damage with a high "reload" time?
Something like this wouldn't break the "balance" at all but it wouldn't doom them to the role of the permanent victim as they are now.
If you look at STO as a Star Trek you HAVE to say no.
The problem is NOT that Cannons are OP, it is that Beams are just not strong enough. Beam arrays are the second weakest weapons in the game, only topped be turrets which can at least add some more damage to the front. They are pathetic simple said.
I can understand people thinking about just removing all weapons from their cruisers, because they don't do a difference anyway. Is that whyt people should do? Do you think it is fun or "exiting" to fly such boring ships?
Did it ever occur to you that people could become frustrated with this game if their favourite ships are also the most boring and inferior ones? A game never should make such blatant differences IMO.
On one hand DHCs are to only way to deliver Damage, on the other Hand Beam arrays (some of the strongest energy weapons in Star Trek)are just patetic. Using them doesn't make a difference. If you don't belive me try it. Feel free and go to ker'rat, without any assitance. Just your Cruiser (preferably a Galaxy Class) and try a fight against a good PvP player. If you keep saying that Beam Weapons (or the Galaxy Class) are alright, then we have nothing more to discuss....
Personally i don't like PvP, i never do CaH and i absolutely HATE going Arenas. For me it's just lame game design to make the primary Starfleet ships the most boring ones. Honestly if STO had a serious competitor who would have made his game more true to Star Trek i would have gone a long time ago.
If cannons and beams were the same you would have endless boring fights. I really think your out of touch with the game. We've seen this before around season 2/3 when changes were made to space combat. You need to have ships that can throw spike damage. Especially since there are more passives with all the reps and kits etc.
Beams do more damage at longer ranges and players can sit at 10km doing more damage, where as escorts have to get in close putting themselves in harms way. Escorts are meant to go in, open up the enemies weaknesses, allowing other ships to follow in.
It concerns me that a person such as yourself would even contemplate making a fundamental change such as this to the game. How about you concentrate on bug fixes and new content, then when this game is in a reasonable state of affairs maybe revisit this.
I can only hope that Al can by-pass that and take a serious look at those ideas.
You mean just as mature as making an entire shipclass out of your favourite ship.
Just as mature as making your least favourite ship the most boring one?
Lol.
I do not know how it is in US, but here in Europe, if I would call in public my company's customers 14years old, or that they behave so, I would be looking for new job.
Truth is, even if there was some 14 years old pvpers around, they would probably have much deeper knowledge of STO combat system than him. His "good advice" about power insulators just shows that.
I can only agree to your statement about calling customers 14 year olds. Where i come from you wouldn't have to worry about cleaning your desk anymore.
Personally, i just can't comprehend why there have to be people in charge of a Star Trek product, without the most simple knowledgs how things in Star Trek work.
STO is like a Star Wars game that is about building up a business empire.lol.
Commanding Officer: Captain Pyotr Ramonovich Amosov
Dedication Plaque: "Nil Intentatum Reliquit"
I think the cannon nerf idea was great. They shouldn't be able to tank. Every escort should be a glass cannon, huge DPS and no solo survivability. Their hull healing and shield abilities should be lesser than a cruisers.
Another great idea was made above by adjusting power levels so cruisers have a higher amount than escorts, allowing them to use their healing skills more keeping escorts alive, which is much more symbiotic.
How does nerfing cannons effect their ability to tank and add to your idea of huge DPS and no survivability? Your statement does not make sense to me, no offense.
Weapon Energy Drain System is Broken
I already explained why in a previous post but let me throw two more things on the pile for you to consider. IF they changed beam arrays to drain 9 power and DHCs to drain 15 power per shot very little would change with their actually performance. It would be a 5% percentage change in actual DPS from current in practice.
Tanking is Broken
Total HP is without a doubt the least important aspect of your tank. Most of the time it is irrelevant. Resistance rates combined with regeneration/heal speed is what matters and more with shields than hull because of the silly nature of NPC damage output. Do people realize that EpTS 1 literally doubles your tank in game? Or that Tac Team 1 is the strongest survival tool? You can give cruisers 200k hull and it would change nothing.
* > +
A DHC packing escort has the following with a tac captain. Base Damage * Armor Mod * Attack Speed Buff * APA buff * GDF buff * Fleet buff * Weapon power Buff when they deal damage. Oops forgot the Crit multiplier oh well.
A Sci ability has the following for effective boosts. Base Ability effect + skill mods.
And some wonder why they end up being weak? They lack that all important synergy effect in their abilities. Shield stripping, for example, if tachyon beam applied a significant penalty to the targets power insulator skill, possibly even making it negative, so other stripping effects had a boost it would be closer to how damage works now.
No offense taken...:) Actually your correct, that statement was totally wrong.
Although I'm sure we've all see an uber escort camped in front of a tac cube pounding away while tanking most everything the cube throws at it, invisible torps aside. That shouldn't happen.
This I can agree with, even as a primary escort driver. The things that I can get away with should not be and actually make me a worse player- I get lazy.
Don't use beams.
First, if you feel a weapon is underperforming, use a different one... That is a simple logic that most people forget. I, too, feel like beams are light on damage, so other then my experimental beam (because I want to use my built in SST, and the 3pc is pretty snazzy as well...) I simply don't use them... Wow...
Second, if nobody uses beams, the developers notice, and then ask the question why. If the developers are saying that beams are fine then enough people are using them and performing adequatly that they feel there is no need for a change. If people don't use something that is when it starts to get noticed.
If you fly around with beams and then complain that they aren't good enough, not only are you not doing everything in your power to solve the situation for yourself, you are giving a false perception to the developers that you actually like your beams.
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
2 words: Bug Ship.
See what I did there? What are you plans to bring this OP item down in line with the other escorts?
only if engies are permanently deleted from the game and existing characters get to pick a free mix of captain skills from the remaining classes.
worst idea ever, I m sure Gecko likes it though.
Good point now let's look at Fe/scorts (Fleet Defiant and Kumari) vs. KDF scorts. Os there is a nerf incoming to the 5th tac consoles, and the forward weapon slot of the kumari? I mean if you see a bump in the road....
a history of sto pvp: 2010 - 2011
a history of sto pvp: 2012 - 2013
I'm missing something in your post:
a constructive counterproposal.
What is someone in for example a Support Cruiser supposed to use instead?
So then your answer to the problem is everyone drive around in escorts. Because everyone knows most cruisers can't use cannons. Hell, it'd be nice if they could use turrets actually, but again, most can't. Fed side I think the only cruiser that can use cannons, is the Dread. Almost every KDF ship can use cannons, but Cryptic neutered their cruisers so badly tactically ((Best I think is Lieutenant Tac slot)) that their useless anyways, and you end up getting better DPS with beams.
How sad is that.
Not using beams is like asking people not to spend money on the game until Cryptic fixes the problems that have been around since beta. Not gonna happen.
Conversely, you could also be giving the devs the impression that the weapons you're using instead of beams are overpowered, and thus need to be nerfed down to beam array's level of functionality...
Either way, balanced is achieved.
Single cannons/turrets
Edit: There seems to be a mental block on the playerbase when it comes to single cannons. A single cannon + turret beats 2x beam arrays in damage on their own, and then you get to use cannon skills instead of beam skills... And they can be used on every ship... and they front face so you can fire your torps too... And they get better returns from DEM... And they are better on power... and and and... but cruisers are broken beacuse beams suck... Mental block. People just forget single cannons exist.
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
Balance solely for the sake of balance is of use to no-one. And by the by, balance between player weapon types does not equate to game balance.
No, but in this case it would be fine. the problem isn't that beams are too low and cannons too high, its that the gap is too wide.
Nobody likes to hear that lowering somebodys damage is the same as raising somebody elses, but in this case it wouldn't matter. the only difference is the cannon people would feel like they lost something.
Doesn't matter really, because even if they did lower cannons to beam efficiency we would just wait a few patches and all the numbers go up again...
Either way, balance is achieved.
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
Nobody forgets that , the fact that cannons are better at everything on everything is the point that people take offense with. It invalidates a player class, a whole bunch of BO abilities, kills variety, narrows tactical choices for group play, looks plain silly, and makes mucho gear that people have grinded for obsolete.
So far only two people think that this is good game design. one is you, the other.....read my sig
a history of sto pvp: 2010 - 2011
a history of sto pvp: 2012 - 2013
You really need to stop looking at weapon damage in a vacuum. The relationship between player damage output, player defensive capability, NPC damage and defensive capability all need to be evaluated collectively. Making massive changes to one part of that equation without touching the others will do nothing beneficial.
Second, beams being weak does not invalidate an entire player class. It invalidates an entire type of player who refuses to adapt.
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
You are only half right. Sure, it might make the devs notice that people don't seem to like them; but it'll also make them think the worst is already over since everyone has just stopped using them. Problems nobody seems to care much about don't get made priorities.
"You want to keep your DPS up? Keep your escort buddies alive!" This is how I think it should be. Not X-wings on steroids.
But, you are saying that the differences would be enough to matter. They would not. Your average pug player is between 2-4k dps. I know, I run my parser all the time. High end players are at 6-9k, 9-11k for tacs.
The difference in lowering cannons or raising beams is going to be *NOWHERE* near a 7k DPS difference...
The system here is really really really loosely tuned...
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
leave my bug alone after what we paid for it it should be better than other escorts. even tho the most OP escort is now the kumari.