There are a few more than that, like the jem dreadnought, and the jem heavy escort carrier which is more of a cruise-cort imo. Many more that can do apb1/faw3, especially when you get into fleet ships.
I don't PvP much anyways, so to me it would just mean my team does CSE in 2 mins instead of 3.
I'm all for new gear, but I don't see them doing this without some drastic restrictions on it. it would also hurt their sales on the regent - why bother with the wide angle torp if I don't have to broadside with a big cruiser?
Because the wide-angle torp can be used on any ship you own? And there's nothing stopping those who WANT to broadside. Honestly, the only people who seem to really be against this for reasons OTHER than Beam Overload landing on beam turrets rather than the intended DBBs (something easily addressed by simply not allowing beam turrets to trigger it in the code) are Escort pilots who don't want the status quo of DHC/Turrets to change or Broadsiders who want to FORCE everyone not flying an Escort to play the same way they do.
Because the wide-angle torp can be used on any ship you own?
so can any other torp.
if I can face my target and fire all 7 beams, then there is no benefit to using the wide angle torp - any will do.
I'm disagreeing with what you propose for reasons other than "escort status quo" (I rarely fly them these days) or "enforcing broadsiding" (faw negates the need to broadside in almost all cases if you can keep it on global cd), but I don't see the point in repeating myself further when the words are still on the last page.
FAW doesn't negate the need for broadsiding, as targets still need to be within the weapon's firing arc to shoot. Great if you're surrounded, but for single targets or when enemies are only in one direction? Still gotta broadside. And again, nothing is stopping those who want to use Beam Arrays and broadside, so wherein lies the problem?
Ok, so beam turrets might need to have SLIGHTLY lower damage to compensate for their longer optimal range. Even if they didn't, though, cannon users would still use cannon turrets because they synergize with their cannon BOFF abilities which, let's be honest, are better than the beam BOFF abilities.
I'm aware of what A2B does, as I run a 7-beam/KCB dual A2B build on my Fleet Ha'apax (pretty much the only way to run cruisers), but FAW3 and APB3 are skills not available to most Cruisers. Only specialized Tac cruke the Excelsior (which I still think is retardedly powerful for a ship that belongs in a museum) can fit both of those skills, or the Tal Shiar Battlecruiser if you opt to use the Universal Cmdr seat for a Tac BOFF.
There are numerous inaccuracies that must be addressed before an opinion or theory is made.
1)All weapons in STO, except for the upcoming Thalaron cannon, have a maximum firing distance of no more than ten kilometers. So I'm not sure what longer range you're referring to.
2) Cannon-scorts choose their cannon layout because it offers the middle ground between heavy shield damage (beam) and heavy hull damage (torpedo). However, the reason they would stick to cannons is simple: how beams fire. They drain weapons energy far too fast, which has a negative impact on the next beam fired. It has nothing to do with Boff abilities; in fact, a Dual Beam Bank with Beam Overload is far more effective than 2 seconds of Cannon Rapid Fire.
3) Aux2Bat is not the only, end-all solution to cruisers. Its merely an avenue for cruisers with low amounts of Sci boff seats to be more effective at tanking. If i remember the Ha'apax, it has a Lt and an Ensign Sci boff seats. In fact, you're probably off better without Aux2Bat, sinxe you can run 7 Engi abilities and 3 Sci abilities on the same ship.
4)
Again, because of the power drain nature of beams, 7 beams is detrimental to your damage output. You are much better off with 6 beams, a KCB in front, and a torpedo or mine launcher in back. Remember that torpedoes only require that 1 point of weapons power to fire. Also remember that cruisers aren't there to deal damage, unless you are flying a Regent in PvE.
Now, on to the beam turrets.
It's an interesting idea, for sure. However, we have seen in the various shows that the Phaser Strips on Starfleet vessels make this idea redundant. Strips cover most of the ship, making sure that most attack angles are covered. In game, with the 250 degree cone of fire, you are getting an overlap. In any case, beam turrets are redundant, since if all you are looking for is extra damage, broadsiding will allow you to do that - and for cruisers, it's easier to do so anyways, than keep the Dual Beam Banks in fore and never getting a chance to fire them.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
1) I'm referring to optimal range, as in the range before damage starts to decay. For cannons, I believe it's 3km. For beams, I believe it's 5km. I could be wrong on the numbers, but I know energy weapons do more damage at close range, though beams do full damage at greater distances than cannons, though not at the full 10km.
2) That's just plain incorrect. Beams don't do more shield damage than cannons. They're not a different type of damage, they're both Energy damage, and since cannons have higher damage stats than beams, they do more damage. Period. And while Beam Overload may have higher spike, it's a one-off ability that drains 50 Weapon Power, whereas Cannon: Rapid Fire affects all weapons for a duration and has no drawback. Likewise, Cannon: Scatter Volley may affect fewer targets, but you always hit the targets you're aiming at, whereas Fire At Will is random.
3) I...don't even get what you're saying here. Makes no sense.
4) Cruisers are here to do whatever I want to do with them. Since tanking is completely unnecessary in this game, as Escorts can tank everything well enough to not care, I might as well enjoy the game by making things go boom.
As for the rest of your post, it's obvious you haven't read any of the previous pages. This isn't just for cruisers, and it provides options for cruisers who don't WANT to broadside by giving them alternative choices. Ideally, this is for anyone who wants to fit DBB/beam turrets as opposed to the two cookie cutter builds of DHC/turrets or Beam Array Broadside.
1) Gotcha. Must have misread that as max distance instead of optimal.
2) Beam Overload with a DBB, compared to CRF with a DHC, is what I'm referring to. The spike damage does enough damage to overcome shields much quicker, allowing a torpedo strike. Whereas it takes a few shots with CRF+DHCs to bring down a shield. You said Beam boff abilities are inferior to cannon Boff abilities. Quite untrue.
3) Read it again then.
4)Good luck then. And as for tanking, yes its redundant in most places, except for Ker'rat... which means it's not completely unnecessary.
5) What is the purpose of that? As I said before, power drain will quickly make this great theory turn to dust in practical use, with existing beam mechanics. With 6 beams, your weapons power fluctuates wildly. Imagine if an escort tried to do 7 beams (4 DBB, 3 Beam turrets). It just isn't practical, since the four DBBs would likely make any further weapons discharges meaningless, due to low weapons power.
Also consider the cruiser with these beam turrets. Frontal assault with DBB and Beam turrets is redundant because of power drain. You said you wanted no broadsiding, so I skip that. Rear assault is also impractical. Looking at Turrets, they do a ballpark one-half of the DPS from a DHC (ball park number only.). Meaning if you wisely avoided too much power drain by running 6 Beam Turrets, which I am assuming deal equal damage as regular turrets, tjis means you only have the equivalent of 3 DHCs in the rear! One might as well try broadsiding instead, with 6 beam arrays, to get more prolongued damage.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Also consider the cruiser with these beam turrets. Frontal assault with DBB and Beam turrets is redundant because of power drain. You said you wanted no broadsiding, so I skip that. Rear assault is also impractical. Looking at Turrets, they do a ballpark one-half of the DPS from a DHC (ball park number only.). Meaning if you wisely avoided too much power drain by running 6 Beam Turrets, which I am assuming deal equal damage as regular turrets, tjis means you only have the equivalent of 3 DHCs in the rear! One might as well try broadsiding instead, with 6 beam arrays, to get more prolongued damage.
I run a dual A2B build on my Ha'apax with 7 beams and a KCB, so effectively 8 beams, and yet my Weapon power never drops below 80, so the weapon drain isn't so bad as you say. Also, there are plenty of ships out there who run pure energy builds with no torps or mines to speak of. That's not a quirky niche build that a handful of nuts use just because. It's pretty common, actually, and a lot of people swear it's better than fitting a torp. Not saying it is or isn't, but it clearly works for them.
Damage split between forward and aft doesn't work when you want to put ALL possible damage on your target. That's why DBB kinda suck right now, because the only thing you can equip to compliment them are...cannon turrets, which don't utilize beam skills. Fail. And not everybody likes broadsiding. This isn't the Age of Sail. Also, it's been said several times this isn't just for cruisers. Escort pilots want beam turrets as well. This is nothing but a COSMETIC and utility change. Why are you so hostile to this?
Nothing is stopping you from using beam arrays on your big, slow, lumbering ships. Implementing beam turrets won't stop you either. Your forward DPS will be lower, but your broadside is still just as strong and you have more firepower to bring to bear on your flanks and rear. Nothing is stopping you and neither is our request. Why are you so hostile to this?
So, any small, quick, maneuverable ships HAVE to use cannons to allow all damage forward. Why? What if they want to use beams? Oops, too bad, nothing goes with DBBs...unless beam turrets are implemented, then they have a CHOICE to use what they WANT. More choices are good for EVERYBODY. Why are you so hostile to this?
Uh...yeah. They're called turrets and they already exist in-game for cannons. Why can't beam-users have their own version? And the 360-degree beam arrays already exist for shuttles/fighters and they do about the same damage as turrets anyway, so why can't we just fit them on our bigger ships? No harm in that. Why are you so hostile to this?
Yeah, so? This is hardly unprescedented, as the Vesta has it's dual cannons, all KDF cruisers can fit forward-heavy weapons, and so can all the Romulan warbirds. Granted, the D'Deridex and Ha'apax kinda suck at it because their turn rate is so horrific, but they CAN if they CHOOSE and many players make it work for them because that's what they WANT to do. People have more fun when they can do something they WANT to do and make it work for them, whether it's optimal or not. Let's take a Vor'cha for example. They already fit DHCs/Turrets instead of broadsiding. Who's to say somebody might want to have similar DPS and playstyle, but prefers the look of beam weapons? Well, if you have YOUR way, they're screwed because of arbitrary restrictions and "You can't have!" DBB give up some of DHC's damage for a slightly wider firing arc, a fair trade, and the beam turrets would have the same damage as cannon turrets, just visually match beams and can utilize FAW and that awesome laser light show we all love, but nothing is taken away from DHC/Turret jockeys. More choices for all. Why are you so hostile to this?
See previous mention of KDF cruisers and Romulan Warbirds. It's already here. Implementing beam turrets changes NOTHING. Your argument does not apply here. Why are you so hostile to this?
Yeah, God forbid anything be allowed to compete with escorts, right? Or doesn't conform to your "Cruisers MUST broadside or GTFO" mentality? Seriously, how does implementing beam turrets change ANYTHING for the worse? Honestly, think about it for a moment. We already have cruisers that CAN mount DHC but lack the turn rate to use them well, but players still make them work because they WANT to. DBBs, right now, are pretty crappy because fitting more than one (for Beam Overload spike) means you either leave your aft weapons sitting IDLE while you fire them, or you split your weapons between beams/turrets, which is a bad idea. Beam turrets open up more options for ALL players and make DBBs a viable weapon, rather than just a Beam Overload delivery system. More options are good, as it makes for more variety, and variety is good. Why are you so hostile to this?
This game is already Escorts Online. This game has more in common currently with Ace Combat than with Star Trek. Cannons and missiles are the name of the game. I'm asking for a BEAM equivalent, something very "Star Trek"...and you say this is making it MORE into Escorts Online? Um.....ok.....
Okay, just have to say, I like you dude. lol That was brilliantly stated. #agreedwitheverthing
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one." ~Spock
This is the part where you are wrong. First, adding 360 degree aft beams that are affected by various beams skills - or even just FAW, is more than a cosmetic change. second, and more importantly, turrets damage decreases with range - beams do not.
Cruisers are slow turning for a reason. They are nigh impossible to kill in the hands of a skilled pilot, and trade burst damage for sustained dps. Not having to turn to keep a proper beam firing arc in a cruiser would mean I would always be doing max damage while sitting at just under 10k facing the target and firing beams and torps directly ahead. no skill involved.
In an escort, this would mean that range is no longer an issue, and I could fly it the same way as a cruiser with beam turrets - parked at just under 10k firing beams and torps ad naseum. Wait - I think this is what many people already do with escorts in the public queues - could you imagine what would happen if that became the optimal way to do it? FFS, nobody would ever use their engines again!
I do use DBB's in some builds (I love the temporal set on my mobius!), but there is a trade-off for doing so - and for good reason.
It's a cool idea, even if just for the cosmetic purposes, but simply pasting cannon turret stats onto a 360 beam as proposed it would definitelyunbalance things.
Really..... Beam Turrets would "Definitely unbalance things?" You do realize that EVERY Romulan and Klingon ship, have the use of Dul-Cannons (not counting small craft) but only 1/3 of Federation ships do, with the exception of ONE cruiser (Galaxy Dreadnought) and ONE science (Vesta). Lets not even get into the Sing powers and cloak. Now I'm NOT saying every federation ship should be able to use Cannons, I wouldn't want that simply because Cannons (and turrets) look pretty F-ing silly firing form Starfleet ships except for maybe on the Tactical Escort.
What I'm saying is, if anything, "Beam Turrets" might actually balance some TRIBBLE out. Federation Cruisers are at a bigger BASE disadvantage then ANY other ships in the game.
I'm not saying people can't make them work, of course they can. But why should you have to be at a disadvantage for wanting to play with a ship, like the Galaxy, that you fell in love with from TV.
And in rearguards to keeping things "Cannon" bits. In all my years of a lover and watcher of Star Trek I don't recall "Broadsiding" to be very common tactic used by Starfleet ships.... Just saying... If sitting still and holding one's ground, HEAD on, was good enough for the Enterprise D it sure as Hell is good for me too.
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one." ~Spock
Really..... Beam Turrets would "Definitely unbalance things?" You do realize that EVERY Romulan and Klingon ship, have the use of Dul-Cannons (not counting small craft) but only 1/3 of Federation ships do, with the exception of ONE cruiser (Galaxy Dreadnought) and ONE science (Vesta). Lets not even get into the Sing powers and cloak. Now I'm NOT saying every federation ship should be able to use Cannons, I wouldn't want that simply because Cannons (and turrets) look pretty F-ing silly firing form Starfleet ships except for maybe on the Tactical Escort.
What I'm saying is, if anything, "Beam Turrets" might actually balance some TRIBBLE out. Federation Cruisers are at a bigger BASE disadvantage then ANY other ships in the game.
I'm not saying people can't make them work, of course they can. But why should you have to be at a disadvantage for wanting to play with a ship, like the Galaxy, that you fell in love with from TV.
And in rearguards to keeping things "Cannon" bits. In all my years of a lover and watcher of Star Trek I don't recall "Broadsiding" to be very common tactic used by Starfleet ships.... Just saying... If sitting still and holding one's ground, HEAD on, was good enough for the Enterprise D it sure as Hell is good for me too.
Personally, I could care less if the federation has beam turrets or not. I think its a great idea and i'd like to see it, but if i dont, i'm not losing any sleep over it.. Your also quite correct on there being no broadsides in Star Trek.. I do however disagree that the federation cruisers are at a bigger base disadvantage than anything else in the game. I fly mogai's and have flown them since before the release of LOR. Now, heres a ship as long as a sovereign, twice as wide as a d'dex and only slightly faster than a Bortusqu. Some classify it as an escort, but with its size thats pretty far of a stretch, and yet, with a base hull of only 22000, its a bit light to call a cruiser, but there again, its a light cruiser.. Even the vaunted D'De has only a 36000 hull which isnt even close to an odyssey or bortusqu. no, i dont believe fed ships to be at a base disadvantage at all, BUT,, when i'm running an ESTF, I'm looking for you cruisers to be there with as much firepower as you can bring, because my sweet lil behind is down and dirty with spheres probes and other general annoyances ( tholians ). I'm counting on you as part of the team to drop the big stuff i cant kill ( like tac cubes ). for that, i hope to high heaven you CAN get beam turrets..
Personally, I could care less if the federation has beam turrets or not. I think its a great idea and i'd like to see it, but if i dont, i'm not losing any sleep over it.. Your also quite correct on there being no broadsides in Star Trek.. I do however disagree that the federation cruisers are at a bigger base disadvantage than anything else in the game. I fly mogai's and have flown them since before the release of LOR. Now, heres a ship as long as a sovereign, twice as wide as a d'dex and only slightly faster than a Bortusqu. Some classify it as an escort, but with its size thats pretty far of a stretch, and yet, with a base hull of only 22000, its a bit light to call a cruiser, but there again, its a light cruiser.. Even the vaunted D'De has only a 36000 hull which isnt even close to an odyssey or bortusqu. no, i dont believe fed ships to be at a base disadvantage at all, BUT,, when i'm running an ESTF, I'm looking for you cruisers to be there with as much firepower as you can bring, because my sweet lil behind is down and dirty with spheres probes and other general annoyances ( tholians ). I'm counting on you as part of the team to drop the big stuff i cant kill ( like tac cubes ). for that, i hope to high heaven you CAN get beam turrets..
I understand your point, but you cannot compare stats of end game ships to mid level ships.
What can be counted as advantages or not I suppose is up for debate, but if you are comparing hulls, then the Fed ships are indeed at a disadvantage.
You compare the Mogai to a Sovereign. Ok, fleet level of each.
Mogai = 36,300
Sovereign = 42,000
Yep, sure enough the Mogai has more, but its an escoort, not a cruiser.
36,300 is far and away more hull than any escort fed side, even the HEC.
It would be more fair then to compare the D'd to the Sovreign
Sovereign = 42,000
D'd = 44,550
Even the Galaxy clocks in at 44,000 which is the feds tankiest cruiser, is still lower than the D'd.
Higher hull, better weapon options, mainly DHC's (though on low turning ships this can hardly be seen as an advantage), equal or better shield mods, battlecloak, singularity powers, double console benefits, etc. And that is JUST the romulan ships over fed.
KDF have much the same, although without the higher hull on virtually every ship, they do have cloak, and the ability to mount DHC's on ships that not only have the boff layout for them (not all of the cruisers though) they have the turn rate to make them work.
I am not trying to say feds are entirely worthless, but its getting harder and harder to see how they can keep up with the power creep. Especially given the romulan ships, and them being a clear ploy to bring more powerful ships for sale to bring in people and money.
And in rearguards to keeping things "Cannon" bits. In all my years of a lover and watcher of Star Trek I don't recall "Broadsiding" to be very common tactic used by Starfleet ships.... Just saying... If sitting still and holding one's ground, HEAD on, was good enough for the Enterprise D it sure as Hell is good for me too.
If you're gonna use canon I gotta sidetrack you a bit there: Star Trek in its entirety was inspired by the navy and naval battles. Broadsiding was common practice to bring all of a ship's cannons to bear. You can't be shooting through your own bridge, after all (which is what the game's turrets do constantly).
I like the idea of beam turrets. Its a sound concept.
My Fed captain uses cruisers, so beam arrays are fine for him, but on my Reman i use all dual beam banks up front on his escorts, and a heavy damage torp type weapon and a couple of turrets in the rear. My DPS is still great, but while the turrets still contribute to my DPS to an adequate level, beam turrets would be nice if they could also benefit from the beam fire at will ability, like the current turrets benefit from cannon abilities.
Its no biggie though, people think mixing turrets and beams is bad, but if you actually test it, turrets dont make that much difference whether you use them with a cannon ability or not. They are not DPS breakers, they are just better than nothing for people that use forward firing weapons.
" Experience is a hard mistress, she gives the tests first, and the lessons after... "
For years, when people asked for Beam Turrets, I always invisioned the Wrath of Khan Gattling Phasers.
To keep it within limits of balance, as per WoK, have them limited to a very short range. Lets say under 5 KM.
And when used with FAW (Fire at Will), instead of randomly shooting at multiple targets within range, it rapid-fires with massive weapon power drain. Furthermore, it would only work on two beam turrets.
For years, when people asked for Beam Turrets, I always invisioned the Wrath of Khan Gattling Phasers.
To keep it within limits of balance, as per WoK, have them limited to a very short range. Lets say under 5 KM.
And when used with FAW (Fire at Will), instead of randomly shooting at multiple targets within range, it rapid-fires with massive weapon power drain. Furthermore, it would only work on two beam turrets.
Why? Cannon turrets don't have ANY of these restrictions, so why should beam turrets? What do you mean "within the limits of balance"?
Yes I"m interested in what this limits of "so called" balance. Beams having their own turret version would but them maybe not in par but at least viable compared to all cannon/turret builds as of now.
You never seen how destructive cannon builds on Excelsiors or Regents can be, have you? :rolleyes:
Unless you are trying to turn Cruisers into something akin to Beam Escorts.
That's what he's trying to do. It's infeasible though, since power drain would quickly make the beam-scort or beam-cruiser useless.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
That's what he's trying to do. It's infeasible though, since power drain would quickly make the beam-scort or beam-cruiser useless.
No, no, no, NO! That is NOT what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to add OPTIONS to the game that a LOT of people want and support and make DBB more viable as a primary weapon system. And I've already proven that your notion of 8-beams makes you useless wrong. I run 7 beams and a KCB (beam) and my power never drops below 80, so you're WRONG.
Even if you were right, why do you insist on trying to add these ridiculous penalties and limitations to beam turrets? Beams are already at a disadvantage next to cannons because of lower base stats and increased power drain (which still makes no sense. Drains more power, does less damage, wtf?), so why do you want to add MORE penalties to beam users? Do you guys really just hate beams that much?
Seems everybody against this idea falls into one of two camps:
Escorts get to use the good weapons and loathe anything changing the status quo
Cruisers MUST broadside or GTFO, so no beam turrets for you!
i'm not sure about this. the more and more I play the less and less I use turrets anyway and one of my fav skills is overloading a really good DBB and with beam turrets kitted overload would be useless because if overload goes to a turret the damage would be well below average. and it would be too much clicking and stuffing around to disable turrets before using overload skill.
there are lots of things I'd like to see in the game before this. What I would like to see are some cruiser only weapons and even some sci ship only weapons, because currently dual cannons are mostly for small ships and escorts
make like a cruiser beam array you can only equip one of per ship with good damage and effects.
turrets are just a bit of a bore, damage is so TRIBBLE really. I toyed with an 8 turret ship for kicks once and even with a full offensive skill and power setup I could hardly kill anything. IMO turrets aren't worth the power they use.
That is NOT what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to add OPTIONS to the game that a LOT of people want and support and make DBB more viable as a primary weapon system.
People support DBB when used properly in a Beam Escort, yes. However, I've read this thread in parts, and the general idea is, some people support it, but some do not. Your term of "a lot" is in fact less than half of the 120 posts in this thread... and not to mention that you are posting quite frequently in your own thread as well.
As for your intentions, it's clear you're trying to make cruisers into Beam versions of existing escorts. Beam turrets to go along with DBBs? It can't be more parallel to cannon turrets with DHCs.
And I've already proven that your notion of 8-beams makes you useless wrong. I run 7 beams and a KCB (beam) and my power never drops below 80, so you're WRONG.
Which means that either you are taking a split second analysis of power levels at optimal (fire all 8 of your beams, hit a weapons battery and say "I have full power!"), or you don't understand what I mean by power level drop. The beams will still drain power from the weapons power, impacting the amount of available energy left for the next beam, and the next, and the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th beams. Since it's -10 Weapons power for each beam array fired, that's -80 from your total weapons power of, I'm assuming, 125. The damage output isn't feasible anyway, since beams are meant as weapons to deal significant amount of damage over the course of a fight, not the burst damage that is now required to defeat enemies in PvP.
Side note: Aux2Bat does not fix the power level drop at all, even though it may seem so.
Even if you were right, why do you insist on trying to add these ridiculous penalties and limitations to beam turrets? Beams are already at a disadvantage next to cannons because of lower base stats and increased power drain (which still makes no sense. Drains more power, does less damage, wtf?), so why do you want to add MORE penalties to beam users? Do you guys really just hate beams that much?
No, I love beams, and I wish they were more dominant over cannons. The limitations you accuse me of imposing are not created by me. They are Cryptic's idea (turrets), I am simply applying them to the beam turrets.
Seems everybody against this idea falls into one of two camps:
Escorts get to use the good weapons and loathe anything changing the status quo
Cruisers MUST broadside or GTFO, so no beam turrets for you!
You might gain more attention to your thread by suggesting something actually feasible then. Broadsiding allows the optimal 6 beams on a cruiser to deal all of their damage to a target, and it is good for a cruiser because trying to turn most of those ships to aim a DBB will not end successfully.
If you want something truly useful for cruisers, then suggest rear DBBs, since a majority of the time I spend flying my starship around is with a BoP or four sitting behind my warp nacelles. It's be MUCH more useful for burst damage via a cruiser such as the Regent if I could gain access to a great amount of burst damage in the degree of fire that I usually have my enemies sitting in.
However - and I don't mean to be a pessimist - Cryptic will not be very likely to implement the type of weapon you are suggesting. Consider this: as far as I know, DBB, Beam arrays, DHC, DC, Cannons, Turrets, Torpedoes, and Mines have been here since the start of the game. They haven't added any other weapon type, save the KCB which acts as a 360-degree kinetic weapon (still not a "new" category).
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
I'll relax when you stop putting words in my mouth and twisting what I'm saying.
People support DBB when used properly in a Beam Escort
You mean when they fit ONE DBB for the Beam Overload spike.
As for your intentions, it's clear you're trying to make cruisers into Beam versions of existing escorts. Beam turrets to go along with DBBs? It can't be more parallel to cannon turrets with DHCs.
Isn't that what KDF cruisers and Romulan Warbirds are already able to do, just with DHCs and turrets? How would DBB and beam turrets be different? They'd be a little easier to use for Romulan Warbirds like the D'Deridex and Ha'apax, that's for sure, due to the slightly wider firing arc. Why is this a bad thing? Also, this isn't just for cruisers, as I and several others have said and you keep seeming to miss. There are Escort pilots too who would rather use beams because they like how beams look over cannons.
No, I love beams, and I wish they were more dominant over cannons. The limitations you accuse me of imposing are not created by me. They are Cryptic's idea (turrets), I am simply applying them to the beam turrets.
I wasn't talking to you with that statement. And the limitations mentioned are NOT Cryptic's idea, as they don't apply to ANY weapon currently, especially not cannon turrets. (5km range, only fit 2, massive power drain on FAW)
If you want something truly useful for cruisers, then suggest rear DBBs, since a majority of the time I spend flying my starship around is with a BoP or four sitting behind my warp nacelles. It's be MUCH more useful for burst damage via a cruiser such as the Regent if I could gain access to a great amount of burst damage in the degree of fire that I usually have my enemies sitting in.
Rear DBB does...what, exactly, in ESTFs? Oh right, same thing as DBB fore and beam arrays aft...nothing! Leading to, again, either DHC/turrets, broadsides, or GTFO. Why are you so adamant about enforcing the current status quo of only TWO viable weapon setups?
I'm an Eng, I use 2 DHC's and 1 DBB with turrets in the aft slots. I use the rapid fire and scatter cannon abitlities and BO for the DBB. This is on my Tac Escort. To me, it's pretty effective. But I really like the idea of beam turrets for my ships that can't equip DHC, like my Odyssey, that benefit more from beam abilities. It would be even better if FAW could be used with beam turrets, 360 degree targeting of every enemy in range.
As for your intentions, it's clear you're trying to make cruisers into Beam versions of existing escorts. Beam turrets to go along with DBBs? It can't be more parallel to cannon turrets with DHCs.
Isn't that what KDF cruisers and Romulan Warbirds are already able to do, just with DHCs and turrets? How would DBB and beam turrets be different? They'd be a little easier to use for Romulan Warbirds like the D'Deridex and Ha'apax, that's for sure, due to the slightly wider firing arc. Why is this a bad thing? Also, this isn't just for cruisers, as I and several others have said and you keep seeming to miss. There are Escort pilots too who would rather use beams because they like how beams look over cannons.
Several issues with what has been said here.
1)DBB and beam turrets are different because of the power drain, which is quickly becoming annoying to re-explain over and over when a single post should have sufficed. Take a second look.
The beams will still drain power from the weapons power, impacting the amount of available energy left for the next beam, and the next, and the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th beams. Since it's -10 Weapons power for each beam array fired, that's -80 from your total weapons power of, I'm assuming, 125. The damage output isn't feasible anyway, since beams are meant as weapons to deal significant amount of damage over the course of a fight, not the burst damage that is now required to defeat enemies in PvP.
I wasn't talking to you with that statement. And the limitations mentioned are NOT Cryptic's idea, as they don't apply to ANY weapon currently, especially not cannon turrets. (5km range, only fit 2, massive power drain on FAW)
You said that, not me. I said that beam turrets would have the same stats as regular turrets, for the sake of keeping the conversation simple without creating random numbers and statistics. It's easier just to have the existing turret stats, adopted for beam types (able to use beam boff abilities, etc), for the sake of this thread.
Rear DBB does...what, exactly, in ESTFs? Oh right, same thing as DBB fore and beam arrays aft...nothing! Leading to, again, either DHC/turrets, broadsides, or GTFO. Why are you so adamant about enforcing the current status quo of only TWO viable weapon setups?
I don't talk about PvE, because it's stupidly easy to master that. PvP is where a concept like your beam turrets sound great, but upon thinking critically about the concept of having turrets, but with beam instead of cannon shots, makes very little sense. Rear DBBs would be a much better advantage for cruisers, since most of the enemies end up in the rear quarter anyways.
As for your "GTFO" comment, I'm all for the ships we see in the shows. Omnidirectional Beam Turrets are not in the shows, except for Star Trek: Enterprise's phase cannons. The ability to fire two rear arrays from the back of a Galaxy-class starship (sounds like Rear DBB, doesn't it?) is in the shows.
I don't enforce anything. Believe it or not, I don't work for Cryptic. I just deal with the reality in this game, and not about fanciful, difficult and challenging additions to a game which is already plagued with beam weapon power drain issues.
I'll relax when you stop putting words in my mouth and twisting what I'm saying.
Type with precision then. Anything that you post can be used against your own argument, by anyone who happens to pass by this thread.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
And why shouldn't an all DBB setup be a viable alternative (not equivalent, as DBB do less damage in trade for the wider firing arc) for an all DHC setup? Would that really be so bad?
Pretty much all your arguments boil down to "It's not optimal and I don't like it, so no."
And why shouldn't an all DBB setup be a viable alternative (not equivalent, as DBB do less damage in trade for the wider firing arc) for an all DHC setup? Would that really be so bad?
Pretty much all your arguments boil down to "It's not optimal and I don't like it, so no."
It should. If beam power problems were fixed.
But they won't, and they will never be fully corrected. And because this will not happen, sadly, your beam turret concept will remain just that; a concept.
And no, my argument is "It's not effective in the existing game, despite the fact that we wish, hope, imagine it would happen. But reality says it's not effective, and Cryptic stands to gain nothing from adding it. So no". That is what my arguments boil down to.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Comments
I don't PvP much anyways, so to me it would just mean my team does CSE in 2 mins instead of 3.
I'm all for new gear, but I don't see them doing this without some drastic restrictions on it. it would also hurt their sales on the regent - why bother with the wide angle torp if I don't have to broadside with a big cruiser?
so can any other torp.
if I can face my target and fire all 7 beams, then there is no benefit to using the wide angle torp - any will do.
I'm disagreeing with what you propose for reasons other than "escort status quo" (I rarely fly them these days) or "enforcing broadsiding" (faw negates the need to broadside in almost all cases if you can keep it on global cd), but I don't see the point in repeating myself further when the words are still on the last page.
have fun with your thread
There are numerous inaccuracies that must be addressed before an opinion or theory is made.
1)All weapons in STO, except for the upcoming Thalaron cannon, have a maximum firing distance of no more than ten kilometers. So I'm not sure what longer range you're referring to.
2) Cannon-scorts choose their cannon layout because it offers the middle ground between heavy shield damage (beam) and heavy hull damage (torpedo). However, the reason they would stick to cannons is simple: how beams fire. They drain weapons energy far too fast, which has a negative impact on the next beam fired. It has nothing to do with Boff abilities; in fact, a Dual Beam Bank with Beam Overload is far more effective than 2 seconds of Cannon Rapid Fire.
3) Aux2Bat is not the only, end-all solution to cruisers. Its merely an avenue for cruisers with low amounts of Sci boff seats to be more effective at tanking. If i remember the Ha'apax, it has a Lt and an Ensign Sci boff seats. In fact, you're probably off better without Aux2Bat, sinxe you can run 7 Engi abilities and 3 Sci abilities on the same ship.
4)
Again, because of the power drain nature of beams, 7 beams is detrimental to your damage output. You are much better off with 6 beams, a KCB in front, and a torpedo or mine launcher in back. Remember that torpedoes only require that 1 point of weapons power to fire. Also remember that cruisers aren't there to deal damage, unless you are flying a Regent in PvE.
Now, on to the beam turrets.
It's an interesting idea, for sure. However, we have seen in the various shows that the Phaser Strips on Starfleet vessels make this idea redundant. Strips cover most of the ship, making sure that most attack angles are covered. In game, with the 250 degree cone of fire, you are getting an overlap. In any case, beam turrets are redundant, since if all you are looking for is extra damage, broadsiding will allow you to do that - and for cruisers, it's easier to do so anyways, than keep the Dual Beam Banks in fore and never getting a chance to fire them.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
2) That's just plain incorrect. Beams don't do more shield damage than cannons. They're not a different type of damage, they're both Energy damage, and since cannons have higher damage stats than beams, they do more damage. Period. And while Beam Overload may have higher spike, it's a one-off ability that drains 50 Weapon Power, whereas Cannon: Rapid Fire affects all weapons for a duration and has no drawback. Likewise, Cannon: Scatter Volley may affect fewer targets, but you always hit the targets you're aiming at, whereas Fire At Will is random.
3) I...don't even get what you're saying here. Makes no sense.
4) Cruisers are here to do whatever I want to do with them. Since tanking is completely unnecessary in this game, as Escorts can tank everything well enough to not care, I might as well enjoy the game by making things go boom.
As for the rest of your post, it's obvious you haven't read any of the previous pages. This isn't just for cruisers, and it provides options for cruisers who don't WANT to broadside by giving them alternative choices. Ideally, this is for anyone who wants to fit DBB/beam turrets as opposed to the two cookie cutter builds of DHC/turrets or Beam Array Broadside.
2) Beam Overload with a DBB, compared to CRF with a DHC, is what I'm referring to. The spike damage does enough damage to overcome shields much quicker, allowing a torpedo strike. Whereas it takes a few shots with CRF+DHCs to bring down a shield. You said Beam boff abilities are inferior to cannon Boff abilities. Quite untrue.
3) Read it again then.
4)Good luck then. And as for tanking, yes its redundant in most places, except for Ker'rat... which means it's not completely unnecessary.
5) What is the purpose of that? As I said before, power drain will quickly make this great theory turn to dust in practical use, with existing beam mechanics. With 6 beams, your weapons power fluctuates wildly. Imagine if an escort tried to do 7 beams (4 DBB, 3 Beam turrets). It just isn't practical, since the four DBBs would likely make any further weapons discharges meaningless, due to low weapons power.
Also consider the cruiser with these beam turrets. Frontal assault with DBB and Beam turrets is redundant because of power drain. You said you wanted no broadsiding, so I skip that. Rear assault is also impractical. Looking at Turrets, they do a ballpark one-half of the DPS from a DHC (ball park number only.). Meaning if you wisely avoided too much power drain by running 6 Beam Turrets, which I am assuming deal equal damage as regular turrets, tjis means you only have the equivalent of 3 DHCs in the rear! One might as well try broadsiding instead, with 6 beam arrays, to get more prolongued damage.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
I run a dual A2B build on my Ha'apax with 7 beams and a KCB, so effectively 8 beams, and yet my Weapon power never drops below 80, so the weapon drain isn't so bad as you say. Also, there are plenty of ships out there who run pure energy builds with no torps or mines to speak of. That's not a quirky niche build that a handful of nuts use just because. It's pretty common, actually, and a lot of people swear it's better than fitting a torp. Not saying it is or isn't, but it clearly works for them.
Okay, just have to say, I like you dude. lol That was brilliantly stated. #agreedwitheverthing
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Really..... Beam Turrets would "Definitely unbalance things?" You do realize that EVERY Romulan and Klingon ship, have the use of Dul-Cannons (not counting small craft) but only 1/3 of Federation ships do, with the exception of ONE cruiser (Galaxy Dreadnought) and ONE science (Vesta). Lets not even get into the Sing powers and cloak. Now I'm NOT saying every federation ship should be able to use Cannons, I wouldn't want that simply because Cannons (and turrets) look pretty F-ing silly firing form Starfleet ships except for maybe on the Tactical Escort.
What I'm saying is, if anything, "Beam Turrets" might actually balance some TRIBBLE out. Federation Cruisers are at a bigger BASE disadvantage then ANY other ships in the game.
I'm not saying people can't make them work, of course they can. But why should you have to be at a disadvantage for wanting to play with a ship, like the Galaxy, that you fell in love with from TV.
And in rearguards to keeping things "Cannon" bits. In all my years of a lover and watcher of Star Trek I don't recall "Broadsiding" to be very common tactic used by Starfleet ships.... Just saying... If sitting still and holding one's ground, HEAD on, was good enough for the Enterprise D it sure as Hell is good for me too.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Personally, I could care less if the federation has beam turrets or not. I think its a great idea and i'd like to see it, but if i dont, i'm not losing any sleep over it.. Your also quite correct on there being no broadsides in Star Trek.. I do however disagree that the federation cruisers are at a bigger base disadvantage than anything else in the game. I fly mogai's and have flown them since before the release of LOR. Now, heres a ship as long as a sovereign, twice as wide as a d'dex and only slightly faster than a Bortusqu. Some classify it as an escort, but with its size thats pretty far of a stretch, and yet, with a base hull of only 22000, its a bit light to call a cruiser, but there again, its a light cruiser.. Even the vaunted D'De has only a 36000 hull which isnt even close to an odyssey or bortusqu. no, i dont believe fed ships to be at a base disadvantage at all, BUT,, when i'm running an ESTF, I'm looking for you cruisers to be there with as much firepower as you can bring, because my sweet lil behind is down and dirty with spheres probes and other general annoyances ( tholians ). I'm counting on you as part of the team to drop the big stuff i cant kill ( like tac cubes ). for that, i hope to high heaven you CAN get beam turrets..
I understand your point, but you cannot compare stats of end game ships to mid level ships.
What can be counted as advantages or not I suppose is up for debate, but if you are comparing hulls, then the Fed ships are indeed at a disadvantage.
You compare the Mogai to a Sovereign. Ok, fleet level of each.
Mogai = 36,300
Sovereign = 42,000
Yep, sure enough the Mogai has more, but its an escoort, not a cruiser.
36,300 is far and away more hull than any escort fed side, even the HEC.
It would be more fair then to compare the D'd to the Sovreign
Sovereign = 42,000
D'd = 44,550
Even the Galaxy clocks in at 44,000 which is the feds tankiest cruiser, is still lower than the D'd.
Higher hull, better weapon options, mainly DHC's (though on low turning ships this can hardly be seen as an advantage), equal or better shield mods, battlecloak, singularity powers, double console benefits, etc. And that is JUST the romulan ships over fed.
KDF have much the same, although without the higher hull on virtually every ship, they do have cloak, and the ability to mount DHC's on ships that not only have the boff layout for them (not all of the cruisers though) they have the turn rate to make them work.
I am not trying to say feds are entirely worthless, but its getting harder and harder to see how they can keep up with the power creep. Especially given the romulan ships, and them being a clear ploy to bring more powerful ships for sale to bring in people and money.
If you're gonna use canon I gotta sidetrack you a bit there: Star Trek in its entirety was inspired by the navy and naval battles. Broadsiding was common practice to bring all of a ship's cannons to bear. You can't be shooting through your own bridge, after all (which is what the game's turrets do constantly).
My Fed captain uses cruisers, so beam arrays are fine for him, but on my Reman i use all dual beam banks up front on his escorts, and a heavy damage torp type weapon and a couple of turrets in the rear. My DPS is still great, but while the turrets still contribute to my DPS to an adequate level, beam turrets would be nice if they could also benefit from the beam fire at will ability, like the current turrets benefit from cannon abilities.
Its no biggie though, people think mixing turrets and beams is bad, but if you actually test it, turrets dont make that much difference whether you use them with a cannon ability or not. They are not DPS breakers, they are just better than nothing for people that use forward firing weapons.
To keep it within limits of balance, as per WoK, have them limited to a very short range. Lets say under 5 KM.
And when used with FAW (Fire at Will), instead of randomly shooting at multiple targets within range, it rapid-fires with massive weapon power drain. Furthermore, it would only work on two beam turrets.
Why? Cannon turrets don't have ANY of these restrictions, so why should beam turrets? What do you mean "within the limits of balance"?
You never seen how destructive cannon builds on Excelsiors or Regents can be, have you? :rolleyes:
Unless you are trying to turn Cruisers into something akin to Beam Escorts.
I fail to see how that has ANY relevance whatsoever on the subject of beam turrets...
That's what he's trying to do. It's infeasible though, since power drain would quickly make the beam-scort or beam-cruiser useless.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
No, no, no, NO! That is NOT what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to add OPTIONS to the game that a LOT of people want and support and make DBB more viable as a primary weapon system. And I've already proven that your notion of 8-beams makes you useless wrong. I run 7 beams and a KCB (beam) and my power never drops below 80, so you're WRONG.
Even if you were right, why do you insist on trying to add these ridiculous penalties and limitations to beam turrets? Beams are already at a disadvantage next to cannons because of lower base stats and increased power drain (which still makes no sense. Drains more power, does less damage, wtf?), so why do you want to add MORE penalties to beam users? Do you guys really just hate beams that much?
Seems everybody against this idea falls into one of two camps:
Escorts get to use the good weapons and loathe anything changing the status quo
Cruisers MUST broadside or GTFO, so no beam turrets for you!
there are lots of things I'd like to see in the game before this. What I would like to see are some cruiser only weapons and even some sci ship only weapons, because currently dual cannons are mostly for small ships and escorts
make like a cruiser beam array you can only equip one of per ship with good damage and effects.
turrets are just a bit of a bore, damage is so TRIBBLE really. I toyed with an 8 turret ship for kicks once and even with a full offensive skill and power setup I could hardly kill anything. IMO turrets aren't worth the power they use.
Sure...as soon as Escorts are restricted to only one DHC. Stop making arbitrary restrictions on things not DHC. There's no need for it.
People support DBB when used properly in a Beam Escort, yes. However, I've read this thread in parts, and the general idea is, some people support it, but some do not. Your term of "a lot" is in fact less than half of the 120 posts in this thread... and not to mention that you are posting quite frequently in your own thread as well.
As for your intentions, it's clear you're trying to make cruisers into Beam versions of existing escorts. Beam turrets to go along with DBBs? It can't be more parallel to cannon turrets with DHCs. Which means that either you are taking a split second analysis of power levels at optimal (fire all 8 of your beams, hit a weapons battery and say "I have full power!"), or you don't understand what I mean by power level drop. The beams will still drain power from the weapons power, impacting the amount of available energy left for the next beam, and the next, and the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th beams. Since it's -10 Weapons power for each beam array fired, that's -80 from your total weapons power of, I'm assuming, 125. The damage output isn't feasible anyway, since beams are meant as weapons to deal significant amount of damage over the course of a fight, not the burst damage that is now required to defeat enemies in PvP.
Side note: Aux2Bat does not fix the power level drop at all, even though it may seem so.
No, I love beams, and I wish they were more dominant over cannons. The limitations you accuse me of imposing are not created by me. They are Cryptic's idea (turrets), I am simply applying them to the beam turrets.
You might gain more attention to your thread by suggesting something actually feasible then. Broadsiding allows the optimal 6 beams on a cruiser to deal all of their damage to a target, and it is good for a cruiser because trying to turn most of those ships to aim a DBB will not end successfully.
If you want something truly useful for cruisers, then suggest rear DBBs, since a majority of the time I spend flying my starship around is with a BoP or four sitting behind my warp nacelles. It's be MUCH more useful for burst damage via a cruiser such as the Regent if I could gain access to a great amount of burst damage in the degree of fire that I usually have my enemies sitting in.
However - and I don't mean to be a pessimist - Cryptic will not be very likely to implement the type of weapon you are suggesting. Consider this: as far as I know, DBB, Beam arrays, DHC, DC, Cannons, Turrets, Torpedoes, and Mines have been here since the start of the game. They haven't added any other weapon type, save the KCB which acts as a 360-degree kinetic weapon (still not a "new" category).
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
You mean when they fit ONE DBB for the Beam Overload spike.
Isn't that what KDF cruisers and Romulan Warbirds are already able to do, just with DHCs and turrets? How would DBB and beam turrets be different? They'd be a little easier to use for Romulan Warbirds like the D'Deridex and Ha'apax, that's for sure, due to the slightly wider firing arc. Why is this a bad thing? Also, this isn't just for cruisers, as I and several others have said and you keep seeming to miss. There are Escort pilots too who would rather use beams because they like how beams look over cannons.
I wasn't talking to you with that statement. And the limitations mentioned are NOT Cryptic's idea, as they don't apply to ANY weapon currently, especially not cannon turrets. (5km range, only fit 2, massive power drain on FAW)
Rear DBB does...what, exactly, in ESTFs? Oh right, same thing as DBB fore and beam arrays aft...nothing! Leading to, again, either DHC/turrets, broadsides, or GTFO. Why are you so adamant about enforcing the current status quo of only TWO viable weapon setups?
Several issues with what has been said here.
1)DBB and beam turrets are different because of the power drain, which is quickly becoming annoying to re-explain over and over when a single post should have sufficed. Take a second look.
You said that, not me. I said that beam turrets would have the same stats as regular turrets, for the sake of keeping the conversation simple without creating random numbers and statistics. It's easier just to have the existing turret stats, adopted for beam types (able to use beam boff abilities, etc), for the sake of this thread.
I don't talk about PvE, because it's stupidly easy to master that. PvP is where a concept like your beam turrets sound great, but upon thinking critically about the concept of having turrets, but with beam instead of cannon shots, makes very little sense. Rear DBBs would be a much better advantage for cruisers, since most of the enemies end up in the rear quarter anyways.
As for your "GTFO" comment, I'm all for the ships we see in the shows. Omnidirectional Beam Turrets are not in the shows, except for Star Trek: Enterprise's phase cannons. The ability to fire two rear arrays from the back of a Galaxy-class starship (sounds like Rear DBB, doesn't it?) is in the shows.
I don't enforce anything. Believe it or not, I don't work for Cryptic. I just deal with the reality in this game, and not about fanciful, difficult and challenging additions to a game which is already plagued with beam weapon power drain issues.
Type with precision then. Anything that you post can be used against your own argument, by anyone who happens to pass by this thread.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Pretty much all your arguments boil down to "It's not optimal and I don't like it, so no."
It should. If beam power problems were fixed.
But they won't, and they will never be fully corrected. And because this will not happen, sadly, your beam turret concept will remain just that; a concept.
And no, my argument is "It's not effective in the existing game, despite the fact that we wish, hope, imagine it would happen. But reality says it's not effective, and Cryptic stands to gain nothing from adding it. So no". That is what my arguments boil down to.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!