+1. No way am I going to let this epic comment die in that closed thread.
PS: Fire at will is canon. Cpt. Janeway of Voyager ordered Kim, on many occasions, to defend the ship against Kazon/Hirogen etc with fire at will. So...
"Fire at Will" in every (there weren't many) usage in Trek was just a way of telling the tactical officer to continue firing without waiting for further orders. This would be equivalent to the naval term "Fire as she comes to bear". It never turned any starship into a Disco Ball.
Oh, and I was gonna copy Antonios post here too, you beat me to it.
When the "no-crits" bug hit, I stopped using FAW on my FAHCR because it left me vulnerable. No-crit = no T4 placate = no jamming spikey escorts. So I dropped the power, especially during 1v1 matches.
The net result was a huge fall-off in potency. At one point I lost a dozen straight matches to a player (well known escort pilot with both Rommie and Klink toons) who, in the past, I likely would have beaten more often than not. However, without crits, FAW was useless. Its "rapid fire" benefits against a single target were lost because it meant opening a placate-free window for sustained bombardment from that same target (again, no crit = no placate). I did my best but, as the matches dragged, the outcome became inevitable.
Now FAW is back and, as expected, the tables have turned. This same player and I went at it 4 times in Ker'rat last night, and each time I prevailed (though barely - he's very spikey). And it was FAW, along with all those critical hits and resulting STA jams, that allowed me to survive long enough to grind him into space dust.
Bottom Line: For cruisers like mine, FAW is *the* difference between potency and punching-bag status.
I understand where you're coming from, but answer this. In a 1v1 situation, why should a very inexpensive BOFF ability basically double your DPS?
Scimi's are reportedly hitting 50-60k+ SUSTAINABLE DPS in raw tests (no resists). This wouldn't be possible without FAW, and shouldn't be possible with it. They need to return the 135 hard cap on subsystem power levels. Eliminate overcapping completely. Yes, there is more going on than just overcapping, but it's at the very heart of the problem. Power Drain is supposed to be the tradeoff for less damage fall of at distance and a larger firing arc for beams. The game shouldn't allow anyone to constantly ignore that mechanic because of a broken system. In 2011, power levels over 135 were declared a bug, in 2013, the same bug was declared (with an out) WAD. You know what? Husanak is right, just remove FAW and give beams a rapid fire ability.
You know what? Husanak is right, just remove FAW and give beams a rapid fire ability.
I would happily trade FAW (or nerf it somehow) for a BRF capability. That's all I'm looking for in a beam buff - something to allow me to put more pressure dmg on a single target in 1v1 matches.
+1. No way am I going to let this epic comment die in that closed thread.
PS: Fire at will is canon. Cpt. Janeway of Voyager ordered Kim, on many occasions, to defend the ship against Kazon/Hirogen etc with fire at will. So...
Voyager is soft canon. :P lol
Thanks for reposting.
They put the Harry Kim maneuver in the game to... the devs love that kid.
They need to call up Garrett Wang he can't be that busy right now... they should hire him to do academy PvP training missions. He can teach the proper use of Fire at will and how to use his console properly to escape evil hirogen and undine.
I would happily trade FAW (or nerf it somehow) for a BRF capability. That's all I'm looking for in a beam buff - something to allow me to put more pressure dmg on a single target in 1v1 matches.
RCK
It would make you happy for 1v1s... it would give people wanting to make hard hitting beam builds not seem crazy. (or more like get called faw cheese heads all day)
It would however solve the issue of 3-4 people running the aoe faw and trashing anything and anything in times faster then the UI lag would even allow a counter to engage. Indirectly I also believe it would help Cryptic define the healer role that engi should be filling more often.
I have some hope that SOME people at Cryptic understand that. If anyone has played with the new deflector you will notice, they have set it up so that teams will not be able to stack the new drians on people. Its a debuff that doesn't stack. Its perfect... they doubled the drain from CPB from one target... but 2 users popping is only = to 3... and on the crazy end 5 people using CPB would be like 6 with the new defelector... because it doesn't stack.
Its time to go over the old abilities like FAW and realize the same issues apply to a skill that so easily targets everything an anyone in arc.
Yes I know that Spread and Scatter are also AOES.... however the issue doesn't exist in the same way due to much more limited arcs on both those skills.
If FAW had to exist for Cryptic to be happy at least it should have a cone style arc based of a TARGETED enemy exactly as scatter works.
Really though I would say beam rapid fire honestly makes more sense to me. I like the idea of beams being the Scalpel weapons. Super accurate (which is why they have the lowest range drop off)... and are able to target subs. Having the same weapon also be the ultimate AOE weapon seems sort of odd.
fact just ask any pve'er in any stf. ask seith since he is also a panda as well as a risa member:)
@antoniosalieri, i remember back in the day faw used to target 1 ship. do i remember that correctly or was it something else that was going on?
if faw did target 1 ship you had selected i think that would be better. they would need to rework it ofc. but i still like to see faw as aoe and another faw as a 1 target function. i just dont see what all the gripe is about. i cant blame faw for the massive dps it can do. not when we have rep passives/traits. what ever you want to call them. not when its became rom online. rom bridge officers ect. that alone makes a huge difference. now every rom player will go pure critd tact consoles. thats huge man.
a regular fed/kdf toon needs 3 cith tact and 2 critd tact consoles and still cant keep up with what roms can do.
so you need to understand that thats what im looking at and how i relate it to faw. the dps we see atm with faw, well my fleet ran pure bug ships in a premade with faw before it really became popular today. we parsed it. then when roms came out we put it all together and knew rage post coming to forums.
i have the attitude that power creep is here. get over it, or find a real pvp game and play sto for pve. this has been said to me and i agree with it. you cant fix this system. cryptic put themselves into a corner this time. they cant just dig out of it with out making 99.9% of the rom player base mad. that would be a bait and switch. companies can get sued for stuff like that.
and players have their own idea of how they should change faw. thats just "player view". sorry but they cant just change mechanics on "player view". they fixed faw a while back. they let faw take advantage of beam mods. im sure everyone here remembers me cursing out hilbert in opvp for showing the devs how it was not taking acc and other mods into account. well now you all know why. that was the start of faw getting another come back. then was power over capping, and rep traits/passives. its like you can see whats going to happen.
the way i see it, cryptic tries to balance everything with rep passives/traits. so they add this much crit, the next skill will be hull reist. that is just a stupid system to be honest.
I understand where you're coming from, but answer this. In a 1v1 situation, why should a very inexpensive BOFF ability basically double your DPS?
Scimi's are reportedly hitting 50-60k+ SUSTAINABLE DPS in raw tests (no resists). This wouldn't be possible without FAW, and shouldn't be possible with it. They need to return the 135 hard cap on subsystem power levels. Eliminate overcapping completely. Yes, there is more going on than just overcapping, but it's at the very heart of the problem. Power Drain is supposed to be the tradeoff for less damage fall of at distance and a larger firing arc for beams. The game shouldn't allow anyone to constantly ignore that mechanic because of a broken system. In 2011, power levels over 135 were declared a bug, in 2013, the same bug was declared (with an out) WAD. You know what? Husanak is right, just remove FAW and give beams a rapid fire ability.
/this
A tiny aoe skill should not do highest dps compared to other damage skills that are supposed to do that. And if it only was the problem that faw only in pve leaded to these results because of the missing npc resists, ok, then it wouldnt be such a big deal. But faw also is a big deal in pvp against resisted and healing players. I dont wana say you have to pvp. And i dont wanna say it only has to be changed for pvp. But i wanna say that a skill that leads to highest dps numbers in the game, in pve AND pvp (depends on teamsetups etc, there are few teams that impressively show that) has to get a change to make sure it is in line again with all the other dmg skills ! And atm it in fact is not and has been a problem for moths and years now. Plz do something cryptic and give us the possibility to stop discussing the faw issue one day because its fixed/solved/changed. That would be great .
You know this stuff ain't working right, supa bosted plz nerf... Im seeing complaints all over the place. Anyways, it's all just noise to me. Im just wondering though, why u go ahead and use it the queues? I mean srly.
Personally I don't care, use whatever you feel like. But if you complain about it, don't use it. Be an example and please play the god fuccin' game.
In most cases, different people. PvPers are not unified.
On a different note, here is a different way of thinking about if FaW is OP or not:
Question 01. What is the average hull of ships?
40-50K?
Question 02. What is FaW DPS up to right now?
40-50K and in some cases even more....
Question 03. If you want to make PvP accessible to more people, does this help?
Not at all
Question 04. Would any changes to PvP made by Cryptic in the near future help if FAW is left as is?
Not really - all other classes of captains and ships would be obsolete
Question 05. Would it be financially sound for Cryptic to invest in PvP if the end result would be AOE super fast killing and nobody queuing anymore for PvP?
I wouldn't invest my money there
Question 06. Are Cryptic going to address this issue?
Not likely unless we demonstrate it in a subjective manner
Different line of questioning:
Was FaW bareable pre Crit fix in PvP this week?
My opinion is I think it was.
FaW was suppression damage almost bordering on AoE kill damage. Kill damage only if the opponent slipped up or didn't know what was happening. Wasn't nerfed enough to be useless but at the same time wasn't powerful enough to make any other damage dealer type irrelevant in PvP.
On a different note, here is a different way of thinking about if FaW is OP or not:
Question 01. What is the average hull of ships?
40-50K?
Question 02. What is FaW DPS up to right now?
40-50K and in some cases even more....
Question 03. If you want to make PvP accessible to more people, does this help?
Not at all
Question 04. Would any changes to PvP made by Cryptic in the near future help if FAW is left as is?
Not really - all other classes of captains and ships would be obsolete
Question 05. Would it be financially sound for Cryptic to invest in PvP if the end result would be AOE super fast killing and nobody queuing anymore for PvP?
I wouldn't invent my money there
Question 06. Are Cryptic going to address this issue?
Not likely unless we demonstrate it in a subjective manner
Different line of questioning:
Was FaW bareable pre Crit fix in PvP this week?
My opinion is I think it was.
FaW was suppression damage almost bordering on AoE kill damage. Kill damage only if the opponent slipped up or didn't know what was happening. Wasn't nerfed enough to be useless but at the same time wasn't powerful enough to make any other damage dealer type irrelevant in PvP.
That sounds balanced to me.
Pretty much this. Now make the Devs take a look at this.
this is not trolling at all. i still belive faw is doing fake damage. now yes with even a 3 man faw team it does count to a degree. can even see that in NWS. but all i hear about is dem a2b faw hax:mad:
has anyone even tryed a 5 man csv build? NO. why? thats aoe as well. same mechanic as how faw work but with an arc. so i ask everyone this. try to come up with a power house build like people did with faw and then compare the numbers. i know it will come up a bit short. question is by how much? also how are people posting on faw? is it numbers? score screen? cause i can make my wells look like awesome sauce and out score any faw spammer with gw3 and 2 cd doffs and an after shock doff. on a parser its going to show that the damage means TRIBBLE since its not going to get the kills.
so really the drama needs to stop till you try to debunk faw the best you can by trying to beef up csv the best you can. then compare the out come. till then stop trying foul when no one has even done a proper test.
The real probleme with FAW is the DPS , i mean on single target its ok i dont see a probleme , but on multiple target it do 3 x more domage
I did a test with 4 friends , i told them to use only tac team ..
Exemple : Scimitar with ambush , Attack Patern Omega 3 , Attack Paturn Afla 3 , Emergency Power to Weapon 3 , weapon batterie with 2 boost doff (+20% domage ) , Tactical Fleet 2, Tactical Team 1 , Directed Energy Modulation 1 and Fire At Will 3
see this is what i mean by my post. 1v1 faw is not that bad. add in more targets see the numbers generate. and this is called fake damage. just link is a moron. im not looking to get into 5 man faw teams. trying to keep this at base a bit. but i know people want real world results.
so thats my challenge to the posters that complain about faw. can they get csv just as good in a 5 man team like a 5 man faw team can.
this is not trolling at all. i still belive faw is doing fake damage. now yes with even a 3 man faw team it does count to a degree. can even see that in NWS. but all i hear about is dem a2b faw hax:mad:
has anyone even tryed a 5 man csv build? NO. why? thats aoe as well. same mechanic as how faw work but with an arc. so i ask everyone this. try to come up with a power house build like people did with faw and then compare the numbers. i know it will come up a bit short. question is by how much? also how are people posting on faw? is it numbers? score screen? cause i can make my wells look like awesome sauce and out score any faw spammer with gw3 and 2 cd doffs and an after shock doff. on a parser its going to show that the damage means TRIBBLE since its not going to get the kills.
so really the drama needs to stop till you try to debunk faw the best you can by trying to beef up csv the best you can. then compare the out come. till then stop trying foul when no one has even done a proper test.
I'll bring a 5 man FaW Scimi team Vs your 5 man CSV team - Lets see the results buddy afterwards....
aldo i think you missed my point here. but if your so sure of yourself ill try to get people to help with this test. it will be hard as you know. but i ask that we keep this as base as possible. no cloaking?
reason i ask that is it gets no where. we can all cloak. nothing against cloak. just if you think faw is that good then you dont need it correct?
Here's an easier test. Can your 5 man CSV team finish ISE in under 3 min? If so you may be on to something.
i have no clue to be honest. but this is my point. no 1 has tryed to beef up csv to a point like they did with faw. to me that would be a good test. aside from the back round mechanics of faw such as over capping ect blab blab blab
i would love to see the same thought generated into csv. like i said i know the end results would not be as good as faw due to some things. but how far off will it be is my point. no one has tryed. if they did they never posted to back up their claim that faw and all the stuff goes with it is op.
my point that no one has ever tryed to debunk faw. so again people made claims with out even doing a proper test.
as far as your ISE test in theory sure why not? its still aoe thats not really lost since every player is using aoe as well. thats why 5man faw teams work so well. they dont really have a dps loss. since the 5 men are hitting every target. the same can be said about csv.
really 1 or 2 faw spammers dont really seem to matter at all in pvp or pve. they generate lost dps. but a 5 man team that sticks together will not lose any dps.
this should hold true as well for a 5 man csv team. maybe not have nice power over capping keeping 125 on cannons. but we all hear that does not matter since the recharge rate is so high on dhc correct? well this would be a nice test for that as well.
also another thought is this will also show in the parser if dhc recharge rate is really as good as we all say it is. it will show up.
i have no clue to be honest. but this is my point. no 1 has tryed to beef up csv to a point like they did with faw. to me that would be a good test.
.
there is no need, faw is superior. And this is why:
1st: with faw you dont need a firing arc, thats is enought, having many enemies in the CSV arc and keep them the full duration of the CSV is almost imposible.
2nd: DEM dosn't work in the same way with CSV, is far more usefull with beams because the firing circles.
3th: Overcap in cannons is useless
4th: CSV3 requires cmd tactical, faw3 a lt. commander (thats is big deal cause u want to have the commander eng for the DEM3)
and to make claims with out proving it are not fact. its more fiction then anything else.
people use faw spam in NWS and get done in 6 mins. as an inexperienced team we did it in 7 mins something with pure csv. and we had to deal with subnuke after sub nuke spams.
claim faw is op all you want. its not based on fact till its debunked.
and to make claims with out proving it are not fact. its more fiction then anything else.
people use faw spam in NWS and get done in 6 mins. as an inexperienced team we did it in 7 mins something with pure csv. and we had to deal with subnuke after sub nuke spams.
claim faw is op all you want. its not based on fact till its debunked.
Yes, it does prove it. He's pointing out that you CAN NOT duplicate what FAW does with CSV. CSV can't be used as the baseline comparison. Only another AoE beam ability, with the same arcs, power drain, DOFF support and opportunity cost, could be. In other words, your argument is flawed from its inception.
sorry panda boy but its not proof. just cause a million people shout at the top of a building does not make it true.
talk power drain all you want too. you yourself even said many time you dont need to over cap cannons even if you could since the recharge rate is so good. so sorry but i have yet to see any proper test. your say so just dont cut it. nore does anyone else till its actually tested.
so again i ask people that cry hard to come up with a csv build as best as you can and see what happends. till then do you need cheese with your whine?
also "He's pointing out that you CAN NOT duplicate what FAW does with CSV"
ummm...both is aoe so..........and ive always seen the argument dhc verse beams........wish i had said that back then to troll. so that argument holds no weight as far as im concerned
There used to be a time where both weapons were balanced. An 8 beam array boat was usually practiced in a Engi Cruiser where EPS (For mainly overcap + EPS) and Nadeon compensated for the massive drain 8 beams broadsiding once did. Back then it was balanced versus Cannons (Scatter etc)
Now with massive overcapping and drain TRIBBLE, it simply favours Beams more.
sorry panda boy but its not proof. just cause a million people shout at the top of a building does not make it true.
talk power drain all you want too. you yourself even said many time you dont need to over cap cannons even if you could since the recharge rate is so good. so sorry but i have yet to see any proper test. your say so just dont cut it. nore does anyone else till its actually tested.
so again i ask people that cry hard to come up with a csv build as best as you can and see what happends. till then do you need cheese with your whine?
also "He's pointing out that you CAN NOT duplicate what FAW does with CSV"
ummm...both is aoe so..........and ive always seen the argument dhc verse beams........wish i had said that back then to troll. so that argument holds no weight as far as im concerned
see what i did???????? i gave real info. do the same
You can't compare a 360 degree AoE to a 45 degree AoE, to establish a baseline. It just doesn't work. Even with 360 degree Turrets, CSV will still only target a cone around your target. You are trying to trying to debunk Nessie by hunting for Sasquatch.
so your saying a 5man team cant keep arc? wow................. or they are way too dumb to even know how to take positions
so when people would complain that dhc are way better then beams that whole time we should have said 2 different weps dont bother to say anything because you cant compare them.
so your saying a 5man team cant keep arc? wow................. or they are way too dumb to even know how to take positions
so when people would complain that dhc are way better then beams that whole time we should have said 2 different weps dont bother to say anything because you cant compare them.
lame excuse. or maybe you guys love that whine.
FAW does things that CSV can't, at a lower opportunity cost. Why is that hard for you to understand?
this is not trolling at all. i still belive faw is doing fake damage. now yes with even a 3 man faw team it does count to a degree. can even see that in NWS. but all i hear about is dem a2b faw hax:mad:
has anyone even tryed a 5 man csv build? NO. why? thats aoe as well. same mechanic as how faw work but with an arc. so i ask everyone this. try to come up with a power house build like people did with faw and then compare the numbers. i know it will come up a bit short. question is by how much? also how are people posting on faw? is it numbers? score screen? cause i can make my wells look like awesome sauce and out score any faw spammer with gw3 and 2 cd doffs and an after shock doff. on a parser its going to show that the damage means TRIBBLE since its not going to get the kills.
so really the drama needs to stop till you try to debunk faw the best you can by trying to beef up csv the best you can. then compare the out come. till then stop trying foul when no one has even done a proper test.
Arc isn't the only difference between cannons and beam fyi. Cannons have a significant dropoff in damage at range and cannon damage isn't applied instantly (ie there's a travel time). In fact ships can go faster than cannon fire allowing them to reduce the rate of incoming damage allowing more time to apply resists/repairs and turn exposed shield facings, shield regen etc. The uptimes/cycle time are different too iirc (been awhile so this one I may be off on).
There have also been beam only +ACC equipment et al added to the game and that makes a difference as well.
That said you mentioned aux2batt w/faw which is a separate issue. Aux2batt effects all Boff abilities, so the issue is more than just FaW and gets more complicated when than comparing just he relative effectiveness of 2 abilities. It gets to how effective are the other complementary abilities are at reduced cooldowns as well etc. I'm of the opinion that cooldown reductions are available to the point (and aux2batt in particular) this is the main issue and not FaW
You're correct on GW as an example of damage that is at best pressure. But, there are a lot of shield bypass abilities that can be used w/FaW and a variety of hull debuffs. Also, b/c GW is less damage it allows time for more repairs which increases the relative effective HP of the target, meaning more damage needs to be done to it than higher dps methods. That said it's of value by killing spam, trapping targets in a confined area allowing other things to be applied to them, enough damage to trigger repair/resists cycles sooner than a target would like. But, Aux2batt FaW is high enough now to force strafing runs on a target meaning their damage while not at BO&HY spike potential is much higher than GW. Not really an even comparison.
I'm of the opinion if it's not FaW it'll be something else. It's really things like cooldown reduction doffs, capping Beam energy power overcapping to 150 (iirc that's what it was set at despite Geko's ramblings on the matter), passive resist/repair power handouts etc, that have brought things to where they are.
Imo, all of that stems from pay for power model which isn't going away. That said in time the wheel will turn and FaW and beams will fall to the bottom again, since w/the pay for power model they'll need something else to take its place.
[Zone] Dack@****: cowards can't take a fed 1 on 1 crinckley cowards Hahahaha you smell like flowers
Random Quote from Kerrat
"Sumlobus@****: your mums eat Iced Targ Poo"
C&H Fed banter
FAW does things that CSV can't, at a lower opportunity cost. Why is that hard for you to understand?
i stated that in my first post, thats not my point here. ive made my point very clear on what it it. how does it stack up against faw. you claim that it cant be tested while i call bs on that. with that type of attitude tsi would never have discovered csv was op back then when the majority of their premade matches was faw...........
and i only came and asked aldo being pandas is a pvp fleet. i was stupid to assume you guys test anything so gi.
for all you know csv could infact out dps any faw build out there. and you have no proof to even oppose that idea since its NEVER BEEN TESTED.
Comments
"Fire at Will" in every (there weren't many) usage in Trek was just a way of telling the tactical officer to continue firing without waiting for further orders. This would be equivalent to the naval term "Fire as she comes to bear". It never turned any starship into a Disco Ball.
Oh, and I was gonna copy Antonios post here too, you beat me to it.
I understand where you're coming from, but answer this. In a 1v1 situation, why should a very inexpensive BOFF ability basically double your DPS?
Scimi's are reportedly hitting 50-60k+ SUSTAINABLE DPS in raw tests (no resists). This wouldn't be possible without FAW, and shouldn't be possible with it. They need to return the 135 hard cap on subsystem power levels. Eliminate overcapping completely. Yes, there is more going on than just overcapping, but it's at the very heart of the problem. Power Drain is supposed to be the tradeoff for less damage fall of at distance and a larger firing arc for beams. The game shouldn't allow anyone to constantly ignore that mechanic because of a broken system. In 2011, power levels over 135 were declared a bug, in 2013, the same bug was declared (with an out) WAD. You know what? Husanak is right, just remove FAW and give beams a rapid fire ability.
I would happily trade FAW (or nerf it somehow) for a BRF capability. That's all I'm looking for in a beam buff - something to allow me to put more pressure dmg on a single target in 1v1 matches.
RCK
Voyager is soft canon. :P lol
Thanks for reposting.
They put the Harry Kim maneuver in the game to... the devs love that kid.
They need to call up Garrett Wang he can't be that busy right now... they should hire him to do academy PvP training missions. He can teach the proper use of Fire at will and how to use his console properly to escape evil hirogen and undine.
It would make you happy for 1v1s... it would give people wanting to make hard hitting beam builds not seem crazy. (or more like get called faw cheese heads all day)
It would however solve the issue of 3-4 people running the aoe faw and trashing anything and anything in times faster then the UI lag would even allow a counter to engage. Indirectly I also believe it would help Cryptic define the healer role that engi should be filling more often.
I have some hope that SOME people at Cryptic understand that. If anyone has played with the new deflector you will notice, they have set it up so that teams will not be able to stack the new drians on people. Its a debuff that doesn't stack. Its perfect... they doubled the drain from CPB from one target... but 2 users popping is only = to 3... and on the crazy end 5 people using CPB would be like 6 with the new defelector... because it doesn't stack.
Its time to go over the old abilities like FAW and realize the same issues apply to a skill that so easily targets everything an anyone in arc.
Yes I know that Spread and Scatter are also AOES.... however the issue doesn't exist in the same way due to much more limited arcs on both those skills.
If FAW had to exist for Cryptic to be happy at least it should have a cone style arc based of a TARGETED enemy exactly as scatter works.
Really though I would say beam rapid fire honestly makes more sense to me. I like the idea of beams being the Scalpel weapons. Super accurate (which is why they have the lowest range drop off)... and are able to target subs. Having the same weapon also be the ultimate AOE weapon seems sort of odd.
yup cause we all needed placates againts escourts. such a noob skill for nub cakes
@antoniosalieri, i remember back in the day faw used to target 1 ship. do i remember that correctly or was it something else that was going on?
if faw did target 1 ship you had selected i think that would be better. they would need to rework it ofc. but i still like to see faw as aoe and another faw as a 1 target function. i just dont see what all the gripe is about. i cant blame faw for the massive dps it can do. not when we have rep passives/traits. what ever you want to call them. not when its became rom online. rom bridge officers ect. that alone makes a huge difference. now every rom player will go pure critd tact consoles. thats huge man.
a regular fed/kdf toon needs 3 cith tact and 2 critd tact consoles and still cant keep up with what roms can do.
so you need to understand that thats what im looking at and how i relate it to faw. the dps we see atm with faw, well my fleet ran pure bug ships in a premade with faw before it really became popular today. we parsed it. then when roms came out we put it all together and knew rage post coming to forums.
i have the attitude that power creep is here. get over it, or find a real pvp game and play sto for pve. this has been said to me and i agree with it. you cant fix this system. cryptic put themselves into a corner this time. they cant just dig out of it with out making 99.9% of the rom player base mad. that would be a bait and switch. companies can get sued for stuff like that.
and players have their own idea of how they should change faw. thats just "player view". sorry but they cant just change mechanics on "player view". they fixed faw a while back. they let faw take advantage of beam mods. im sure everyone here remembers me cursing out hilbert in opvp for showing the devs how it was not taking acc and other mods into account. well now you all know why. that was the start of faw getting another come back. then was power over capping, and rep traits/passives. its like you can see whats going to happen.
the way i see it, cryptic tries to balance everything with rep passives/traits. so they add this much crit, the next skill will be hull reist. that is just a stupid system to be honest.
/this
A tiny aoe skill should not do highest dps compared to other damage skills that are supposed to do that. And if it only was the problem that faw only in pve leaded to these results because of the missing npc resists, ok, then it wouldnt be such a big deal. But faw also is a big deal in pvp against resisted and healing players. I dont wana say you have to pvp. And i dont wanna say it only has to be changed for pvp. But i wanna say that a skill that leads to highest dps numbers in the game, in pve AND pvp (depends on teamsetups etc, there are few teams that impressively show that) has to get a change to make sure it is in line again with all the other dmg skills ! And atm it in fact is not and has been a problem for moths and years now. Plz do something cryptic and give us the possibility to stop discussing the faw issue one day because its fixed/solved/changed. That would be great .
I'll drop my placate when you drop yours....
Seriously, I only respec'd for T4 Sensor Targeting Assault after getting spammed with it over and over in matches and Ker'rat.
TRIBBLE-for-tat!
RCK
In most cases, different people. PvPers are not unified.
This. A thousand times this.
On a different note, here is a different way of thinking about if FaW is OP or not:
Question 01. What is the average hull of ships?
40-50K?
Question 02. What is FaW DPS up to right now?
40-50K and in some cases even more....
Question 03. If you want to make PvP accessible to more people, does this help?
Not at all
Question 04. Would any changes to PvP made by Cryptic in the near future help if FAW is left as is?
Not really - all other classes of captains and ships would be obsolete
Question 05. Would it be financially sound for Cryptic to invest in PvP if the end result would be AOE super fast killing and nobody queuing anymore for PvP?
I wouldn't invest my money there
Question 06. Are Cryptic going to address this issue?
Not likely unless we demonstrate it in a subjective manner
Different line of questioning:
Was FaW bareable pre Crit fix in PvP this week?
My opinion is I think it was.
FaW was suppression damage almost bordering on AoE kill damage. Kill damage only if the opponent slipped up or didn't know what was happening. Wasn't nerfed enough to be useless but at the same time wasn't powerful enough to make any other damage dealer type irrelevant in PvP.
That sounds balanced to me.
has anyone even tryed a 5 man csv build? NO. why? thats aoe as well. same mechanic as how faw work but with an arc. so i ask everyone this. try to come up with a power house build like people did with faw and then compare the numbers. i know it will come up a bit short. question is by how much? also how are people posting on faw? is it numbers? score screen? cause i can make my wells look like awesome sauce and out score any faw spammer with gw3 and 2 cd doffs and an after shock doff. on a parser its going to show that the damage means TRIBBLE since its not going to get the kills.
so really the drama needs to stop till you try to debunk faw the best you can by trying to beef up csv the best you can. then compare the out come. till then stop trying foul when no one has even done a proper test.
so thats my challenge to the posters that complain about faw. can they get csv just as good in a 5 man team like a 5 man faw team can.
http://ifes.us/index.php/sto-utilities/sto-act-plugin
this is the parser that i use.
I'll bring a 5 man FaW Scimi team Vs your 5 man CSV team - Lets see the results buddy afterwards....
reason i ask that is it gets no where. we can all cloak. nothing against cloak. just if you think faw is that good then you dont need it correct?
i have no clue to be honest. but this is my point. no 1 has tryed to beef up csv to a point like they did with faw. to me that would be a good test. aside from the back round mechanics of faw such as over capping ect blab blab blab
i would love to see the same thought generated into csv. like i said i know the end results would not be as good as faw due to some things. but how far off will it be is my point. no one has tryed. if they did they never posted to back up their claim that faw and all the stuff goes with it is op.
my point that no one has ever tryed to debunk faw. so again people made claims with out even doing a proper test.
as far as your ISE test in theory sure why not? its still aoe thats not really lost since every player is using aoe as well. thats why 5man faw teams work so well. they dont really have a dps loss. since the 5 men are hitting every target. the same can be said about csv.
really 1 or 2 faw spammers dont really seem to matter at all in pvp or pve. they generate lost dps. but a 5 man team that sticks together will not lose any dps.
this should hold true as well for a 5 man csv team. maybe not have nice power over capping keeping 125 on cannons. but we all hear that does not matter since the recharge rate is so high on dhc correct? well this would be a nice test for that as well.
also another thought is this will also show in the parser if dhc recharge rate is really as good as we all say it is. it will show up.
there is no need, faw is superior. And this is why:
1st: with faw you dont need a firing arc, thats is enought, having many enemies in the CSV arc and keep them the full duration of the CSV is almost imposible.
2nd: DEM dosn't work in the same way with CSV, is far more usefull with beams because the firing circles.
3th: Overcap in cannons is useless
4th: CSV3 requires cmd tactical, faw3 a lt. commander (thats is big deal cause u want to have the commander eng for the DEM3)
CSV can't compare with FAW in a pvp envirioment.
Vin Naftero@playhard88 - FED Sciencie
K'tan@playhard88 - KDF Tactical
Argento@playhard88 - RRF Tactical (FED)
and to make claims with out proving it are not fact. its more fiction then anything else.
people use faw spam in NWS and get done in 6 mins. as an inexperienced team we did it in 7 mins something with pure csv. and we had to deal with subnuke after sub nuke spams.
claim faw is op all you want. its not based on fact till its debunked.
http://ifes.us/images/Hosted/Pug01/Weapon%20System%20Efficiency%20Test.png
http://ifes.us/images/Hosted/Pug01/BeamTests.png
Yes, it does prove it. He's pointing out that you CAN NOT duplicate what FAW does with CSV. CSV can't be used as the baseline comparison. Only another AoE beam ability, with the same arcs, power drain, DOFF support and opportunity cost, could be. In other words, your argument is flawed from its inception.
sorry panda boy but its not proof. just cause a million people shout at the top of a building does not make it true.
talk power drain all you want too. you yourself even said many time you dont need to over cap cannons even if you could since the recharge rate is so good. so sorry but i have yet to see any proper test. your say so just dont cut it. nore does anyone else till its actually tested.
so again i ask people that cry hard to come up with a csv build as best as you can and see what happends. till then do you need cheese with your whine?
also "He's pointing out that you CAN NOT duplicate what FAW does with CSV"
ummm...both is aoe so..........and ive always seen the argument dhc verse beams........wish i had said that back then to troll. so that argument holds no weight as far as im concerned
http://ifes.us/images/Hosted/Pug01/Weapon%20System%20Efficiency%20Test.png
http://ifes.us/images/Hosted/Pug01/BeamTests.png
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvIi0-IiMAvHdFByQlNqM3VKRXV2c2FnSmZjcllJQWc#gid=0
http://home.comcast.net/~amicus/Skill%20Point%20Effects.htm
http://ifes.us/index.php/sto-utilities/sto-act-plugin
see what i did???????? i gave real info. do the same
Now with massive overcapping and drain TRIBBLE, it simply favours Beams more.
You can't compare a 360 degree AoE to a 45 degree AoE, to establish a baseline. It just doesn't work. Even with 360 degree Turrets, CSV will still only target a cone around your target. You are trying to trying to debunk Nessie by hunting for Sasquatch.
so when people would complain that dhc are way better then beams that whole time we should have said 2 different weps dont bother to say anything because you cant compare them.
lame excuse. or maybe you guys love that whine.
FAW does things that CSV can't, at a lower opportunity cost. Why is that hard for you to understand?
Arc isn't the only difference between cannons and beam fyi. Cannons have a significant dropoff in damage at range and cannon damage isn't applied instantly (ie there's a travel time). In fact ships can go faster than cannon fire allowing them to reduce the rate of incoming damage allowing more time to apply resists/repairs and turn exposed shield facings, shield regen etc. The uptimes/cycle time are different too iirc (been awhile so this one I may be off on).
There have also been beam only +ACC equipment et al added to the game and that makes a difference as well.
That said you mentioned aux2batt w/faw which is a separate issue. Aux2batt effects all Boff abilities, so the issue is more than just FaW and gets more complicated when than comparing just he relative effectiveness of 2 abilities. It gets to how effective are the other complementary abilities are at reduced cooldowns as well etc. I'm of the opinion that cooldown reductions are available to the point (and aux2batt in particular) this is the main issue and not FaW
You're correct on GW as an example of damage that is at best pressure. But, there are a lot of shield bypass abilities that can be used w/FaW and a variety of hull debuffs. Also, b/c GW is less damage it allows time for more repairs which increases the relative effective HP of the target, meaning more damage needs to be done to it than higher dps methods. That said it's of value by killing spam, trapping targets in a confined area allowing other things to be applied to them, enough damage to trigger repair/resists cycles sooner than a target would like. But, Aux2batt FaW is high enough now to force strafing runs on a target meaning their damage while not at BO&HY spike potential is much higher than GW. Not really an even comparison.
I'm of the opinion if it's not FaW it'll be something else. It's really things like cooldown reduction doffs, capping Beam energy power overcapping to 150 (iirc that's what it was set at despite Geko's ramblings on the matter), passive resist/repair power handouts etc, that have brought things to where they are.
Imo, all of that stems from pay for power model which isn't going away. That said in time the wheel will turn and FaW and beams will fall to the bottom again, since w/the pay for power model they'll need something else to take its place.
Random Quote from Kerrat
"Sumlobus@****: your mums eat Iced Targ Poo"
C&H Fed banter
i stated that in my first post, thats not my point here. ive made my point very clear on what it it. how does it stack up against faw. you claim that it cant be tested while i call bs on that. with that type of attitude tsi would never have discovered csv was op back then when the majority of their premade matches was faw...........
and i only came and asked aldo being pandas is a pvp fleet. i was stupid to assume you guys test anything so gi.
for all you know csv could infact out dps any faw build out there. and you have no proof to even oppose that idea since its NEVER BEEN TESTED.