First off, overcapping was supposed to have a hard cap of 135. I'm not going through the archived posts, but it was stated during s3 that overcapping beyond 135 was a bug. They even fixed it. Then it broke again a while later (remember all the reversion bugs? the ones where they patched old code back in, and returned bugs that had already been fixed), people noticed and Geko proudly declared it WAD. I could be mistaken, but that's the way I remember it going down.
The larger arc of beams is supposed to be balanced by the enormous drain of firing 8 beams at once when broadsiding. Whereas cannons are balanced by their much smaller firing arcs (excepting turrets and single cannons which do significantly less damage). Beams do benefit more since it allows them to break their own balancing mechanics. You can't do anything to increase your arcs on DHC's. That's just the way I see it.
Agreed.
Fundamentally beams should not be allowed to very nearly negate their built in drawback for the ability to bring all 8 weapons to bear at once.
That's supposed to be an inherent penalty.
DHCs on the other hand are limited in arc, nothing can change this.
Turrets are worse than beams.
The fact that we are even having a conversation comparing beams vs. DHCs at all is the single clearest indication that something is horrendously wrong with this system.
DHCs should never be forced to compete with a weapon that has 5.5x the Arc and the ability to overlap. That's just power creep run wild.
I feel it's just plain silly to allow overcapping at 180+ to exist in conjunction with all the ways there are to negate weapons power drain, while simultaneously keeping all other subsystem power levels very high (remember when +power consoles were nerfed? The reason was stated that it was not intended for captains to maintain such high power levels, lol). Restore the hard cap of 135 and beams would be a lot closer to WAAD (Working As Actually Designed, rather than working as designed because Geko declared it to be so instead of doing something about it) than it is right now.
Agreed.
It's one thing to overcap to 135, and another to let beams and only beam arrays: not single cannons, not DCs, not DHCs, not DBBs, not Turrets - take advantage of massive overcapping beyond 150, and even upwards of 180+.
they are the best dilivery system for DEM and glider, and any other per shot proc. between functional versions of FAW, their effect was on par or slightly beter then beam arrays a few seasons ago, and a ton of creep ago
Oh yeah...I'd completely forgotten about that. I used to run the Omega set for Glider back in season 6 quite a bit on my Excelsior, I used it with Tetryon single cannons and turrets.
I remain empathetic to the concerns of my community, but do me a favor and lay off the god damn name calling and petty remarks. It will get you nowhere.
I must admit, respect points to Trendy for laying down the law like that.
Not to be off topic... but are Single cannons the best DEM delivery system anymore ?
I could have sworn I remember Bort going out of his way to explain that proc rates are standardized and independent of firing rates. (even though it never worked that way before the newest devs got there mits on things). It was a conversation about weapon procs as I remember but would that not also effect dem. I know last time I checked it a beam setup was getting just as many dem stirkes as a turret setup.
Also even if that isn't true and there is a relation to firing cycles... the way beams overcap mean any dem hits are happening at 125 weapon power... and 50% or more of the cannon hits are happening in the 80 range... meaning even if the cannons hit 10-20% more the beams still do more DPS anyway. lol
DEM is a beam skill as I see it... running dem on cannons just doesn't work well.
Not to be off topic... but are Single cannons the best DEM delivery system anymore ?
I could have sworn I remember Bort going out of his way to explain that proc rates are standardized and independent of firing rates. (even though it never worked that way before the newest devs got there mits on things). It was a conversation about weapon procs as I remember but would that not also effect dem. I know last time I checked it a beam setup was getting just as many dem stirkes as a turret setup.
Also even if that isn't true and there is a relation to firing cycles... the way beams overcap mean any dem hits are happening at 125 weapon power... and 50% or more of the cannon hits are happening in the 80 range... meaning even if the cannons hit 10-20% more the beams still do more DPS anyway. lol
DEM is a beam skill as I see it... running dem on cannons just doesn't work well.
theres 2 types of procs, per shot and per cycle. cutting beam and borg console 2 part, valdor console, and elatchi weapons are per shot procs, and glider and DEM are per shot passives, basically. phaser proc or pol proc, that stuff is per cycle.
cannons do those per cycle procs better then beams, because they have cycles that last 3 seconds, so every weapon has a proc chance every 3 seconds. beam weapons take 5 seconds to complete a cycle, so in any given amount of time cannons are procing more then beams just due to their shorter cycle completion.
so, with 4 shots every 3 seconds, single cannons and DCs deliver per shot procs best. normal beam fire produces much less shots, and thus less per shot applications in a given amount of time. so individual shot rate of fire maters most for DEM and glider, and all the other per shot procs.
FAW cheats though, and trumps everything. its fireing 10 shots in 5 seconds, per beam weapon. that and the choosing of target each shot was also capable of generating a proc, but that bug was supposedly fixed, and led to all the crit and energy drain issues its had in the patches after.
Thanks for the update Dont I believe you have it right. I know its changed more then once and wasn't 100% sure how things where working anymore. Thanks for that. I guess at one time there where simply not that many procs to worry about. lol
Ya faw may have the proc rate fixed not sure... still the way dem works beams with overcapping will always do it better anyway. Less hits perhaps but all of them being at or close to full power will still mean more dps out of beam dem. (unless I'm missing something else which is possible anyway):)
It's just of those things where you change P so all of a sudden A, H, U and G are overpowered and X, Y, K are all underpowered or have suddenly become much harder to use.
Still, those static Borg targets aren't getting harder for me to hit
And why is the decrease of damage over distance greater with cannons as with beams?
With all the current speed buffs it is already hard to keep your DHC's on your target, and even more at close range...
Quit buffing your speed? If you cant keep weapons of choice on target thats your problem not the weapons. Hence why space whales use beams and broadside.
As an escort pilot you should be paying attention to your speed. If you are zipping about at full throttle, buffing speed like a madman and complaining you cant keep your weapons on target you are doing it wrong. Slow down smell the roses, you arent a high speed attack craft.
Slow down on your initial attack, speed out a distance turn and slow, then repeat. Cruisers can maintain a speed most times do to that crappy turn (though i currently have my Oddy Turning so fast it flies almost sideways afyer adding in inertia.
As for the Decrease in damage, ill bet that your little energy ball loses energy as it travels whilst a beam that is still recieving power do not.
Drawbacks versus Uses. Cannons do more damage up close while Beams do more at great distances.
TRIBBLE you can park at 4k and fire away with escorts these days, and most days before it, you just get shot and die some more...... oh wait thats another tradeoff isnt it?
Maybe ill pick up a Defiant or the Kumari 3 pack, and just pack that bad larry with refracting tet beams, Nukara stuff, and beam powers. That'll show you
Inertia just means you can do Powerslides in you carrier!
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
It's just of those things where you change P so all of a sudden A, H, U and G are overpowered and X, Y, K are all underpowered or have suddenly become much harder to use.
Still, those static Borg targets aren't getting harder for me to hit
I now have a new insult i can say to people thank you
"You couldn't hit the broadside of a Borg!" :eek:
Inertia just means you can do Powerslides in you carrier!
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Speaking of this whole FAW and beams etc, can someone show me an instance where the damage from a dual or dual heavy cannon is worse than a beam, comparative numbers please. Don't want to see someone showing me their 40k dips while firing 8 beams as opposed to 4 cannons.
Also same buffs, in other words stick 2 cannons fore and 2 beams fore and see which gives you the higher damage. Might try that.
Also same buffs, in other words stick 2 cannons fore and 2 beams fore and see which gives you the higher damage. Might try that.
Its not really that simple... 1 yes the arc does matter... no one I don't believe is saying that the base dmg on a DHC is lower then a beam array thats simply not true.
However you still would have to consider range... yes at 9-10k a beam array will easily double the dmg coming off a dhc... at 3k its the reverse.
Overall picture though... DHC pay for that higher dmg at 0-3k within a 45 degree cone in front of them by... yes having to be 0-3k away and have there target in a 45 degree cone in front of them.
Because arrays have 270 degree arcs YES you have to factor that into over all dmg numbers. If we where to look at strictly PvE yes a Cannon scort that zooms around at top speeds to get to optimal < 3k range... and keep targets in that 45 degree at all times... will pull a very high number... the issue is I could take the same toon put it in a tactical leaning cruisers load 8 beams put the guy in front of me on follow and put a drinking bird on my space bar and go have a meal... after crunching the numbers... the escort if piloted PERFECTLY may perhaps tie the cruisers dps numbers. If the player in fact steers the ship the escorts numbers will be lower no doubt.
FAW gives cruisers escort level dmg wihile maintaining all the advantages of being a cruisers. (and yes one of those advantages is loading massive arc weaponry that allows you to concentrat on other things.... if it was the buff you popped and then went about healing that would be fine... but its not anymore cause the dmg is insane coming off it) Now I know some people get upset by that and say escorts get to zip zip. I play both I like both... no though I don't believe crusiers should be able to so Easily be providing the most dmg.
Speaking of this whole FAW and beams etc, can someone show me an instance where the damage from a dual or dual heavy cannon is worse than a beam, comparative numbers please. Don't want to see someone showing me their 40k dips while firing 8 beams as opposed to 4 cannons.
Also same buffs, in other words stick 2 cannons fore and 2 beams fore and see which gives you the higher damage. Might try that.
Well in the case of that there is no perfect scenario to test that.
By JUST the prebuff numbers, im talking your base - pre modifiers - pre crit - pre everything.
Two DHC's will out do Two Beam Arrays. 256 x 2 vs 176 x 2 You get a disparity later when you are pushing 7 vs 8 weapons. But even a DHC plus turret is slightly greater than two BA's.
a 4/3 weapon as on an escort DHC turret comes to 1420, whereas a 4/4 cruiser 1408 thats really really close.
SC 4/3 is 1244, and 4/4 is 1376, so yes SC/Turret are weaker overall than beams but DHC/Turret is overall stronger than beams
Compare the same thing in another way 4/3 DHC/Turret still 1420 but beam 4/3 would be1232.
Cannons are slightly better than Beams in a 4/3 by 4/4 setup but massively outdone by cannons in keeping 4/3 vs 4/3.
I bet if you could put DHC/Turrets on a cruiser and park and shoot it people would, and i mean not just the scimi's and avengers, best way to proably test it is a Klingon ship cause those cane do whatever they please.
4/4 DHC/Turret would run you.......1552..that considerably outdoes beams.
The next problem is piloting, so throttle control and ability to get back on target, thats one of the drawbacks for the massive power cannons have, beams are meant for broadsides.
I run on my Vesta (cause im a tool) 4 Refracting Tets, with the Hyper DBB and The Nukara mines, i get some good damage going in and then settle into a broadside pulling around to get that DBB back in arc for a BO.
Im thinking of wheeling out my Avenger throwing a bunch of Mk X DHC's and Turrets on it with a DBB.
Probably run it through 3 KASE, 3 ISE, and 3 Cure just to provide a straight Baseline, i may also do it with all beams and the DBB.
When i do so i will run all the parses, Screeny all the parses, post all the parses, and post the exact build i am using skills and all, i will not use doffs and i will put in whatever space traits i have and my Boffs have.
But i think the Min/Maxers are just expecting too much from a lack of diversity. And just for metntioning a lack of diversity i guess i will also test 2 turrets and a beam in the back and 1 SC, 1 DC, 1 DHC 1 DBB and another of one of those three up front.
Inertia just means you can do Powerslides in you carrier!
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
FAW gives cruisers escort level dmg wihile maintaining all the advantages of being a cruisers. ... no though I don't believe crusiers should be able to so Easily be providing the most dmg.
The disadvantage of said cruisers is that unless you are on a team with at least 2 similar cruisers your 'dps' is just spam and due to random targeting most of it will be wasted apart from padding the meters, in other words, spam needs more spam to be useful beyond being spam, if you put a 50k dps Scimmy on a team of escorts it would get laughed at! If you put a 9k dps (non FAW spam) cruiser on the same team it would probably get the job done more effectively and (aside from the first few moments because it's a cruiser) it wouldn't get laughed at.
If we take this into a team pvp situation I feel more threatened in a team by a cruiser using single cannons spamming CRF than I do a FAW thing, hell, I'd be more concerned in a team about a turret Oddy CRFing than a Scimmy spamming FAW, why? Because the CRF ships will be focussing on one target, the FAW will be everywhere and really won't matter.
These are things that have to be taken into account when talking about these things.
Alright, after reading this and other threads like it for months, I have a few thoughts.
First, full disclosure, I am a KDF PVPer that mildly min/maxes on builds I feel are just fun.
I don't want to fire up the argument again but I feel aux2bat tech doffs are clearly the biggest unbalancing factor in the game and thus refuse to run it even on my beam boats despite having a full set of purples.
All that said, you can now decide if you want to actually listen to my suggestions or simply ignore them based on some predefined bias against my player type.
I've read many suggestions about fixing FAW but have yet to see anything that resembles a more "canon" (yes, I said the dirty word) use of FAW that still renders it highly effective.
My suggestion is two-fold. First, FAW should take into account the concept. You are, due to lack of time or a need to redirect your attention, turning over control of your weapons to your officers. So why don't we?
I believe that FAW should have a little AI in it, have a threat table to decide what target gets fired upon. Giant plasma ball heading our way? I'd want to shoot that bloody thing first, wouldn't you? And closer targets of equal threat should have higher priority to make up for the lack of ability to choose your targets. It should still have a good bit of random in it.
Now the second half is how MANY targets? That's simple in my eyes. How many TAC officers do you have? That's how many targets you can fire at. I don't know about the whole double amount of firing cycles thing like we currently have. The math guys can figure that out I guess.
What about ships that have uni slots or an ensign tac that you can abuse to get more targets? No problem.
Reduce the acc of each shot based on the level of the station. Or have higher lvl stations adjust their own threat tables better.
An ensign shouldn't be able to shoot as good as a commander anyways.
Will this make some ships better than others? Heck yeah. How is that different from now?
If you want to drop your Lt eng in a uni slot for an extra tac so you can have more beams heading out, go ahead. You are going to be squishy as heck.
Seriously, with overcapping it is still quite powerful.
Do we really need the crits back?
I vote NO.
I Vote yes
Get Rid of the Marion Doff / DEM combo thats the Problem not BFaW and crits
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
Now the second half is how MANY targets? That's simple in my eyes. How many TAC officers do you have? That's how many targets you can fire at.
I would amend this slightly myself as this removes the point of FAW, it should be something along the lines of B*(O+1) where B is beams available, and O is officers firing, this way each beam can still fire at at least 2 targets thus maintaining the utility of the skill on single tactical station cruisers and science ships which rely more upon the ability.
As to your thing about accuracy, why not change drain so that each shot drains power rather than each firing cycle, this would afterall allow FAW's extra shots to drain as per standard shots meaning 50% extra drain when using FAW as power drained would remain drained for the remainder of the firing cycle.
Not a bad suggestion... I'm slightly worried it will be OP when you take into account the number of beams but its absolutely something to consider and something for the cryptic math guys to work out.
I like the idea of it impacting drain, seems rather obvious that it should in all honesty (surprised I didn't
think of it
But I truly think that both boff type and boff station rank should play a major part in the game, instead of just counting a 10 slot ship vs a 12 slot.
Speaking of this whole FAW and beams etc, can someone show me an instance where the damage from a dual or dual heavy cannon is worse than a beam, comparative numbers please. Don't want to see someone showing me their 40k dips while firing 8 beams as opposed to 4 cannons.
Also same buffs, in other words stick 2 cannons fore and 2 beams fore and see which gives you the higher damage. Might try that.
load up 5 DHCs with scatter volley with your Romulan with 5 SRO's and do doube the DPs verses Beams add the 3 turrets for the full amout of DPs because you get Crits with the Cannons and double the firing rate verses the beams
If you can run 2 copys of DEM and buy the marion Doff you can double your DPS again over that add a quartermaster battery Doff and add more DPS
you can do more DPS in a Avenger with cannons and scatter volley than you can with BFaW
The Same with CRF against single targets as well
just train your second Tac bridge officer in Cannon Rapid Fire and you can switch the two out in seconds as needed once out of combat
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
The loss of BFAW crits has another unfortunate consequence: It undermines the Romulan T4 Rep Placate feature (i.e. Sensor Targeting Assault). Without crits, placate won't proc. And without placate, there's no way to get spikey escorts to stop firing (short of a sensor jam or other waste of a boff station skill).
So not only is this bug reducing the offensive output of BFAW cruisers, it's also making us more vulnerable to high-dps escorts and their OP spike damage.
For now, I've stopped flying my cruiser until they fix the issue. I've spent months perfecting my technique for dealing with smaller, nimbler ships, including using BFAW and placate to help with survivability. No point going into fights with one hand tied behind my back...
I know this question is going to tick off people, but I do have to ask it. My toon that uses the AtB/FAW/DEM cruiser build is an Engineer. When he uses FAW2 in ISE he does about 9k-11k dps; without it he does about 9k dps. All these super high dps numbers up to 40k, are any of them from an Engineer or Science captain (and not a Romulan with a full crew of Superior Operative Bridge Officers)?
"I'm not big on telepaths myself. I'm not big on guns either. But if everyone else has them, I want to make sure I can get my hands on the biggest one I can."
I want to start 2014 with the best of my schkills! FaW is one of them. Better make it start Crittin again cuz I jerk on the thought of having so much DPS without practically having to aim at anything! Full Cap'n Kirking
Its like when doffing came out, that gave me good jerk times too!
Its not really that simple... 1 yes the arc does matter... no one I don't believe is saying that the base dmg on a DHC is lower then a beam array thats simply not true.
However you still would have to consider range... yes at 9-10k a beam array will easily double the dmg coming off a dhc... at 3k its the reverse.
Overall picture though... DHC pay for that higher dmg at 0-3k within a 45 degree cone in front of them by... yes having to be 0-3k away and have there target in a 45 degree cone in front of them.
Because arrays have 270 degree arcs YES you have to factor that into over all dmg numbers. If we where to look at strictly PvE yes a Cannon scort that zooms around at top speeds to get to optimal < 3k range... and keep targets in that 45 degree at all times... will pull a very high number... the issue is I could take the same toon put it in a tactical leaning cruisers load 8 beams put the guy in front of me on follow and put a drinking bird on my space bar and go have a meal... after crunching the numbers... the escort if piloted PERFECTLY may perhaps tie the cruisers dps numbers. If the player in fact steers the ship the escorts numbers will be lower no doubt.
FAW gives cruisers escort level dmg wihile maintaining all the advantages of being a cruisers. (and yes one of those advantages is loading massive arc weaponry that allows you to concentrat on other things.... if it was the buff you popped and then went about healing that would be fine... but its not anymore cause the dmg is insane coming off it) Now I know some people get upset by that and say escorts get to zip zip. I play both I like both... no though I don't believe crusiers should be able to so Easily be providing the most dmg.
Listen to ^ bpharma, no disrespect, hes a very old vet and loves to actually fight with schkill!
As to your thing about accuracy, why not change drain so that each shot drains power rather than each firing cycle, this would afterall allow FAW's extra shots to drain as per standard shots meaning 50% extra drain when using FAW as power drained would remain drained for the remainder of the firing cycle.
So er shouldn't we change CSV as it's shooting three times as many shots as a normal firing sequence?
What about CRF too, double shot count, less damage per shot but it then also slaps a damage increase on too so should we add extra drain to that simply because of this?
Not to Adam with this, just something in general. Though this is interesting to think about, CSV at no cost increases your shots by 3 times as much, FAW increases it by 2.5 times (4 going to 10) so if we did make FAW more like scatter volley wouldn't we have to add 2 more shots to its cycle?
Also let's look at the cycles and firing time, CSV lasts for 10s, cannons have a 3 second cycle and so you can get 3 full cycles in during that.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't FAW a 10s duration with a 5s firing cycle? Which only gives you 2 cycles during that.
Using dual cannons you can get a 4 shots in per cycle, that's 3 cycles giving 12 shots to 3 targets, so that's 36 shots total. FAW gives 10 shots in 2 cycles, 20 shots in total at anything within its arc, randomly changing with no choice and little control. Even if it did a 3rd cycle before FAW ran out it's still 6 shots behind on the dual cannons and also single cannons, which could technically get a 4th cycle if FAW can get a 3rd.
Well, I can't find the old dev response on the overcapping issue. Damned "Archived Posts". I did find, however, several old threads on the same subject.
The 125/135/135+ debate has been going on for a while. I really wish I could find that dev post.
That said, I can't find anything to prove or disprove either of our memories on the subject. I can say that there has been a Cap of 135 at one point. Beams weren't useless, you just didn't use 8, or you staggered their fire. I can also say that there was a cap of 125 at one point, beams were pretty much useless, but that was fixed when the 135 cap was restored.
For Broadside arcs, yes I know, it's 70 degree overlap on either side. You explain yourself why that allows broadsiding. Can you do that with DHC's, bring 8 to bear?
As for 135 cap gutting beams. I don't see how that would cut the DPS in half. Yes, some shots would be cut in half, others wouldn't be. So there's some wiggle room there, dontcha think? Also, who says you have to start all 8 firing cycles at the same time? Or use 8 BA's for that matter? I really think you over-simplified your DPS calculations there.
It's a shame that I won't get a reply from you. I really enjoy these discussions. I usually come out understanding something better than I did before, but never with any hard feelings towards you.
Oh, and I agree with your final post too. Drain mechanics and firing cycles of weapons need a rework to balance them against each other without any overcap necessary to achieve that goal. My arguments are based purely on my perceptions of the current state of the game.
The 135 overcap is a myth really, it is (or was) just the effect of the first weapon is free to fire without drain, anything after would start draining.
So er shouldn't we change CSV as it's shooting three times as many shots as a normal firing sequence?
What about CRF too, double shot count, less damage per shot but it then also slaps a damage increase on too so should we add extra drain to that simply because of this?
The way I was thinking was that rather than have drain per firing cycle, rewrite the whole thing to drain per shot, this way skills like FAW and CSV wouldn't need their own built in drain increase as the extra shots given by them would arrange their own extra drain.
I can't say exactly how I project this would affect actual damage output as each beam shot would drain 2.5 power and keep it until the end of the firing cycle at which point it would return the power as it does now.
Not to Adam with this, just something in general. Though this is interesting to think about, CSV at no cost increases your shots by 3 times as much, FAW increases it by 2.5 times (4 going to 10) so if we did make FAW more like scatter volley wouldn't we have to add 2 more shots to its cycle?
I've never actually noticed this 10 shot FAW, the only time I've seen 10 hit FAW is when I have multiple targets but I think this us due to a code line telling the weapon to fire as many shots as possible in it's firing cycle based on the parameters of each shot, as FAW increases RoF it can thus slot a 5th shot in the same 4 second firing time, the weapon then uses the 1 second cooldown as of the firing cycle's end to recharge the power to start over
Also let's look at the cycles and firing time, CSV lasts for 10s, cannons have a 3 second cycle and so you can get 3 full cycles in during that.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't FAW a 10s duration with a 5s firing cycle? Which only gives you 2 cycles during that.
I'm not sure about this, I'm fairly certain I get off at least 3 FAW cycles per ability activation but I think due to the way firing cycles compare to one another it works out at about the same in terms of shots fired at any given group of targets.
Yeah I know I get 2 cycles with FAW but not sure about if I've ever got the 3rd, maybe DDIS or someone else might know that. Same with CSV, not sure if you can get the 4th cycle either, I know I have got 3 though.
As for mightylepton, just because I do not agree with Antonio all the time it does not mean I don't respect him. He has an attitude that is sorely lacking in a lot of players and is one of the players I named in drkfrontiers name awesome PvPers thread.
12 Pages... more conversations about FAW.. now it is about wheither or not it should crit?
rant
I'm a little late to the thread.. But I am also wondering why we're STILL talking about FAW...AGAIN.....
Can't we give FAW A break for a month at least? Didnt' we JUST get done grinding a bug fix into FAW, now we have to complain about wheither or not it crits?!/rant
So I guess the better question, is FAW in a team setting better since its more balanced with out Crits,
rant
or should we just say F'it and let everything crit so that the game can be moar about Tacs until it becomes Tacs online?/rant
Suffice it to say I think I'm finding these threads about FAW and its seeming 4 year journy to find balance old and needing to be retired for a new series with more interesting eposides.
You think that your beta test was bad?
Think about this: American Football has been in open beta for 144 years. ~Kotaku
12 Pages... more conversations about FAW.. now it is about wheither or not it should crit?
rant
I'm a little late to the thread.. But I am also wondering why we're STILL talking about FAW...AGAIN.....
Can't we give FAW A break for a month at least? Didnt' we JUST get done grinding a bug fix into FAW, now we have to complain about wheither or not it crits?!/rant
So I guess the better question, is FAW in a team setting better since its more balanced with out Crits,
rant
or should we just say F'it and let everything crit so that the game can be moar about Tacs until it becomes Tacs online?/rant
Suffice it to say I think I'm finding these threads about FAW and its seeming 4 year journy to find balance old and needing to be retired for a new series with more interesting eposides.
FAW has made damage dealers (tacs) useless. That is the problem, why fly a tac escort if you can load up on BA and circle jerk a PVP match still just worrying about healing and letting the FAW AI decimate a team.
Hey I Used to be Captain Data, well I guess I still am in game but the account link really screwed everything up :rolleyes:
Comments
You're not mistaken.
Agreed.
Fundamentally beams should not be allowed to very nearly negate their built in drawback for the ability to bring all 8 weapons to bear at once.
That's supposed to be an inherent penalty.
DHCs on the other hand are limited in arc, nothing can change this.
Turrets are worse than beams.
The fact that we are even having a conversation comparing beams vs. DHCs at all is the single clearest indication that something is horrendously wrong with this system.
DHCs should never be forced to compete with a weapon that has 5.5x the Arc and the ability to overlap. That's just power creep run wild.
Agreed.
It's one thing to overcap to 135, and another to let beams and only beam arrays: not single cannons, not DCs, not DHCs, not DBBs, not Turrets - take advantage of massive overcapping beyond 150, and even upwards of 180+.
Oh yeah...I'd completely forgotten about that. I used to run the Omega set for Glider back in season 6 quite a bit on my Excelsior, I used it with Tetryon single cannons and turrets.
I could have sworn I remember Bort going out of his way to explain that proc rates are standardized and independent of firing rates. (even though it never worked that way before the newest devs got there mits on things). It was a conversation about weapon procs as I remember but would that not also effect dem. I know last time I checked it a beam setup was getting just as many dem stirkes as a turret setup.
Also even if that isn't true and there is a relation to firing cycles... the way beams overcap mean any dem hits are happening at 125 weapon power... and 50% or more of the cannon hits are happening in the 80 range... meaning even if the cannons hit 10-20% more the beams still do more DPS anyway. lol
DEM is a beam skill as I see it... running dem on cannons just doesn't work well.
theres 2 types of procs, per shot and per cycle. cutting beam and borg console 2 part, valdor console, and elatchi weapons are per shot procs, and glider and DEM are per shot passives, basically. phaser proc or pol proc, that stuff is per cycle.
cannons do those per cycle procs better then beams, because they have cycles that last 3 seconds, so every weapon has a proc chance every 3 seconds. beam weapons take 5 seconds to complete a cycle, so in any given amount of time cannons are procing more then beams just due to their shorter cycle completion.
so, with 4 shots every 3 seconds, single cannons and DCs deliver per shot procs best. normal beam fire produces much less shots, and thus less per shot applications in a given amount of time. so individual shot rate of fire maters most for DEM and glider, and all the other per shot procs.
FAW cheats though, and trumps everything. its fireing 10 shots in 5 seconds, per beam weapon. that and the choosing of target each shot was also capable of generating a proc, but that bug was supposedly fixed, and led to all the crit and energy drain issues its had in the patches after.
Ya faw may have the proc rate fixed not sure... still the way dem works beams with overcapping will always do it better anyway. Less hits perhaps but all of them being at or close to full power will still mean more dps out of beam dem. (unless I'm missing something else which is possible anyway):)
With all the current speed buffs it is already hard to keep your DHC's on your target, and even more at close range...
@rudiefix Feds: Rudiefix / Thron / Opa
@rudiefix KDFs: Lill / Xifeidur / Dehr / Ugly
@rudiefix Roms (KDF alligned): Chicita
Still, those static Borg targets aren't getting harder for me to hit
It is through repetition that we learn our weakness.
A master with a stone is better than a novice with a sword.
Has damage got out of control?
This is the last thing I will post.
Quit buffing your speed? If you cant keep weapons of choice on target thats your problem not the weapons. Hence why space whales use beams and broadside.
As an escort pilot you should be paying attention to your speed. If you are zipping about at full throttle, buffing speed like a madman and complaining you cant keep your weapons on target you are doing it wrong. Slow down smell the roses, you arent a high speed attack craft.
Slow down on your initial attack, speed out a distance turn and slow, then repeat. Cruisers can maintain a speed most times do to that crappy turn (though i currently have my Oddy Turning so fast it flies almost sideways afyer adding in inertia.
As for the Decrease in damage, ill bet that your little energy ball loses energy as it travels whilst a beam that is still recieving power do not.
Drawbacks versus Uses. Cannons do more damage up close while Beams do more at great distances.
TRIBBLE you can park at 4k and fire away with escorts these days, and most days before it, you just get shot and die some more...... oh wait thats another tradeoff isnt it?
Maybe ill pick up a Defiant or the Kumari 3 pack, and just pack that bad larry with refracting tet beams, Nukara stuff, and beam powers. That'll show you
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I now have a new insult i can say to people thank you
"You couldn't hit the broadside of a Borg!" :eek:
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Speaking of this whole FAW and beams etc, can someone show me an instance where the damage from a dual or dual heavy cannon is worse than a beam, comparative numbers please. Don't want to see someone showing me their 40k dips while firing 8 beams as opposed to 4 cannons.
Also same buffs, in other words stick 2 cannons fore and 2 beams fore and see which gives you the higher damage. Might try that.
It is through repetition that we learn our weakness.
A master with a stone is better than a novice with a sword.
Has damage got out of control?
This is the last thing I will post.
Its not really that simple... 1 yes the arc does matter... no one I don't believe is saying that the base dmg on a DHC is lower then a beam array thats simply not true.
However you still would have to consider range... yes at 9-10k a beam array will easily double the dmg coming off a dhc... at 3k its the reverse.
Overall picture though... DHC pay for that higher dmg at 0-3k within a 45 degree cone in front of them by... yes having to be 0-3k away and have there target in a 45 degree cone in front of them.
Because arrays have 270 degree arcs YES you have to factor that into over all dmg numbers. If we where to look at strictly PvE yes a Cannon scort that zooms around at top speeds to get to optimal < 3k range... and keep targets in that 45 degree at all times... will pull a very high number... the issue is I could take the same toon put it in a tactical leaning cruisers load 8 beams put the guy in front of me on follow and put a drinking bird on my space bar and go have a meal... after crunching the numbers... the escort if piloted PERFECTLY may perhaps tie the cruisers dps numbers. If the player in fact steers the ship the escorts numbers will be lower no doubt.
FAW gives cruisers escort level dmg wihile maintaining all the advantages of being a cruisers. (and yes one of those advantages is loading massive arc weaponry that allows you to concentrat on other things.... if it was the buff you popped and then went about healing that would be fine... but its not anymore cause the dmg is insane coming off it) Now I know some people get upset by that and say escorts get to zip zip. I play both I like both... no though I don't believe crusiers should be able to so Easily be providing the most dmg.
Well in the case of that there is no perfect scenario to test that.
By JUST the prebuff numbers, im talking your base - pre modifiers - pre crit - pre everything.
Two DHC's will out do Two Beam Arrays. 256 x 2 vs 176 x 2 You get a disparity later when you are pushing 7 vs 8 weapons. But even a DHC plus turret is slightly greater than two BA's.
a 4/3 weapon as on an escort DHC turret comes to 1420, whereas a 4/4 cruiser 1408 thats really really close.
SC 4/3 is 1244, and 4/4 is 1376, so yes SC/Turret are weaker overall than beams but DHC/Turret is overall stronger than beams
Compare the same thing in another way 4/3 DHC/Turret still 1420 but beam 4/3 would be1232.
Cannons are slightly better than Beams in a 4/3 by 4/4 setup but massively outdone by cannons in keeping 4/3 vs 4/3.
I bet if you could put DHC/Turrets on a cruiser and park and shoot it people would, and i mean not just the scimi's and avengers, best way to proably test it is a Klingon ship cause those cane do whatever they please.
4/4 DHC/Turret would run you.......1552..that considerably outdoes beams.
The next problem is piloting, so throttle control and ability to get back on target, thats one of the drawbacks for the massive power cannons have, beams are meant for broadsides.
I run on my Vesta (cause im a tool) 4 Refracting Tets, with the Hyper DBB and The Nukara mines, i get some good damage going in and then settle into a broadside pulling around to get that DBB back in arc for a BO.
Im thinking of wheeling out my Avenger throwing a bunch of Mk X DHC's and Turrets on it with a DBB.
Probably run it through 3 KASE, 3 ISE, and 3 Cure just to provide a straight Baseline, i may also do it with all beams and the DBB.
When i do so i will run all the parses, Screeny all the parses, post all the parses, and post the exact build i am using skills and all, i will not use doffs and i will put in whatever space traits i have and my Boffs have.
But i think the Min/Maxers are just expecting too much from a lack of diversity. And just for metntioning a lack of diversity i guess i will also test 2 turrets and a beam in the back and 1 SC, 1 DC, 1 DHC 1 DBB and another of one of those three up front.
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
The disadvantage of said cruisers is that unless you are on a team with at least 2 similar cruisers your 'dps' is just spam and due to random targeting most of it will be wasted apart from padding the meters, in other words, spam needs more spam to be useful beyond being spam, if you put a 50k dps Scimmy on a team of escorts it would get laughed at! If you put a 9k dps (non FAW spam) cruiser on the same team it would probably get the job done more effectively and (aside from the first few moments because it's a cruiser) it wouldn't get laughed at.
If we take this into a team pvp situation I feel more threatened in a team by a cruiser using single cannons spamming CRF than I do a FAW thing, hell, I'd be more concerned in a team about a turret Oddy CRFing than a Scimmy spamming FAW, why? Because the CRF ships will be focussing on one target, the FAW will be everywhere and really won't matter.
These are things that have to be taken into account when talking about these things.
First, full disclosure, I am a KDF PVPer that mildly min/maxes on builds I feel are just fun.
I don't want to fire up the argument again but I feel aux2bat tech doffs are clearly the biggest unbalancing factor in the game and thus refuse to run it even on my beam boats despite having a full set of purples.
All that said, you can now decide if you want to actually listen to my suggestions or simply ignore them based on some predefined bias against my player type.
I've read many suggestions about fixing FAW but have yet to see anything that resembles a more "canon" (yes, I said the dirty word) use of FAW that still renders it highly effective.
My suggestion is two-fold. First, FAW should take into account the concept. You are, due to lack of time or a need to redirect your attention, turning over control of your weapons to your officers. So why don't we?
I believe that FAW should have a little AI in it, have a threat table to decide what target gets fired upon. Giant plasma ball heading our way? I'd want to shoot that bloody thing first, wouldn't you? And closer targets of equal threat should have higher priority to make up for the lack of ability to choose your targets. It should still have a good bit of random in it.
Now the second half is how MANY targets? That's simple in my eyes. How many TAC officers do you have? That's how many targets you can fire at. I don't know about the whole double amount of firing cycles thing like we currently have. The math guys can figure that out I guess.
What about ships that have uni slots or an ensign tac that you can abuse to get more targets? No problem.
Reduce the acc of each shot based on the level of the station. Or have higher lvl stations adjust their own threat tables better.
An ensign shouldn't be able to shoot as good as a commander anyways.
Will this make some ships better than others? Heck yeah. How is that different from now?
If you want to drop your Lt eng in a uni slot for an extra tac so you can have more beams heading out, go ahead. You are going to be squishy as heck.
Just my suggestions. Have at em guys
I Vote yes
Get Rid of the Marion Doff / DEM combo thats the Problem not BFaW and crits
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
I would amend this slightly myself as this removes the point of FAW, it should be something along the lines of B*(O+1) where B is beams available, and O is officers firing, this way each beam can still fire at at least 2 targets thus maintaining the utility of the skill on single tactical station cruisers and science ships which rely more upon the ability.
As to your thing about accuracy, why not change drain so that each shot drains power rather than each firing cycle, this would afterall allow FAW's extra shots to drain as per standard shots meaning 50% extra drain when using FAW as power drained would remain drained for the remainder of the firing cycle.
I like the idea of it impacting drain, seems rather obvious that it should in all honesty (surprised I didn't
think of it
But I truly think that both boff type and boff station rank should play a major part in the game, instead of just counting a 10 slot ship vs a 12 slot.
load up 5 DHCs with scatter volley with your Romulan with 5 SRO's and do doube the DPs verses Beams add the 3 turrets for the full amout of DPs because you get Crits with the Cannons and double the firing rate verses the beams
If you can run 2 copys of DEM and buy the marion Doff you can double your DPS again over that add a quartermaster battery Doff and add more DPS
you can do more DPS in a Avenger with cannons and scatter volley than you can with BFaW
The Same with CRF against single targets as well
just train your second Tac bridge officer in Cannon Rapid Fire and you can switch the two out in seconds as needed once out of combat
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
So not only is this bug reducing the offensive output of BFAW cruisers, it's also making us more vulnerable to high-dps escorts and their OP spike damage.
For now, I've stopped flying my cruiser until they fix the issue. I've spent months perfecting my technique for dealing with smaller, nimbler ships, including using BFAW and placate to help with survivability. No point going into fights with one hand tied behind my back...
RCK
I want to start 2014 with the best of my schkills! FaW is one of them. Better make it start Crittin again cuz I jerk on the thought of having so much DPS without practically having to aim at anything! Full Cap'n Kirking
Its like when doffing came out, that gave me good jerk times too!
Listen to ^ bpharma, no disrespect, hes a very old vet and loves to actually fight with schkill!
So er shouldn't we change CSV as it's shooting three times as many shots as a normal firing sequence?
What about CRF too, double shot count, less damage per shot but it then also slaps a damage increase on too so should we add extra drain to that simply because of this?
Not to Adam with this, just something in general. Though this is interesting to think about, CSV at no cost increases your shots by 3 times as much, FAW increases it by 2.5 times (4 going to 10) so if we did make FAW more like scatter volley wouldn't we have to add 2 more shots to its cycle?
Also let's look at the cycles and firing time, CSV lasts for 10s, cannons have a 3 second cycle and so you can get 3 full cycles in during that.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't FAW a 10s duration with a 5s firing cycle? Which only gives you 2 cycles during that.
Using dual cannons you can get a 4 shots in per cycle, that's 3 cycles giving 12 shots to 3 targets, so that's 36 shots total. FAW gives 10 shots in 2 cycles, 20 shots in total at anything within its arc, randomly changing with no choice and little control. Even if it did a 3rd cycle before FAW ran out it's still 6 shots behind on the dual cannons and also single cannons, which could technically get a 4th cycle if FAW can get a 3rd.
It is through repetition that we learn our weakness.
A master with a stone is better than a novice with a sword.
Has damage got out of control?
This is the last thing I will post.
The 135 overcap is a myth really, it is (or was) just the effect of the first weapon is free to fire without drain, anything after would start draining.
The way I was thinking was that rather than have drain per firing cycle, rewrite the whole thing to drain per shot, this way skills like FAW and CSV wouldn't need their own built in drain increase as the extra shots given by them would arrange their own extra drain.
I can't say exactly how I project this would affect actual damage output as each beam shot would drain 2.5 power and keep it until the end of the firing cycle at which point it would return the power as it does now.
I've never actually noticed this 10 shot FAW, the only time I've seen 10 hit FAW is when I have multiple targets but I think this us due to a code line telling the weapon to fire as many shots as possible in it's firing cycle based on the parameters of each shot, as FAW increases RoF it can thus slot a 5th shot in the same 4 second firing time, the weapon then uses the 1 second cooldown as of the firing cycle's end to recharge the power to start over
I'm not sure about this, I'm fairly certain I get off at least 3 FAW cycles per ability activation but I think due to the way firing cycles compare to one another it works out at about the same in terms of shots fired at any given group of targets.
As for mightylepton, just because I do not agree with Antonio all the time it does not mean I don't respect him. He has an attitude that is sorely lacking in a lot of players and is one of the players I named in drkfrontiers name awesome PvPers thread.
It is through repetition that we learn our weakness.
A master with a stone is better than a novice with a sword.
Has damage got out of control?
This is the last thing I will post.
rant
I'm a little late to the thread.. But I am also wondering why we're STILL talking about FAW...AGAIN.....
Can't we give FAW A break for a month at least? Didnt' we JUST get done grinding a bug fix into FAW, now we have to complain about wheither or not it crits?!/rant
So I guess the better question, is FAW in a team setting better since its more balanced with out Crits,
rant
or should we just say F'it and let everything crit so that the game can be moar about Tacs until it becomes Tacs online?/rant
Suffice it to say I think I'm finding these threads about FAW and its seeming 4 year journy to find balance old and needing to be retired for a new series with more interesting eposides.
Think about this:
American Football has been in open beta for 144 years. ~Kotaku
FAW has made damage dealers (tacs) useless. That is the problem, why fly a tac escort if you can load up on BA and circle jerk a PVP match still just worrying about healing and letting the FAW AI decimate a team.