If I could go back in time and whisper sweet nothings into a dev's ear, this is an idea I would have planted. I like the idea of separate torpedo/energy weapons and I think it could have interesting applications on various ship classes when used in a manner parallel to existing weapon slots (cruisers having the most, escorts having most up front, etc).
But it's so late in the game now that changing this would be... weird, at best, and catastrophic at worst. It wouldn't be like adding warp cores was, where it's just another layer of power-creep icing on the cake. It would represent a fundamental change to weapons loadouts, invalidating nearly everything we know now. How would you do firing mechanics? Cooldowns? What balance issues could a ship with eight beams and six tricos bring?
The idea is a good one but it's way too late to even consider implementing.
Adding warp cores had to be a coding challenge. But now that it's done, changing the weapon system might be no more difficult and perhaps easier.
Boating is dull and anything to encourage less boating generally leads to a healthier chemistry of builds. Look at Mechwarrior Online: all its downswings have been because of "bring a lot of a single weapon" builds dominating and boring people out of the game.
Yeah the whole Torp Slot idea would mean that the other slots inherintly are only energy weapon slots. No torps could go there.
Not necessarily. You could say, certain hard-points are restricted to type, others are restricted to a range of types, others are universal and can hold anything.
Look at the typical starfleet cruiser saucer. Lets say there are four phaser strip hard-points on it, one each for fore, aft, port and starboard. By locking them to beam array, you get the classical starfleet firing pattern with a single beam firing from the nearest phaser strip, and disallow having cannons mounted on the side for op broadsides. Then you might add a "light energy weapon" hard-point on the saucer that can mount another beam or a DBB or a cannon or something like that, while a dreadnought might bget a "heavy energy weapon" hard-point that can mount a lance or something.
If you want to get Torpedoes into the regular gameplay, make Energy weapons the mirror of the projectile weapons.
Where projectile weapons to great damage against hull and very little damage against shields, make energy weapons make great damage against shields and very little damage against hull.
Remove the cool down between torpedo launchers, so that multiple torpedo launchers have a greater effect and maybe add something like a lock on feature for a greater firing arc and torpedoes would be on a good way, even without the additional weapon slot.
Hey Geek, give a torp boat a try right now for a day. I think you'll find it's a definite downgrade in effectiveness; even per the 'pros' slotting a single torp is a substantial decrease in damage output. I doubt this would cause all torp load-outs to displace energy ones unless there was also a torpedo buff alongside it.
I have tried a torp boat. I've got a B'rel Retrofit with the Enhanced Battle Cloak. I know of what you speak. It takes at least twice as long to kill anything and most of my actual damage is done through either sci skills or transphasics (which did get something of a buff).
Thing is, one torp by itself is not all that effective. Even a hint of shielding will blunt its' force and it's too easy to miss the timing and not get a clean hit. But if you effectively give everybody a "free" torpedo slot?
The real use for torps is for their secondary effects in addition to the coup de grace against unshielded hull. By adding a slot without taking one away, people would no longer be forced to choose between DPS and the punch of a torpedo.
I would certainly choose to mount a Breen transphasic cluster torp fore in addition to a standard torpedo of my chosen flavor and I would enjoy a significant boost in the effectiveness of my usual playstyle with zero repercussions. I wouldn't have to give up what I'd normally have to give up to have that cluster torp. It's a no-brainer. Others would probably slot 'Pengs or double up on their Tricobalt punch.
I'm not saying it's not a wonderful idea for those of us who like torps. I'm saying that it WILL affect game balance more than some are suggesting it will -- and if it doesn't, then why is it worth adding?
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I'm not saying it's not a wonderful idea for those of us who like torps. I'm saying that it WILL affect game balance more than some are suggesting it will -- and if it doesn't, then why is it worth adding?
For the foremost and main reason anything should be added to a game. For the fun of it, because it gives players something enjoyable. Being able to react those epic moments of having an enemy exposed, and that single torpedo arcing in gracefully for the deathblow on the single utterance of 'Fire.' without having to gimp your overall performance.
Alot of game-makers nowadays seem to forget the 'because it would be fun' aspect, I feel.
I use torpedoes without being forced, so this is a non-issue for me, but my heart wouldn't exactly weep for all the FAW beam boat and cannon/turret DPScort builds that would be "broken" by such a change. :rolleyes:
For the foremost and main reason anything should be added to a game. For the fun of it, because it gives players something enjoyable. Being able to react those epic moments of having an enemy exposed, and that single torpedo arcing in gracefully for the deathblow on the single utterance of 'Fire.' without having to gimp your overall performance.
Alot of game-makers nowadays seem to forget the 'because it would be fun' aspect, I feel.
But there's nothing stopping people from having that single torpedo ready to fire now...
It's really more power-creep in disguise, isn't it?
If they buff players' damage output, don't they then have to turn around and buff players' and NPCs' defenses?
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Hmm, if done right, I could see that work, especially on specific ships. "Artillery" isn't that bad an idea either, if you meant perhaps 15km slow firing AOE-blast-at-impact weapons.
I think lances should have their own "spinal" weapon slot.
By the way OP, this is a BRILLIANT idea. It's another dimension by which Cryptic can vary ship designs. We get better delineation between the main ship classes, and we get new possibilities for classes.
You could have a minelayer ship with 3x fore energy, 3x aft energy, 1x fore kinetic, 2x aft kinetic slots for instance.
The idea of 1 fore and aft torp slot for sci ships, 2 fore and 1 aft torp slot for cruisers and 2 fore torp slots for escorts is fine. The idea that the cruiser class torp slots were supped up torp slots is a hang up. I don't think a new specific type of torp launcher mimicking the dual heavy cannons is needed, I would simply add a few more torp slots to some of the ships. According to Memory Alpha the defiant class ships had at least 4 fore torp launchers and at least 2 aft torp launchers, the sovereign class had 16 phaser arrays and 4 fore torp slots and 6 aft slots.
I'm not saying to go with these hard point slots, but some of the ships could definitely benefit from having accurate or more close to accurate weapon placements. Galaxy class ships could get a lot of help from this as well. I'd think that fleet level ships could even gain an extra torp slot for use of either probes or torps.
Thanks everyone for the support and additional ideas.
I like the idea of diversifying the starships through this further. For example a ship might have more mine laying capacity, thus one fore, two aft slots.
Now that I think of it, in the recent Branflakes stream for STFs did anyone there use any torpedos? I stopped after the first few minutes of infected and in that time all I saw were beam boats and Bran's cannon andorian ship
there is literally no reason to oppose something like this, pretty much every cruiser/large ship in ST shows/movies had torpedoes, the fact torpedoes are bad in said ships is silly.
i would go further and say they should add 2 torpedo-only slots instead of one.
Personally, I'm mixed on a "dedicated" torp launcher hard-point. I can see both negatives & positives to it.
My main beef with torps, it makes NO sense, to have multiple lainchers sharing cooldowns, especially when they are two different types. Each would have it's own loading mechanisms, so why should firing a fore torp, mean the aft one is put on cooldown? Or even two fore? I mean, the launchers are taking up two separate slots, so why should they share cooldowns? That would be like having two energy weapons having to share a cooldown. One could argue the ammo feeds on the second situation, but then I could argue the energy feed and charging cycles as well.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Personally, I'm mixed on a "dedicated" torp launcher hard-point. I can see both negatives & positives to it.
My main beef with torps, it makes NO sense, to have multiple lainchers sharing cooldowns, especially when they are two different types. Each would have it's own loading mechanisms, so why should firing a fore torp, mean the aft one is put on cooldown? Or even two fore? I mean, the launchers are taking up two separate slots, so why should they share cooldowns? That would be like having two energy weapons having to share a cooldown. One could argue the ammo feeds on the second situation, but then I could argue the energy feed and charging cycles as well.
I guess there may be some worry about torpedoes being too good
I'm sure there's some internal worry at cryptic about torps replacing beams. That's why I propose the slot. You can't have it be one month everyone has 4/5 torps front, then all beam banks, then all 8 beam arrays then all cannons, etc.
If there are slots for energy and slots for torps then we don't have to worry about more this than this, rather then it becomes "are there too many plasma torps" etc. Instead of torps at all, or not.
I guess there may be some worry about torpedoes being too good
I'm sure there's some internal worry at cryptic about torps replacing beams. That's why I propose the slot. You can't have it be one month everyone has 4/5 torps front, then all beam banks, then all 8 beam arrays then all cannons, etc.
If there are slots for energy and slots for torps then we don't have to worry about more this than this, rather then it becomes "are there too many plasma torps" etc. Instead of torps at all, or not.
It is not necessarily an improvement to have torpedoes have an advantage over energy weapons (as appropiate as it might be in the Trek setting). Thing seems to be that those who have all-energy boats tend to have an "I got mine" mindset when it comes to any weapon adjustment proposals.
I have several characters that do not have torpedoes. The ones that do have torpedoes feel handicapped in some ways. I keep them on there because some starships just feel wrong without them. As a Star Trek game, not "space pew pew online", setting and immersion should be a consideration factor.
Another idea just occured to me where the torpedo slot thing might be a good idea.
Sure torps do damage and so when we pick them now we only think of which will do the best of damage, levaing out some others in the cold.
With a torp slot, someone not particularly torpedo focused can still provide some utility or secondary damage. Transphasics and Chronitons for example are fairly (or extremly) under utilized due to their low damage. As a secondary supplament to energy damage their secondary effects like shield penetration or slowing a target could come more in handy.
Also tricobalts, one could keep them on standby for a big punch and still have their beams or cannons doing most of the work.
This slot would also justify the extra expense of projectile training and specialization. At present just about all characters need energy training, no matter the role. This would at the very least make the skill points required to boost projectiles worthwhile instead of a total loss that could go somewhere else.
It is not necessarily an improvement to have torpedoes have an advantage over energy weapons (as appropiate as it might be in the Trek setting). Thing seems to be that those who have all-energy boats tend to have an "I got mine" mindset when it comes to any weapon adjustment proposals.
I have several characters that do not have torpedoes. The ones that do have torpedoes feel handicapped in some ways. I keep them on there because some starships just feel wrong without them. As a Star Trek game, not "space pew pew online", setting and immersion should be a consideration factor.
Lol, good for you. When I build up my ships, I kind of go for a combo of "what seems to work", and "what will be fun to use, based on what I am flying". I'm glad to see that not everyone out there is concerned with merely "min/maxing" their ships, but honestly trying to have fun.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
However, even given that, my initial testing of the concept was so unsatisfactory that I was forced to drop my torpedos in favor of beam arrays or cannons/turrets (depending on the ship in question).
Basically, I preferred to have one torpedo launcher in a fore position, one in an aft position, so I could fire the torpedo relevant to the target's relative position.
But doing so reduced my available firepower, prolonging the battle extensively.
At a rough guess, I'm sacrificing 20% of my offensive capability for two weapons that can be only used peroidically.
When I created my Romulan character, I put zero points in Torpedo skills, just because I knew from experience I'd never be using them anyway.
Lately, I've been finding ways to fire projectiles that rely more on consoles or set bonuses, so I get a projectile without having to sacrifice weapon slots.
The Voth Depth Charge Launcher is my favorite, a console that fires a series of explosive charges.
Also, in terms of canon weapon loadouts, I always found the idea of universal weapon slots annoying.
Beam Arrays and Torpedo launchers were seperate independent systems, they weren't linked at all.
But if we were given a projectile launcher specific slot (one for fore and one for aft), I'd immediately dust off my torpedo launchers and put them back into my ship.
In point of fact, even though my ships don't have torpedos, I've made sure that they have the skills Torpedo Spread and High Yield Torpedo, just in case.
The only escort I can recall with an aft torpedo launcher is the Defiant, it has a single aft torpedo launcher to fire at targets behind it.
Bees like honey, they don't like vinegar.
Everytime someone makes a character that is an copy of an existing superhuman, Creativity is sad
the only error in your theory is that if the give us a say a dedicated rear launcher slot they would most likely remove one of the rear weapons slots, after all if the did not remove one they would be effectively adding an extra weapon slot and this would upset the balance of power between player controlled ships and ncp ships, and people are complaining now that the game is too easy, think how much easier it would be if you had an extra launcher slot.
then what about forward launcher should there not be forward launcher also.
then there are players who would say well if we have a dedicated launcher slot why haven't we got a dedicated phaser slot after all phasers on a ship are a constant, everyday part of the Star Trek.
this could result in the loss of one or even two slots after all you defiantly should have forward phasers but then you should probably have aft phasers also.
so little by little you would be taking the choices of weapons configs away from the players.
especially restrictive on low tier ships and shuttles that have few weapons slots to start with.
if you want torps theres nothing stopping you adding them to all your existing ships in the universal slots provided but others might prefer alternative set ups.
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
1. Torpedoes are a constant, everyday part of the Star Trek setting, yet "boating" as a tactic is rather hard to compete with in this game, even with equipment set bonuses that supposedly encourage it. One torpedo means one less energy weapon which to most min-maxers is a bad thing.
If torpedoes had a slot of their own, their use, even if not necessarily favored or emphasized, would now be part of the overall weapon use and rotation of each ship. I can imagine some synergies being formulated where certain energy weapons and certain torpedo weapons work well together.
2. Cryptic could introduce new special mechanics to the "launcher" slot, such as probes for science vessels that prefer to have utility instead of extra fire power. Imagine launcher slots fitted with science devices that did new kinds of debuffs to the enemy, or even did old ones remotely (like a true sensor probe that sensor scans upon impact or in a small AOE)
I can also imagine this torpedo slot being used both fore and aft, as in sharing the same cooldown yet different trajectories. In addition, I can imagine some ships having a second launcher slot (such as, perhaps, the Armitage).
3. This proposal would add more variety and more choices to this game, which is almost always a good thing. Boaters could still emphasize energy weapons but now have a little extra something they are free to ignore. Torpedo enthusiasts wont feel as marginalized.
Like the warp cores, this could add to the complexity of the game and to the design of overall builds.
Thanks for reading. If you like it, pass it on. If not, flame away, presumably at broadside angle with 8 arrays. :P
I know I'm a bit late to this party but I wanted to dig into this idea.
1st what would be the launcher ratio. That is currently we have so many weapon slots on ships now, will they all remain the same for ships and add the new launcher slot or would you remove some energy weapon slots from ships for these launchers?
2nd I love the idea of adding new equipment that can be launched such as probes.
3rd I agree it would add a bit of a new feel. What I would really like to have if this was introduced is that things like mines and torps be a consumable. The launcher system would allow us to launch the item with the effect listed but the actual expended item is infact expended.
If they added launcher slots you have to figure a system that doesn't drastically change the face of space combat.
If you keep current weapon slots that are on ships now then adding 2 fore launcher to a 5 fore weapon ship makes a big impact on combat.
What about the wide spread launcher how Will that be impacted from this concept?
3rd I agree it would add a bit of a new feel. What I would really like to have if this was introduced is that things like mines and torps be a consumable. The launcher system would allow us to launch the item with the effect listed but the actual expended item is infact expended.
If they added launcher slots you have to figure a system that doesn't drastically change the face of space combat.
Seems to me like adding a "must carry sufficient ammunition" requirement to one weapon type would change the face of space combat quite drastically. Just a thought...
Seems to me like adding a "must carry sufficient ammunition" requirement to one weapon type would change the face of space combat quite drastically. Just a thought...
Yes but I ment that as a trade off for keeping energy weapon slots as is and adding a couple launcher slots
Now don't get me wrong. I favor Torpedoes. My Fleet Excelsior brings 2 forward and 1 aft Quantum launcher in every fight. My Mogai has a Hyper Plasma on front. My science char flies with a Bio-Neural Warhead. And so on.
Still, a dedicated Torpedo slot? No.
First of all, "its canon" isn't a good argument in STO. As much as I am a trekkie, this game does not have a lot of canon coming to their ships. If we force torpedoes on ships because "its canon", that will take us close to the step of putting phaser weapons on all fed ships, and beam arrays on Defiants (most notably, that Mirror DS9 episode introducing the I.S.S. Defiant phasering that Alliance Negh'Var). And do we want that?
Secondly, what I love most about ship building is the choices you get. Its entirely up to the player what to do with his ship. Like I said, I fly a Fleet Excelsior with 2 forward torpedo launchers. Why? Because I just love to pound torpedoes at unshielded stuff. Do I want a far more effective Aux2Bat build when I have the perfect ship for that? No. Why? Because I don't want to be forced in going full broadside.
I can see that you are proposing a way of making torpedoes more common, but the solution isn't there. What the game needs is more functionability for spike damage. A well aimed Quantum spread is still very useful at Khitomer probes, but to fire that against Donatra, not so useful. The problem isnt with Torpedoes or with the players, its with the way hostiles force us to use other weapon styles.
That being said, love your science probe launcher idea! To give science vessels a dedicated Probe Launcher slot would be a great thing! But not after that Secondary Deflector Array.
I actually do like the idea of this being an added option. How I would like to see it done is...
All Cruisers should be outfitted with 4 fore/4 aft energy weapons, 2 fore/2 aft launchers.
All Escorts should be outfitted with 4 fore/3 aft energy weapons, 2 fore/2 aft launchers.
All Science should be outfitted with 3 fore/3 aft energy weapons, 2 fore 2 aft launchers.
All Carriers should be outfitted with 3 fore/3 aft enrgy weapons, 2 fore 1 aft launchers.
All Raiders/Destroyers should be outfitted with 5 fore/2 aft energy weapons, 2 fore/1 aft launchers.
All Small Craft should be outfitted with 1 fore/1 aft energy, 1 fore launcher.
Energy is depleated by using systems and firing weapons during combat lowing effectiveness of energy weapons. Energy weapons currently inplace are proper and should stay as is.
Launchers give a ship the ability to load torpedos, mines, missiles, probes and the like. The launcher itself should use the current model of launcher in game except the type.
Such that a Photon Torpedo Launcher Mk V [Acc] [Dmg] now would be listed as Torpedo Launcher Mk V [Acc] [Dmg]. Launcher systems hold the buffs and bonuses that are on current launchers.
Torpedos and mines would simply be listed as Photon Torpedo or Plasma Mines. They would come in stacks of 250 and would be slotted next to the Launcher system on the ship status page. The device type itself would hold the values that are currently listed on the Launcher description. Yield, CD and secondary effect are all part of the device.
If this should get implemented all reputation launchers should be non consumable due to the price of replacing them unless you have some other consumable torp mechanic in mind so one would have to replace the torps but not the launcher?
OP, what about dedicated Torpedo Boats? 1 torp launcher does not make a dedciated torp boat (and nevermind the side fact of weird torpedo damage mechanics in STO).
If this should get implemented all reputation launchers should be non consumable due to the price of replacing them unless you have some other consumable torp mechanic in mind so one would have to replace the torps but not the launcher?
I debated this but I think with the rep system you could actually get a launcher and access to a consumable as well. I would tweek the launchers a bit and then add a rep task to get the actual torps.
So you wouln't lose a set bonus on the Laucher and you would be able to restock the special launched devices through th rep
The only launch items I see as needing to be indef ammo are the specials from lockbox ships and currently the Lobi items though I am thinkng they could also be consumables and you would just rebuy them (very cheep) from the Lobi store.
Comments
Adding warp cores had to be a coding challenge. But now that it's done, changing the weapon system might be no more difficult and perhaps easier.
Boating is dull and anything to encourage less boating generally leads to a healthier chemistry of builds. Look at Mechwarrior Online: all its downswings have been because of "bring a lot of a single weapon" builds dominating and boring people out of the game.
Look at the typical starfleet cruiser saucer. Lets say there are four phaser strip hard-points on it, one each for fore, aft, port and starboard. By locking them to beam array, you get the classical starfleet firing pattern with a single beam firing from the nearest phaser strip, and disallow having cannons mounted on the side for op broadsides. Then you might add a "light energy weapon" hard-point on the saucer that can mount another beam or a DBB or a cannon or something like that, while a dreadnought might bget a "heavy energy weapon" hard-point that can mount a lance or something.
Where projectile weapons to great damage against hull and very little damage against shields, make energy weapons make great damage against shields and very little damage against hull.
Remove the cool down between torpedo launchers, so that multiple torpedo launchers have a greater effect and maybe add something like a lock on feature for a greater firing arc and torpedoes would be on a good way, even without the additional weapon slot.
I have tried a torp boat. I've got a B'rel Retrofit with the Enhanced Battle Cloak. I know of what you speak. It takes at least twice as long to kill anything and most of my actual damage is done through either sci skills or transphasics (which did get something of a buff).
Thing is, one torp by itself is not all that effective. Even a hint of shielding will blunt its' force and it's too easy to miss the timing and not get a clean hit. But if you effectively give everybody a "free" torpedo slot?
The real use for torps is for their secondary effects in addition to the coup de grace against unshielded hull. By adding a slot without taking one away, people would no longer be forced to choose between DPS and the punch of a torpedo.
I would certainly choose to mount a Breen transphasic cluster torp fore in addition to a standard torpedo of my chosen flavor and I would enjoy a significant boost in the effectiveness of my usual playstyle with zero repercussions. I wouldn't have to give up what I'd normally have to give up to have that cluster torp. It's a no-brainer. Others would probably slot 'Pengs or double up on their Tricobalt punch.
I'm not saying it's not a wonderful idea for those of us who like torps. I'm saying that it WILL affect game balance more than some are suggesting it will -- and if it doesn't, then why is it worth adding?
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
For the foremost and main reason anything should be added to a game. For the fun of it, because it gives players something enjoyable. Being able to react those epic moments of having an enemy exposed, and that single torpedo arcing in gracefully for the deathblow on the single utterance of 'Fire.' without having to gimp your overall performance.
Alot of game-makers nowadays seem to forget the 'because it would be fun' aspect, I feel.
But there's nothing stopping people from having that single torpedo ready to fire now...
It's really more power-creep in disguise, isn't it?
If they buff players' damage output, don't they then have to turn around and buff players' and NPCs' defenses?
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I think lances should have their own "spinal" weapon slot.
By the way OP, this is a BRILLIANT idea. It's another dimension by which Cryptic can vary ship designs. We get better delineation between the main ship classes, and we get new possibilities for classes.
You could have a minelayer ship with 3x fore energy, 3x aft energy, 1x fore kinetic, 2x aft kinetic slots for instance.
Given recent practices I would say "have" is the wrong word, "should" would be better given how they don't seem to be doing it
I'm not saying to go with these hard point slots, but some of the ships could definitely benefit from having accurate or more close to accurate weapon placements. Galaxy class ships could get a lot of help from this as well. I'd think that fleet level ships could even gain an extra torp slot for use of either probes or torps.
This thread is a great overall idea!
I like the idea of diversifying the starships through this further. For example a ship might have more mine laying capacity, thus one fore, two aft slots.
i would go further and say they should add 2 torpedo-only slots instead of one.
My main beef with torps, it makes NO sense, to have multiple lainchers sharing cooldowns, especially when they are two different types. Each would have it's own loading mechanisms, so why should firing a fore torp, mean the aft one is put on cooldown? Or even two fore? I mean, the launchers are taking up two separate slots, so why should they share cooldowns? That would be like having two energy weapons having to share a cooldown. One could argue the ammo feeds on the second situation, but then I could argue the energy feed and charging cycles as well.
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
I guess there may be some worry about torpedoes being too good
I'm sure there's some internal worry at cryptic about torps replacing beams. That's why I propose the slot. You can't have it be one month everyone has 4/5 torps front, then all beam banks, then all 8 beam arrays then all cannons, etc.
If there are slots for energy and slots for torps then we don't have to worry about more this than this, rather then it becomes "are there too many plasma torps" etc. Instead of torps at all, or not.
It is not necessarily an improvement to have torpedoes have an advantage over energy weapons (as appropiate as it might be in the Trek setting). Thing seems to be that those who have all-energy boats tend to have an "I got mine" mindset when it comes to any weapon adjustment proposals.
I have several characters that do not have torpedoes. The ones that do have torpedoes feel handicapped in some ways. I keep them on there because some starships just feel wrong without them. As a Star Trek game, not "space pew pew online", setting and immersion should be a consideration factor.
Sure torps do damage and so when we pick them now we only think of which will do the best of damage, levaing out some others in the cold.
With a torp slot, someone not particularly torpedo focused can still provide some utility or secondary damage. Transphasics and Chronitons for example are fairly (or extremly) under utilized due to their low damage. As a secondary supplament to energy damage their secondary effects like shield penetration or slowing a target could come more in handy.
Also tricobalts, one could keep them on standby for a big punch and still have their beams or cannons doing most of the work.
Lol, good for you. When I build up my ships, I kind of go for a combo of "what seems to work", and "what will be fun to use, based on what I am flying". I'm glad to see that not everyone out there is concerned with merely "min/maxing" their ships, but honestly trying to have fun.
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
I am very fond of torpedos.
However, even given that, my initial testing of the concept was so unsatisfactory that I was forced to drop my torpedos in favor of beam arrays or cannons/turrets (depending on the ship in question).
Basically, I preferred to have one torpedo launcher in a fore position, one in an aft position, so I could fire the torpedo relevant to the target's relative position.
But doing so reduced my available firepower, prolonging the battle extensively.
At a rough guess, I'm sacrificing 20% of my offensive capability for two weapons that can be only used peroidically.
When I created my Romulan character, I put zero points in Torpedo skills, just because I knew from experience I'd never be using them anyway.
Lately, I've been finding ways to fire projectiles that rely more on consoles or set bonuses, so I get a projectile without having to sacrifice weapon slots.
The Voth Depth Charge Launcher is my favorite, a console that fires a series of explosive charges.
Also, in terms of canon weapon loadouts, I always found the idea of universal weapon slots annoying.
Beam Arrays and Torpedo launchers were seperate independent systems, they weren't linked at all.
But if we were given a projectile launcher specific slot (one for fore and one for aft), I'd immediately dust off my torpedo launchers and put them back into my ship.
In point of fact, even though my ships don't have torpedos, I've made sure that they have the skills Torpedo Spread and High Yield Torpedo, just in case.
The only escort I can recall with an aft torpedo launcher is the Defiant, it has a single aft torpedo launcher to fire at targets behind it.
Bees like honey, they don't like vinegar.
Everytime someone makes a character that is an copy of an existing superhuman, Creativity is sad
then what about forward launcher should there not be forward launcher also.
then there are players who would say well if we have a dedicated launcher slot why haven't we got a dedicated phaser slot after all phasers on a ship are a constant, everyday part of the Star Trek.
this could result in the loss of one or even two slots after all you defiantly should have forward phasers but then you should probably have aft phasers also.
so little by little you would be taking the choices of weapons configs away from the players.
especially restrictive on low tier ships and shuttles that have few weapons slots to start with.
if you want torps theres nothing stopping you adding them to all your existing ships in the universal slots provided but others might prefer alternative set ups.
When I think about everything we've been through together,
maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,
and if that journey takes a little longer,
so we can do something we all believe in,
I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
I know I'm a bit late to this party but I wanted to dig into this idea.
1st what would be the launcher ratio. That is currently we have so many weapon slots on ships now, will they all remain the same for ships and add the new launcher slot or would you remove some energy weapon slots from ships for these launchers?
2nd I love the idea of adding new equipment that can be launched such as probes.
3rd I agree it would add a bit of a new feel. What I would really like to have if this was introduced is that things like mines and torps be a consumable. The launcher system would allow us to launch the item with the effect listed but the actual expended item is infact expended.
If they added launcher slots you have to figure a system that doesn't drastically change the face of space combat.
If you keep current weapon slots that are on ships now then adding 2 fore launcher to a 5 fore weapon ship makes a big impact on combat.
What about the wide spread launcher how Will that be impacted from this concept?
Seems to me like adding a "must carry sufficient ammunition" requirement to one weapon type would change the face of space combat quite drastically. Just a thought...
Yes but I ment that as a trade off for keeping energy weapon slots as is and adding a couple launcher slots
Still, a dedicated Torpedo slot? No.
First of all, "its canon" isn't a good argument in STO. As much as I am a trekkie, this game does not have a lot of canon coming to their ships. If we force torpedoes on ships because "its canon", that will take us close to the step of putting phaser weapons on all fed ships, and beam arrays on Defiants (most notably, that Mirror DS9 episode introducing the I.S.S. Defiant phasering that Alliance Negh'Var). And do we want that?
Secondly, what I love most about ship building is the choices you get. Its entirely up to the player what to do with his ship. Like I said, I fly a Fleet Excelsior with 2 forward torpedo launchers. Why? Because I just love to pound torpedoes at unshielded stuff. Do I want a far more effective Aux2Bat build when I have the perfect ship for that? No. Why? Because I don't want to be forced in going full broadside.
I can see that you are proposing a way of making torpedoes more common, but the solution isn't there. What the game needs is more functionability for spike damage. A well aimed Quantum spread is still very useful at Khitomer probes, but to fire that against Donatra, not so useful. The problem isnt with Torpedoes or with the players, its with the way hostiles force us to use other weapon styles.
That being said, love your science probe launcher idea! To give science vessels a dedicated Probe Launcher slot would be a great thing! But not after that Secondary Deflector Array.
Join the Deltas today!
All Cruisers should be outfitted with 4 fore/4 aft energy weapons, 2 fore/2 aft launchers.
All Escorts should be outfitted with 4 fore/3 aft energy weapons, 2 fore/2 aft launchers.
All Science should be outfitted with 3 fore/3 aft energy weapons, 2 fore 2 aft launchers.
All Carriers should be outfitted with 3 fore/3 aft enrgy weapons, 2 fore 1 aft launchers.
All Raiders/Destroyers should be outfitted with 5 fore/2 aft energy weapons, 2 fore/1 aft launchers.
All Small Craft should be outfitted with 1 fore/1 aft energy, 1 fore launcher.
Energy is depleated by using systems and firing weapons during combat lowing effectiveness of energy weapons. Energy weapons currently inplace are proper and should stay as is.
Launchers give a ship the ability to load torpedos, mines, missiles, probes and the like. The launcher itself should use the current model of launcher in game except the type.
Such that a Photon Torpedo Launcher Mk V [Acc] [Dmg] now would be listed as Torpedo Launcher Mk V [Acc] [Dmg]. Launcher systems hold the buffs and bonuses that are on current launchers.
Torpedos and mines would simply be listed as Photon Torpedo or Plasma Mines. They would come in stacks of 250 and would be slotted next to the Launcher system on the ship status page. The device type itself would hold the values that are currently listed on the Launcher description. Yield, CD and secondary effect are all part of the device.
Consumable devices available should be:
- Photon
- Quantum
- Plasma
- Transphasic
- Chroniton
- Chroniton Flux
- Breen Transphasic Cluster
- Tractor Beam Mines
- Tricbalt
- Hargh'peng
- Bio-Molecular Warhead
- Romulan Hyper-Plasma
- Omega
Non Consumed devices available should be:- Bio-Neural
- Thermionic
Additional launcher items includeIf this should get implemented all reputation launchers should be non consumable due to the price of replacing them unless you have some other consumable torp mechanic in mind so one would have to replace the torps but not the launcher?
I debated this but I think with the rep system you could actually get a launcher and access to a consumable as well. I would tweek the launchers a bit and then add a rep task to get the actual torps.
So you wouln't lose a set bonus on the Laucher and you would be able to restock the special launched devices through th rep
The only launch items I see as needing to be indef ammo are the specials from lockbox ships and currently the Lobi items though I am thinkng they could also be consumables and you would just rebuy them (very cheep) from the Lobi store.