Ok, I see we're going to have another head-butting session.First of all, on my part, there was no "retconning", or revisionism. I suggest you re-read that thread, and tell me how you think a serious number of posters there even liked the idea. Of course, you're just going to do as you've done before, and dismiss anyone who disagrees with you, or start attacking them, as you've already done.
And as far as the "old "I got mine" mentality", there IS no such thing. You are NOT forced to use any kind of energy weapons if you do not wish to. So load up on as many torps as you want and go for it.
Of course, again, I believe you're just going to dismiss this post, because it doesn't agree with you, and offer insults instead. Which if that happens, I'm going to request a mod lock this thread. And you can take you're "manipulative & dishonest", and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
Have a nice day!
No one cares, least of all me, about how much my opinion upset you in other threads.
I'm going to respond based upon what you posted in this post right here:
Not much to see. You're selectively ignoring the people who supported that thread (and those who support this one), and only finding validity in what you already agree with, regardless of number or even value of argument for that matter.
"If you don't like X don't do X" is a lazy non-answer to virtually any issue, in games or in real life for that matter. "If you don't like (game mechanic that negatively affects rest of game) don't do (game mechanic that negatively affects rest of game)" has been said for years now, and is a nonuseful, nonhelpful, and rather contrarian statement.
We could apply it to politics ("If you don't like racial or gender discrimination in the workplace go work somewhere else"), to other entertainment mediums ("If you don't like your next door neighbor blasting high-bass music at 3am you don't have to play it yourself") or anywhere else for that matter.
TL;DR: Not a good argument, convinces no one, and only sounds selfish and petty.
Not without dedicated, can't-mount-anything-else-there Beam Array slots, Cannon slots, Dual Cannon slots, Dual Heavy Cannon slots, and Dual Beam Bank slots.
False equivalency here.
Also called reductio ad absurdum, you're implying, probably aware of how false it is, that one thing must lead to another, which is not so.
Back to torpedos having a slot. I would like to hear from those who are uncertain or unhappy with the idea of it as to why, specifically (not generally) they would find it to be a bad thing. Perhaps we can civily debate the issue of it and convince one another or not on the usefulness/detriment it would bring.
As for myself I can see even say back in the days before warp cores became a slotted device there would have been debate. One might have said "if you add warp cores that add additional energy it just imblances things and takes away the ship's unique power additives and invite power creep."
Well, the cores came in and they added more power on top of the power that the ships individually still posess and there was a bit of creep but it hasn't felt so bad. In fact most seem to have come to accept if not like them.
Back to torpedos having a slot. I would like to hear from those who are uncertain or unhappy with the idea of it as to why, specifically (not generally) they would find it to be a bad thing. Perhaps we can civily debate the issue of it and convince one another or not on the usefulness/detriment it would bring.
As for myself I can see even say back in the days before warp cores became a slotted device there would have been debate. One might have said "if you add warp cores that add additional energy it just imblances things and takes away the ship's unique power additives and invite power creep."
Well, the cores came in and they added more power on top of the power that the ships individually still posess and there was a bit of creep but it hasn't felt so bad. In fact most seem to have come to accept if not like them.
I recall strong resistance to warp cores, from the valid premise of power creep.
There's been some, yes, but ultimately warp cores were a needed and missing component of the ships and atmospherically the game has been enriched with them.
I'd say the same thing about dedicated launcher slots: Trek ships ought to have launchers, and not be punished for resembling Trek ships.
One of the nice things this'd do is, you've got all these nicely designed ships with visable torpedo launcher spots on them. Some are unique and fire from unique arcs (Nomad star cruiser, Regent) So it's a shame where these torps are set aside in favor of 8 energy weapons or something.
I recall strong resistance to warp cores, from the valid premise of power creep.
There's been some, yes, but ultimately warp cores were a needed and missing component of the ships and atmospherically the game has been enriched with them.
I'd say the same thing about dedicated launcher slots: Trek ships ought to have launchers, and not be punished for resembling Trek ships.
Back to torpedos having a slot. I would like to hear from those who are uncertain or unhappy with the idea of it as to why, specifically (not generally) they would find it to be a bad thing. Perhaps we can civily debate the issue of it and convince one another or not on the usefulness/detriment it would bring.
As for myself I can see even say back in the days before warp cores became a slotted device there would have been debate. One might have said "if you add warp cores that add additional energy it just imblances things and takes away the ship's unique power additives and invite power creep."
Well, the cores came in and they added more power on top of the power that the ships individually still posess and there was a bit of creep but it hasn't felt so bad. In fact most seem to have come to accept if not like them.
This is along the lines of my thought process. More aesthetic then a grab for more power.
One of the nice things this'd do is, you've got all these nicely designed ships with visable torpedo launcher spots on them. Some are unique and fire from unique arcs (Nomad star cruiser, Regent) So it's a shame where these torps are set aside in favor of 8 energy weapons or something.
But now that I recall for some reason the Excelsior has them in the wrong place
This is along the lines of my thought process. More aesthetic then a grab for more power.
I had no idea this was such a touchy topic...
Gamer culture can be territorial, even tribalistic.
To a lot of people its apparently not what is good in a Trek setting, or even in a Trek video game, but finding something and carving a niche out of it and protecting that niche. In this case, minmaxing in a video game and finding any change to the mechanics that might affect their dominance to be a personal threat to themselves.
This is along the lines of my thought process. More aesthetic then a grab for more power.
I had no idea this was such a touchy topic...
I know I wonder if Warp Cores were this touchy too. If they were I have to suspect that the touchyness comes from people having set up pretty perfect builds for the current game direction, perhaps costing them a lot of EC (or money converted to zen converted to keys converted to EC) so given what was spent on it they don't want ANY chances or upset in the current setup.
No one cares, least of all me, about how much my opinion upset you in other threads.
I'm going to respond based upon what you posted in this post right here:
Not much to see. You're selectively ignoring the people who supported that thread (and those who support this one), and only finding validity in what you already agree with, regardless of number or even value of argument for that matter.
"If you don't like X don't do X" is a lazy non-answer to virtually any issue, in games or in real life for that matter. "If you don't like (game mechanic that negatively affects rest of game) don't do (game mechanic that negatively affects rest of game)" has been said for years now, and is a nonuseful, nonhelpful, and rather contrarian statement.
We could apply it to politics ("If you don't like racial or gender discrimination in the workplace go work somewhere else"), to other entertainment mediums ("If you don't like your next door neighbor blasting high-bass music at 3am you don't have to play it yourself") or anywhere else for that matter.
TL;DR: Not a good argument, convinces no one, and only sounds selfish and petty.
Ok, to use your reasoning, then I should be able to mount 99 weapons, 87 consoles, 15 warp cores, etc etc, just because "If you don't like x, don't x is a lazy answer"
You have 6/7/8 weapon slots, depending on what type of tier 4/5 ship you are using. MOUNT a torp in there if it so pleases you. If it doesn't, then don't. Where in that, am I saying you can't have a torpedo launcher? Hmm? Just because I'm against a dedicated torp launcher slot, doesn't mean I'm against anyone using them. Hell, I use them plenty, every ship of mine, has at least one. (Sometimes 1 fore, 1 aft, depending on my concept & available equipment that I had, when I decided upon using that ship)
But this has NOTHING to do with "If you don't like harassment, go somewhere else." This has NOTHING to do with "If you're neighbours are irritating you, with something that can be reasonably construed as irritating, and/or harassing, you just don't have to do it yourself."
It's very much, learn to play within the mechanics you're given, and seek improvement. Not "I WIN" buttons. As giving even MORE damage capability to every ship out there, is just resulting in an already easy game, being even easier. Which is what it sounds like you're after.
As far as your PERSONAL ATTACKS on me, both here, and elsewhere, this is getting to be bs. I stated on more than one occasion, that you had points I agreed with. Yet somehow I am, what did you say..., oh yeah, "Not much to see. You're selectively ignoring the people who supported that thread (and those who support this one), and only finding validity in what you already agree with, regardless of number or even value of argument for that matter." Now it seems to me, that you're selectively ignoring people & parts or whole posts of people that have responded to you, and that you are WILFULLY being harassing, and abusive, towards those (not just me), that offer criticism, even of the constructive kind, towards anything you post.
No offense, but I'm getting sick of the things you're saying, and the bs that comes along with it. You show no tolerance towards anyone, except yourself, and "yes men". The minute someone comes along, and disagrees with even one thing you say, you start labelling them, and attacking them. So, keep it up, because in the end, the gods (or whatever you believe in) and/or the universe will know what type of person you are, & judge you accordingly to how you treated others.
Have a nice day!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Ok, to use your reasoning, then I should be able to mount 99 weapons, 87 consoles, 15 warp cores, etc etc, just because "If you don't like x, don't x is a lazy answer"
You have 6/7/8 weapon slots, depending on what type of tier 4/5 ship you are using. MOUNT a torp in there if it so pleases you. If it doesn't, then don't. Where in that, am I saying you can't have a torpedo launcher? Hmm? Just because I'm against a dedicated torp launcher slot, doesn't mean I'm against anyone using them. Hell, I use them plenty, every ship of mine, has at least one. (Sometimes 1 fore, 1 aft, depending on my concept & available equipment that I had, when I decided upon using that ship)
But this has NOTHING to do with "If you don't like harassment, go somewhere else." This has NOTHING to do with "If you're neighbours are irritating you, with something that can be reasonably construed as irritating, and/or harassing, you just don't have to do it yourself."
It's very much, learn to play within the mechanics you're given, and seek improvement. Not "I WIN" buttons. As giving even MORE damage capability to every ship out there, is just resulting in an already easy game, being even easier. Which is what it sounds like you're after.
As far as your PERSONAL ATTACKS on me, both here, and elsewhere, this is getting to be bs. I stated on more than one occasion, that you had points I agreed with. Yet somehow I am, what did you say..., oh yeah, "Not much to see. You're selectively ignoring the people who supported that thread (and those who support this one), and only finding validity in what you already agree with, regardless of number or even value of argument for that matter." Now it seems to me, that you're selectively ignoring people & parts or whole posts of people that have responded to you, and that you are WILFULLY being harassing, and abusive, towards those (not just me), that offer criticism, even of the constructive kind, towards anything you post.
No offense, but I'm getting sick of the things you're saying, and the bs that comes along with it. You show no tolerance towards anyone, except yourself, and "yes men". The minute someone comes along, and disagrees with even one thing you say, you start labelling them, and attacking them. So, keep it up, because in the end, the gods (or whatever you believe in) and/or the universe will know what type of person you are, & judge you accordingly to how you treated others.
Have a nice day!
So a tired reductio ad abdurdum sprinkled with false equivalency. Simply saying that one thing must lead into another does not make it so. There is an issue, both atmospheric in a Trek sense, and also in a game mechanics sense, where energy weapons are mandatory on just about all ships, and it takes a lot more skill points to get a minimal or even detrimental affect on the ship by adding projectiles.
Even if you are fine with it how it is (and obviously are) that doesn't mean it could not be improved upon and grant diversity and an improved Trek feeling with some tinkering. It's why warp cores were added after all.
And once again, please spare this thread about the personal attack stuff. You're going on and on about it and I don't think anyone cares. You liked a book that I find silly and cited it like some sort of source of wisdom and I found it silly, and that's too bad. It's not this thread, so let it go.
Back to torpedos having a slot. I would like to hear from those who are uncertain or unhappy with the idea of it as to why, specifically (not generally) they would find it to be a bad thing. Perhaps we can civily debate the issue of it and convince one another or not on the usefulness/detriment it would bring.
As for myself I can see even say back in the days before warp cores became a slotted device there would have been debate. One might have said "if you add warp cores that add additional energy it just imblances things and takes away the ship's unique power additives and invite power creep."
Well, the cores came in and they added more power on top of the power that the ships individually still posess and there was a bit of creep but it hasn't felt so bad. In fact most seem to have come to accept if not like them.
Ok, you're asking for reasonable, and civil responses. Cool. Here goes:
1> Reduced customizability of the ships. The way it currently is, already allows for those that like torp launchers, to use them. Also allows those that don't like them, or have a specific way they want a ship to run, that ends up not allowing for it, to not use them.
2> Now, in the case of an "Additional amount of slot(s)" being made, as dedicated torp launcher slots, still reduces customizability, but the biggest issue, is your damage capability goes up. A lot. Most NPC's in this game are easy mode enough. Be downright yawn-worthy, to stomp on a NPC (Even cubes etc), in under 3 seconds. And that's what this would end up leading to. Unless you reduced the damage that every weapon in the game does, for space. (And I could see a LOT of people getting upset at that.)
Now granted, in case (B), I wouldn't mind seeing weaponry getting lowered a bit, to make the battles feel a little more epic. But tons of people wouldn't. Think of every time some weapon, or mechanic get's a nerf, how many people whine & cry about "I want it BACK the way it was!!!!"
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Ok guys, lets talk torpedo slots. Both of you let go of past threds or post in those earlier threads to continue the struggle. I don't want this derailed.
Ok guys, lets talk torpedo slots. Both of you let go of past threds or post in those earlier threads to continue the struggle. I don't want this derailed.
Not my intention, and if you scroll up, I've offered feedback and content and didn't wish for anything else.
Like nails on the chalkboard, that guy's vendetta is making noise and I didn't ask for it and didn't want it here.
I'd like to hear a direct objection to the torpedo slot idea. It may have a power creep concern (valid, as was the warp core objections), but it's unfortunate how it turns into a seige mentality by people who are currently optimized for the current game.
I have several beam boats and cannon boats myself. They are very high end, with fleet elite gear and reputation gear and are just about as tip-top as they can be, and even then I wish that they had some sense of Starfleet flavor (or Klingon for that matter) and fired torpedoes. The models have the look, it looks cool, and I'd even take an increase in difficulty and a reason to have the extra slot (or even one less slot, but many boaters may freak out about that) to make this so.
Ok, you're asking for reasonable, and civil responses. Cool. Here goes:
1> Reduced customizability of the ships. The way it currently is, already allows for those that like torp launchers, to use them. Also allows those that don't like them, or have a specific way they want a ship to run, that ends up not allowing for it, to not use them.
2> Now, in the case of an "Additional amount of slot(s)" being made, as dedicated torp launcher slots, still reduces customizability, but the biggest issue, is your damage capability goes up. A lot. Most NPC's in this game are easy mode enough. Be downright yawn-worthy, to stomp on a NPC (Even cubes etc), in under 3 seconds. And that's what this would end up leading to. Unless you reduced the damage that every weapon in the game does, for space. (And I could see a LOT of people getting upset at that.)
Now granted, in case (B), I wouldn't mind seeing weaponry getting lowered a bit, to make the battles feel a little more epic. But tons of people wouldn't. Think of every time some weapon, or mechanic get's a nerf, how many people whine & cry about "I want it BACK the way it was!!!!"
In the case of reducing customization. I can't see it myself. Perhaps lessening the amount of energy weapons or all energy weapon setups if slots are moved from say, an escort's 4 forward to 2 forward energy 2 forward torpedo. Now in the case of an escort keeping 4 forward energy and adding 2 forward torpedos then I still can't see a lost of customization. it adds to it. You not only customize what energy weapons you want but what torpedos you want as well. It adds, not subtracts.
In terms of addition yes, it adds damage. But it becomes a subjective feeling of where it becomes this "yawn worthy" territory you go on about. Fun for all of us isn't difficulty, long to the point of tedium battles for sake of epic, or say dying over and over to feel like its tough. Sometimes fun is watching what your ship can do too.
If adding the slots means a rebalancing of how all weapons deal out damage I think we'd be fine with it. If they didn't and some things became easier, that might be fine too, because we'd have to see what was new on the horizon that may be tougher.
Consider this too. I'm not sure how enemy ships are designed as NPCs. Are they set up with an array of weapons or do they have weapons as "powers" that they use. If NPC ships are set up like us then THEY also get the torpedos as well as keeping the old energy spaces as well.
So a tired reductio ad abdurdum sprinkled with false equivalency. Simply saying that one thing must lead into another does not make it so. There is an issue, both atmospheric in a Trek sense, and also in a game mechanics sense, where energy weapons are mandatory on just about all ships, and it takes a lot more skill points to get a minimal or even detrimental affect on the ship by adding projectiles.
Even if you are fine with it how it is (and obviously are) that doesn't mean it could not be improved upon and grant diversity and an improved Trek feeling with some tinkering. It's why warp cores were added after all.
And once again, please spare this thread about the personal attack stuff. You're going on and on about it and I don't think anyone cares. You liked a book that I find silly and cited it like some sort of source of wisdom and I found it silly, and that's too bad. It's not this thread, so let it go.
Oh, ok. So you're fine as long as you get yours, eh? The very same thing you're accusing those of, that DON'T want this. And as far as "both atmospheric in a Trek sense, and also in a game mechanics sense, where energy weapons are mandatory on just about all ships, and it takes a lot more skill points to get a minimal or even detrimental affect on the ship by adding projectiles.", so? If you want torps, then get torps, again, I ask, where in hell has ANYTHING I have said, that I don't want you, or anyone else, to use them? Hell, I've chimed in on a thread, positively, that I felt would have improved torp usage. Namely, the shared cooldown garbage.
If you want an "improved Trek feeling", then why don't you start asking for more (& better) exploration missions, of all kinds (charting, first contact, observation, etc etc). Instead of trying to get support for a mechanic that most people don't seem to care for, if they think about it at all.
Oh, and how about being AMENABLE to criticism? Sometimes, when someone offers a differing viewpoint, than your own, you can learn something, and gain altogether new ideas for yourself, and to share? It's happened plenty of times to me, I'm hardly a person that "knows it all".
And as to your last comment, being called "dishonest, manipulative, and uncaring of other's opinions" IS a personal attack. And that's just what's been in this thread. I'm not even touching on what you said in mails to me, or the other thread where I ran afoul of you.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Enough TRIBBLE around, let's bring torpedos back into the game.
Cryptic has the ability to add "equipment slots"
Why not add a new slot, call it "torpedo tube" and allow all make all ships use torpedoes again without fretting about a loss if damage.
(you can still slot torpedoes in the default weapons slots, you essentially gain a +1 torpedo to your arsenal)
Maybe make this torp tube slot fire independently from your regular weapon powers
Whose with me here?
P.s. I have a 15k torp boat, they are viable to the average player but pale greatly in comparison to cannons and even more so, beams. I miss see big booms and I'm sure there are those that would like to see torps coming our of their beam boats
Intetesting Idea. I assume ship size would determine the number of availible torp slots?
Also, would or should it still be possible to slot a torp in the original existing weapons slot?
Intetesting Idea. I assume ship size would determine the number of availible torp slots?
Also, would or should it still be possible to slot a torp in the original existing weapons slot?
It might cause a lot of controversy, but I'd imagine that a filled-out proposal might involve each vessel type having its own energy and launcher hardpoints, perhaps adjustable (like a launcher slot being used as a mine bay or cannons instead of beam banks) but ultimately toward the visible intention of the vessel's class.
It might even involve "boating" to some extent. The defiant was definitely energy heavy, and its torpedoes seemed quite secondary, as one example.
It might cause a lot of controversy, but I'd imagine that a filled-out proposal might involve each vessel type having its own energy and launcher hardpoints, perhaps adjustable (like a launcher slot being used as a mine bay or cannons instead of beam banks) but ultimately toward the visible intention of the vessel's class.
It might even involve "boating" to some extent. The defiant was definitely energy heavy, and its torpedoes seemed quite secondary, as one example.
Oh, ok. So you're fine as long as you get yours, eh? The very same thing you're accusing those of, that DON'T want this. And as far as "both atmospheric in a Trek sense, and also in a game mechanics sense, where energy weapons are mandatory on just about all ships, and it takes a lot more skill points to get a minimal or even detrimental affect on the ship by adding projectiles.", so? If you want torps, then get torps, again, I ask, where in hell has ANYTHING I have said, that I don't want you, or anyone else, to use them? Hell, I've chimed in on a thread, positively, that I felt would have improved torp usage. Namely, the shared cooldown garbage.
If you want an "improved Trek feeling", then why don't you start asking for more (& better) exploration missions, of all kinds (charting, first contact, observation, etc etc). Instead of trying to get support for a mechanic that most people don't seem to care for, if they think about it at all.
Oh, and how about being AMENABLE to criticism? Sometimes, when someone offers a differing viewpoint, than your own, you can learn something, and gain altogether new ideas for yourself, and to share? It's happened plenty of times to me, I'm hardly a person that "knows it all".
And as to your last comment, being called "dishonest, manipulative, and uncaring of other's opinions" IS a personal attack. And that's just what's been in this thread. I'm not even touching on what you said in mails to me, or the other thread where I ran afoul of you.
It is fine to have an opinion but its not helping you, nor is it contributing anything to this thread to keep going on and on about how much I apparently offended you in a thread not many here even remember.
If you repost (or edit) and exclude all of that stuff I would be pleased to respond like I would to any other poster, agreement or disagreement.
I very seriously would be absolutely fine with "boating" if there wasn't this weird game issue of "sure you can use torpedoes, but it will cost you almost double the skill points to slot for them, and use a weapons lot that is probably better used with an energy weapon."
It feels like a penalty, a penalty that costs points, to have torpedoes. You PVP a lot more than I do, and it is easy to assume that only some very specialized roles use torpedoes, considering skillpoint cost, split skillpoint budget, and not to mention the fact that a lot of otherwise-strong-in-PVE torpedoes like romulan plasma can be easily outrun in PVP dedicated builds.
There's been a few ideas bounced around of what ship size gets what. Cruiser more torps, Escorts less than cruisers, science least of all.
Obviously you've got the Klingon mix of Destroyers, Raiders, Flight deck carriers, etc making the gneral spread of it a little more complex. Warbirds vary too so they could be quite mixed as well.
One of the ides for the sciece vessels, science leaning vessels (Ha'nom) and such was an idea of a probe launcher. Something adding a little extra science gimmick instead of just more torpedo damage.
There's been a few ideas bounced around of what ship size gets what. Cruiser more torps, Escorts less than cruisers, science least of all.
Obviously you've got the Klingon mix of Destroyers, Raiders, Flight deck carriers, etc making the gneral spread of it a little more complex. Warbirds vary too so they could be quite mixed as well.
One of the ides for the sciece vessels, science leaning vessels (Ha'nom) and such was an idea of a probe launcher. Something adding a little extra science gimmick instead of just more torpedo damage.
The slots could be flexible, certainly.
Maybe the launcher slot on an escort could have some kind of leeching probe if the guy didnt want to fire torpedoes. Random idea, though if it went too far there it might lead into boating anyway.
Maybe the launcher slot on an escort could have some kind of leeching probe if the guy didnt want to fire torpedoes. Random idea, though if it went too far there it might lead into boating anyway.
Maybe. Though the two ships in the show seen to do the most probe launcher were the Enterprise-D and Voyager.
In my own personal thoughts I see Cruisers maybe having the most torpedo capacity. Escorts the most forward torpedo capacity. Science ships have fore and aft, maybe the probes idea but not much else. Not sure how it'd pan out to be the best balance around. And then of course there's warbirds and such.
Some warbirds like the D'deridex and Hapax may be cruiser like. T'varo might end up escortish, Ha'nom science. Flight deck carriers may have 1 less since they've got the hangar capacity, but then there's the torpedo happy Armitage so who knows what that'd do.
To the point of this causing power creep. Yes it can be said it could happen. I do know some mmos have the capacity to scale the HP of their game world's entities. If STO has this as well then it could (maybe) be as simple a thing as upping the enemy HP percentage (say it's at 100% now it could be up to 110% or whatnot)
In the case of reducing customization. I can't see it myself. Perhaps lessening the amount of energy weapons or all energy weapon setups if slots are moved from say, an escort's 4 forward to 2 forward energy 2 forward torpedo. Now in the case of an escort keeping 4 forward energy and adding 2 forward torpedos then I still can't see a lost of customization. it adds to it. You not only customize what energy weapons you want but what torpedos you want as well. It adds, not subtracts.
In terms of addition yes, it adds damage. But it becomes a subjective feeling of where it becomes this "yawn worthy" territory you go on about. Fun for all of us isn't difficulty, long to the point of tedium battles for sake of epic, or say dying over and over to feel like its tough. Sometimes fun is watching what your ship can do too.
If adding the slots means a rebalancing of how all weapons deal out damage I think we'd be fine with it. If they didn't and some things became easier, that might be fine too, because we'd have to see what was new on the horizon that may be tougher.
Consider this too. I'm not sure how enemy ships are designed as NPCs. Are they set up with an array of weapons or do they have weapons as "powers" that they use. If NPC ships are set up like us then THEY also get the torpedos as well as keeping the old energy spaces as well.
On your first part, it still detracts from customization. Sticking with your escort, that has 4 forward energy & 2 torp slots. That means, I HAVE to slot 4 energy weapons, and 2 torps. Not 5 & 1, or 6 & 0 on energy. Or on torps. So yes, it still reduces customization options. Sure you have more slots to play with. But they're locked as to type. And I'm a big fan of "freehand customization".
I had the same experience with the tabletop BattleTech/ computer MW/MW2/MW3 giving you the options of constructing your mechs the way you wanted, within certain limits, and then for Dark Age/MW4, you all of a sudden were limited to "hardpoints" being energy, missile, or kinetic. (A few slots, on certain mechs had a few Omni slots as well). To me, it really detracted from the customization aspect of the game.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
There are also specific locations where beam arrays can be located, where cannons can be located, and where dual beam banks can be located. But strangely I don't hear any of the "free extra launcher slots" crowd demanding that slots originally containing beams be locked from using cannons or vice-versa.
All or nothing- either every ship gets slots dedicated to every specific weapon type and you don't "mix-and-match" any of them, or we stick with the current "it's a universal weapon slot" system. But oh, hell no to "universal energy weapon slots so I can min-max all cannons/beams/whatever, but free dedicated torp slots on top of that."
Not really, energy weapons only need to be tied into an energy converter and into the power supply of the ship. Energy Weapons are conversions of power input into an energy conversion system for damage output. This is channeled via the array or cannon systems. Arrays and Cannons technically could be placed anywhere on a ships outer facing as long as they have power driven to them.
Launching systems do not have this luxury. They must be placed with tubulars from the inside of the ship to the outside of the ship with loading systems and storage for the devices. Torpedoes, mines and probes cannot be stored in a cargo hold in the center of the ship and be shot out in any direction from the ship. This is why they tend to have very narrow firing arcs. They have targeting and tracking systems but they are not missiles with self propulsion systems intact. This is why once fired they do not follow the target when they miss.
There already has been a thread about a "dedicated torpedo launcher slot". The general consensus was, it's a horrid idea. Mainly for two reasons.
A>Takes away from the customizability of a ship. While I (and a great many others), enjoy using torps, some people either do not, or have specific builds for certain ships of theirs, that don't utilize them. Also, if you have dedi torp slots, wouldn't it be logical to have dedicated cannon, dual cannon, beam array, dual beam bank, and turret slots as well? Again, would lead to reducing the customizability of ships.
B> Adds even more damage capability to ships. While some of the lower tier ship (1-3) might actually see this as a benefit, this game is already easy mode enough. At any tier and level. And once you start getting rep items, fleet items, etc etc, installed on your ships, most people do weird amounts of damage already to at least NPC's, and I've even heard PvP'ers say that the damage levels can go to insane proportions in that mode of gameplay.
So overall, most of the people, in that prior thread, and the few I've already read in this one, seem to agree, with good reasoning, that any kind of hard lock on what kind of weapon in particular you can mount in a slot, even if "extra slots" are given, is just a bad idea. As do I.
"General Consensus" is for this not against, however, it is about a 58/42 split.
A> It does not take customization away from players to design their ship the best way they can given the tools they have to add to it. And no, there is no need to have dedicated energy weapon slots as I stated above energy systems are simply a conduit to channel power from the ships core into a weapon system.
B> With adding tools and powers you adjust abilities and skills to even the load. No one here is saying ?Keep everything as is and add a new power and damage source!? What is being requested here is canon and more compelling IMO.
The idea isn't to increase dps but to see everyone using torpedos.
Idea has been shot down, I'll go back to throwing builds at everyone
The idea isn?t to force people to use torpedoes, it is to make ships more on line with what is proper in canon and address how ships should be designed.
To me the biggest issue with current weapon setups is that torps require almost twice the skillpoint investment than a energy-only ship, and while energy-only is more than viable, in fact optimal, an all-torp ship is almost worthless in most situations.
Unless torps were cheaper at the very least, the way things are now, torpedoes are a lot of expense for minimal value.
How so? Skill point investment for torpedoes vs energy includes, Lieutenant Tac: Starship Weapons (Affects both Proj and Energy,) LtCmdr: Starship Projectile Weapons = vs Energy Weapons, Cmdr: Starship Targeting Systems (Affects both Proj and Energy,) Adm: Starship Weapon Specialization = Projectile vs Energy.
Engineering: LtCmdr; Starship Warp Core Efficiency (Affects Energy Power not Projectiles,) Cmdr; Starship Warp Core Potential (Affects Energy Power not Projectiles,) Admr; Starship Weapon Performance (Weapon Power affects Energy not Projectile.)
Science: Cmdr; Starship Graviton Generators (Affects some Projectile effects,) Starship Particle Generators (Affects some Projectile effects.)
It takes more skill points to make Energy Weapons more effective. This does not include the fact that firing multiple Energy Weapons depreciates the damage. If you have 100 Energy Power and fire 1 energy weapon system it will do 100% energy weapon damage per shot. Firing 2 weapon systems will make weapon 1 do 100% while weapon 2 does ~ 90%. 3rd weapon deals ~80% and so on.
This is not the case with projectiles. They deal what is listed on the launcher itself. Projectile Tubes that have specific hard point positioning might be directional, thus the command to ?Fire Tube 2!? This can be represented on ships as well. With a 90? firing arc, 2 Fore Launchers could actually have a 180? firing arc.
As I stated here:
All Cruisers should be outfitted with 4 fore/4 aft energy weapons, 2 fore/2 aft launchers.
All Escorts should be outfitted with 4 fore/3 aft energy weapons, 2 fore/2 aft launchers.
All Science/Support should be outfitted with 3 fore/3 aft energy weapons, 2 fore/2 aft launchers.
All Carriers should be outfitted with 3 fore/3 aft energy weapons, 2 fore/1 aft launchers.
All Raiders should be outfitted with 4 fore/3 aft energy weapons, 1 fore/1 aft launchers.
All Destroyers should be outfitted with 5 fore/2 aft energy weapons, 2 fore/1 aft launchers
All Small Craft should be outfitted with 1 fore/1 aft energy, 1 fore launcher.
And again, Torpedoes, Mines and Probes are all expended items that do not get recycled so there for should be consumed on use. They should be purchased in stacks of 250 ea. and be slotted in the launcher like slotting a battery in the device slot. When you fire the launcher it consumes X projectiles. Normal launch, 1 projectile, HY ^5, Spread ^15, Deploy 5, Dispersal Pattern A ^12, DPB ^16. It would still take you a while to burn through all your projectiles.
I think they were referred to as some sort of "energy cells" (i.e. capacitors) that got burned out every time the Defiant's cannons were fired at maximum power (the cannon equivalent of "beam overload", sort of).
Not really, energy weapons only need to be tied into an energy converter and into the power supply of the ship. Energy Weapons are conversions of power input into an energy conversion system for damage output. This is channeled via the array or cannon systems. Arrays and Cannons technically could be placed anywhere on a ships outer facing as long as they have power driven to them.
Launching systems do not have this luxury. They must be placed with tubulars from the inside of the ship to the outside of the ship with loading systems and storage for the devices. Torpedoes, mines and probes cannot be stored in a cargo hold in the center of the ship and be shot out in any direction from the ship. This is why they tend to have very narrow firing arcs. They have targeting and tracking systems but they are not missiles with self propulsion systems intact. This is why once fired they do not follow the target when they miss.
"General Consensus" is for this not against, however, it is about a 58/42 split.
A> It does not take customization away from players to design their ship the best way they can given the tools they have to add to it. And no, there is no need to have dedicated energy weapon slots as I stated above energy systems are simply a conduit to channel power from the ships core into a weapon system. You missed the point, it does still take away from customizing options, even if you have more slots to play with.
B> With adding tools and powers you adjust abilities and skills to even the load. No one here is saying ?Keep everything as is and add a new power and damage source!? What is being requested here is canon and more compelling IMO.
Canon went out the door a loooong time ago
The idea isn?t to force people to use torpedoes, it is to make ships more on line with what is proper in canon and address how ships should be designed.
See above.
How so? Skill point investment for torpedoes vs energy includes, Lieutenant Tac: Starship Weapons (Affects both Proj and Energy,) LtCmdr: Starship Projectile Weapons = vs Energy Weapons, Cmdr: Starship Targeting Systems (Affects both Proj and Energy,) Adm: Starship Weapon Specialization = Projectile vs Energy.
Engineering: LtCmdr; Starship Warp Core Efficiency (Affects Energy Power not Projectiles,) Cmdr; Starship Warp Core Potential (Affects Energy Power not Projectiles,) Admr; Starship Weapon Performance (Weapon Power affects Energy not Projectile.)
Science: Cmdr; Starship Graviton Generators (Affects some Projectile effects,) Starship Particle Generators (Affects some Projectile effects.)
It takes more skill points to make Energy Weapons more effective. This does not include the fact that firing multiple Energy Weapons depreciates the damage. If you have 100 Energy Power and fire 1 energy weapon system it will do 100% energy weapon damage per shot. Firing 2 weapon systems will make weapon 1 do 100% while weapon 2 does ~ 90%. 3rd weapon deals ~80% and so on.
This is not the case with projectiles. They deal what is listed on the launcher itself. Projectile Tubes that have specific hard point positioning might be directional, thus the command to ?Fire Tube 2!? This can be represented on ships as well. With a 90? firing arc, 2 Fore Launchers could actually have a 180? firing arc.
As I stated here:
All Cruisers should be outfitted with 4 fore/4 aft energy weapons, 2 fore/2 aft launchers.
All Escorts should be outfitted with 4 fore/3 aft energy weapons, 2 fore/2 aft launchers.
All Science/Support should be outfitted with 3 fore/3 aft energy weapons, 2 fore/2 aft launchers.
All Carriers should be outfitted with 3 fore/3 aft energy weapons, 2 fore/1 aft launchers.
All Raiders should be outfitted with 4 fore/3 aft energy weapons, 1 fore/1 aft launchers.
All Destroyers should be outfitted with 5 fore/2 aft energy weapons, 2 fore/1 aft launchers
All Small Craft should be outfitted with 1 fore/1 aft energy, 1 fore launcher.
And again, Torpedoes, Mines and Probes are all expended items that do not get recycled so there for should be consumed on use. They should be purchased in stacks of 250 ea. and be slotted in the launcher like slotting a battery in the device slot. When you fire the launcher it consumes X projectiles. Normal launch, 1 projectile, HY ^5, Spread ^15, Deploy 5, Dispersal Pattern A ^12, DPB ^16. It would still take you a while to burn through all your projectiles. Still adds to power creep, with typically 2 more slots for weapons, under what you're proposing. Again, this game is easy enough, don't need to add even more power to players' ships. Although with shared cooldowns, most likely, the 2nd torp would be kind of a waste, anyway.
Replies in red.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Comments
No one cares, least of all me, about how much my opinion upset you in other threads.
I'm going to respond based upon what you posted in this post right here:
Not much to see. You're selectively ignoring the people who supported that thread (and those who support this one), and only finding validity in what you already agree with, regardless of number or even value of argument for that matter.
"If you don't like X don't do X" is a lazy non-answer to virtually any issue, in games or in real life for that matter. "If you don't like (game mechanic that negatively affects rest of game) don't do (game mechanic that negatively affects rest of game)" has been said for years now, and is a nonuseful, nonhelpful, and rather contrarian statement.
We could apply it to politics ("If you don't like racial or gender discrimination in the workplace go work somewhere else"), to other entertainment mediums ("If you don't like your next door neighbor blasting high-bass music at 3am you don't have to play it yourself") or anywhere else for that matter.
TL;DR: Not a good argument, convinces no one, and only sounds selfish and petty.
False equivalency here.
Also called reductio ad absurdum, you're implying, probably aware of how false it is, that one thing must lead to another, which is not so.
As for myself I can see even say back in the days before warp cores became a slotted device there would have been debate. One might have said "if you add warp cores that add additional energy it just imblances things and takes away the ship's unique power additives and invite power creep."
Well, the cores came in and they added more power on top of the power that the ships individually still posess and there was a bit of creep but it hasn't felt so bad. In fact most seem to have come to accept if not like them.
I recall strong resistance to warp cores, from the valid premise of power creep.
There's been some, yes, but ultimately warp cores were a needed and missing component of the ships and atmospherically the game has been enriched with them.
I'd say the same thing about dedicated launcher slots: Trek ships ought to have launchers, and not be punished for resembling Trek ships.
This is along the lines of my thought process. More aesthetic then a grab for more power.
I had no idea this was such a touchy topic...
My PvE/PvP hybrid skill tree
But now that I recall for some reason the Excelsior has them in the wrong place
Gamer culture can be territorial, even tribalistic.
To a lot of people its apparently not what is good in a Trek setting, or even in a Trek video game, but finding something and carving a niche out of it and protecting that niche. In this case, minmaxing in a video game and finding any change to the mechanics that might affect their dominance to be a personal threat to themselves.
I know I wonder if Warp Cores were this touchy too. If they were I have to suspect that the touchyness comes from people having set up pretty perfect builds for the current game direction, perhaps costing them a lot of EC (or money converted to zen converted to keys converted to EC) so given what was spent on it they don't want ANY chances or upset in the current setup.
Ok, to use your reasoning, then I should be able to mount 99 weapons, 87 consoles, 15 warp cores, etc etc, just because "If you don't like x, don't x is a lazy answer"
You have 6/7/8 weapon slots, depending on what type of tier 4/5 ship you are using. MOUNT a torp in there if it so pleases you. If it doesn't, then don't. Where in that, am I saying you can't have a torpedo launcher? Hmm? Just because I'm against a dedicated torp launcher slot, doesn't mean I'm against anyone using them. Hell, I use them plenty, every ship of mine, has at least one. (Sometimes 1 fore, 1 aft, depending on my concept & available equipment that I had, when I decided upon using that ship)
But this has NOTHING to do with "If you don't like harassment, go somewhere else." This has NOTHING to do with "If you're neighbours are irritating you, with something that can be reasonably construed as irritating, and/or harassing, you just don't have to do it yourself."
It's very much, learn to play within the mechanics you're given, and seek improvement. Not "I WIN" buttons. As giving even MORE damage capability to every ship out there, is just resulting in an already easy game, being even easier. Which is what it sounds like you're after.
As far as your PERSONAL ATTACKS on me, both here, and elsewhere, this is getting to be bs. I stated on more than one occasion, that you had points I agreed with. Yet somehow I am, what did you say..., oh yeah, "Not much to see. You're selectively ignoring the people who supported that thread (and those who support this one), and only finding validity in what you already agree with, regardless of number or even value of argument for that matter." Now it seems to me, that you're selectively ignoring people & parts or whole posts of people that have responded to you, and that you are WILFULLY being harassing, and abusive, towards those (not just me), that offer criticism, even of the constructive kind, towards anything you post.
No offense, but I'm getting sick of the things you're saying, and the bs that comes along with it. You show no tolerance towards anyone, except yourself, and "yes men". The minute someone comes along, and disagrees with even one thing you say, you start labelling them, and attacking them. So, keep it up, because in the end, the gods (or whatever you believe in) and/or the universe will know what type of person you are, & judge you accordingly to how you treated others.
Have a nice day!
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
So a tired reductio ad abdurdum sprinkled with false equivalency. Simply saying that one thing must lead into another does not make it so. There is an issue, both atmospheric in a Trek sense, and also in a game mechanics sense, where energy weapons are mandatory on just about all ships, and it takes a lot more skill points to get a minimal or even detrimental affect on the ship by adding projectiles.
Even if you are fine with it how it is (and obviously are) that doesn't mean it could not be improved upon and grant diversity and an improved Trek feeling with some tinkering. It's why warp cores were added after all.
And once again, please spare this thread about the personal attack stuff. You're going on and on about it and I don't think anyone cares. You liked a book that I find silly and cited it like some sort of source of wisdom and I found it silly, and that's too bad. It's not this thread, so let it go.
Ok, you're asking for reasonable, and civil responses. Cool. Here goes:
1> Reduced customizability of the ships. The way it currently is, already allows for those that like torp launchers, to use them. Also allows those that don't like them, or have a specific way they want a ship to run, that ends up not allowing for it, to not use them.
2> Now, in the case of an "Additional amount of slot(s)" being made, as dedicated torp launcher slots, still reduces customizability, but the biggest issue, is your damage capability goes up. A lot. Most NPC's in this game are easy mode enough. Be downright yawn-worthy, to stomp on a NPC (Even cubes etc), in under 3 seconds. And that's what this would end up leading to. Unless you reduced the damage that every weapon in the game does, for space. (And I could see a LOT of people getting upset at that.)
Now granted, in case (B), I wouldn't mind seeing weaponry getting lowered a bit, to make the battles feel a little more epic. But tons of people wouldn't. Think of every time some weapon, or mechanic get's a nerf, how many people whine & cry about "I want it BACK the way it was!!!!"
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Not my intention, and if you scroll up, I've offered feedback and content and didn't wish for anything else.
Like nails on the chalkboard, that guy's vendetta is making noise and I didn't ask for it and didn't want it here.
I'd like to hear a direct objection to the torpedo slot idea. It may have a power creep concern (valid, as was the warp core objections), but it's unfortunate how it turns into a seige mentality by people who are currently optimized for the current game.
I have several beam boats and cannon boats myself. They are very high end, with fleet elite gear and reputation gear and are just about as tip-top as they can be, and even then I wish that they had some sense of Starfleet flavor (or Klingon for that matter) and fired torpedoes. The models have the look, it looks cool, and I'd even take an increase in difficulty and a reason to have the extra slot (or even one less slot, but many boaters may freak out about that) to make this so.
In the case of reducing customization. I can't see it myself. Perhaps lessening the amount of energy weapons or all energy weapon setups if slots are moved from say, an escort's 4 forward to 2 forward energy 2 forward torpedo. Now in the case of an escort keeping 4 forward energy and adding 2 forward torpedos then I still can't see a lost of customization. it adds to it. You not only customize what energy weapons you want but what torpedos you want as well. It adds, not subtracts.
In terms of addition yes, it adds damage. But it becomes a subjective feeling of where it becomes this "yawn worthy" territory you go on about. Fun for all of us isn't difficulty, long to the point of tedium battles for sake of epic, or say dying over and over to feel like its tough. Sometimes fun is watching what your ship can do too.
If adding the slots means a rebalancing of how all weapons deal out damage I think we'd be fine with it. If they didn't and some things became easier, that might be fine too, because we'd have to see what was new on the horizon that may be tougher.
Consider this too. I'm not sure how enemy ships are designed as NPCs. Are they set up with an array of weapons or do they have weapons as "powers" that they use. If NPC ships are set up like us then THEY also get the torpedos as well as keeping the old energy spaces as well.
Oh, ok. So you're fine as long as you get yours, eh? The very same thing you're accusing those of, that DON'T want this. And as far as "both atmospheric in a Trek sense, and also in a game mechanics sense, where energy weapons are mandatory on just about all ships, and it takes a lot more skill points to get a minimal or even detrimental affect on the ship by adding projectiles.", so? If you want torps, then get torps, again, I ask, where in hell has ANYTHING I have said, that I don't want you, or anyone else, to use them? Hell, I've chimed in on a thread, positively, that I felt would have improved torp usage. Namely, the shared cooldown garbage.
If you want an "improved Trek feeling", then why don't you start asking for more (& better) exploration missions, of all kinds (charting, first contact, observation, etc etc). Instead of trying to get support for a mechanic that most people don't seem to care for, if they think about it at all.
Oh, and how about being AMENABLE to criticism? Sometimes, when someone offers a differing viewpoint, than your own, you can learn something, and gain altogether new ideas for yourself, and to share? It's happened plenty of times to me, I'm hardly a person that "knows it all".
And as to your last comment, being called "dishonest, manipulative, and uncaring of other's opinions" IS a personal attack. And that's just what's been in this thread. I'm not even touching on what you said in mails to me, or the other thread where I ran afoul of you.
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Intetesting Idea. I assume ship size would determine the number of availible torp slots?
Also, would or should it still be possible to slot a torp in the original existing weapons slot?
R.I.P
It might cause a lot of controversy, but I'd imagine that a filled-out proposal might involve each vessel type having its own energy and launcher hardpoints, perhaps adjustable (like a launcher slot being used as a mine bay or cannons instead of beam banks) but ultimately toward the visible intention of the vessel's class.
It might even involve "boating" to some extent. The defiant was definitely energy heavy, and its torpedoes seemed quite secondary, as one example.
Good point it could.lead to imbalance.
R.I.P
It is fine to have an opinion but its not helping you, nor is it contributing anything to this thread to keep going on and on about how much I apparently offended you in a thread not many here even remember.
If you repost (or edit) and exclude all of that stuff I would be pleased to respond like I would to any other poster, agreement or disagreement.
I very seriously would be absolutely fine with "boating" if there wasn't this weird game issue of "sure you can use torpedoes, but it will cost you almost double the skill points to slot for them, and use a weapons lot that is probably better used with an energy weapon."
It feels like a penalty, a penalty that costs points, to have torpedoes. You PVP a lot more than I do, and it is easy to assume that only some very specialized roles use torpedoes, considering skillpoint cost, split skillpoint budget, and not to mention the fact that a lot of otherwise-strong-in-PVE torpedoes like romulan plasma can be easily outrun in PVP dedicated builds.
Obviously you've got the Klingon mix of Destroyers, Raiders, Flight deck carriers, etc making the gneral spread of it a little more complex. Warbirds vary too so they could be quite mixed as well.
One of the ides for the sciece vessels, science leaning vessels (Ha'nom) and such was an idea of a probe launcher. Something adding a little extra science gimmick instead of just more torpedo damage.
The slots could be flexible, certainly.
Maybe the launcher slot on an escort could have some kind of leeching probe if the guy didnt want to fire torpedoes. Random idea, though if it went too far there it might lead into boating anyway.
Maybe. Though the two ships in the show seen to do the most probe launcher were the Enterprise-D and Voyager.
In my own personal thoughts I see Cruisers maybe having the most torpedo capacity. Escorts the most forward torpedo capacity. Science ships have fore and aft, maybe the probes idea but not much else. Not sure how it'd pan out to be the best balance around. And then of course there's warbirds and such.
Some warbirds like the D'deridex and Hapax may be cruiser like. T'varo might end up escortish, Ha'nom science. Flight deck carriers may have 1 less since they've got the hangar capacity, but then there's the torpedo happy Armitage so who knows what that'd do.
I had the same experience with the tabletop BattleTech/ computer MW/MW2/MW3 giving you the options of constructing your mechs the way you wanted, within certain limits, and then for Dark Age/MW4, you all of a sudden were limited to "hardpoints" being energy, missile, or kinetic. (A few slots, on certain mechs had a few Omni slots as well). To me, it really detracted from the customization aspect of the game.
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Not really, energy weapons only need to be tied into an energy converter and into the power supply of the ship. Energy Weapons are conversions of power input into an energy conversion system for damage output. This is channeled via the array or cannon systems. Arrays and Cannons technically could be placed anywhere on a ships outer facing as long as they have power driven to them.
Launching systems do not have this luxury. They must be placed with tubulars from the inside of the ship to the outside of the ship with loading systems and storage for the devices. Torpedoes, mines and probes cannot be stored in a cargo hold in the center of the ship and be shot out in any direction from the ship. This is why they tend to have very narrow firing arcs. They have targeting and tracking systems but they are not missiles with self propulsion systems intact. This is why once fired they do not follow the target when they miss.
"General Consensus" is for this not against, however, it is about a 58/42 split.
A> It does not take customization away from players to design their ship the best way they can given the tools they have to add to it. And no, there is no need to have dedicated energy weapon slots as I stated above energy systems are simply a conduit to channel power from the ships core into a weapon system.
B> With adding tools and powers you adjust abilities and skills to even the load. No one here is saying ?Keep everything as is and add a new power and damage source!? What is being requested here is canon and more compelling IMO.
The idea isn?t to force people to use torpedoes, it is to make ships more on line with what is proper in canon and address how ships should be designed.
How so? Skill point investment for torpedoes vs energy includes, Lieutenant Tac: Starship Weapons (Affects both Proj and Energy,) LtCmdr: Starship Projectile Weapons = vs Energy Weapons, Cmdr: Starship Targeting Systems (Affects both Proj and Energy,) Adm: Starship Weapon Specialization = Projectile vs Energy.
Engineering: LtCmdr; Starship Warp Core Efficiency (Affects Energy Power not Projectiles,) Cmdr; Starship Warp Core Potential (Affects Energy Power not Projectiles,) Admr; Starship Weapon Performance (Weapon Power affects Energy not Projectile.)
Science: Cmdr; Starship Graviton Generators (Affects some Projectile effects,) Starship Particle Generators (Affects some Projectile effects.)
It takes more skill points to make Energy Weapons more effective. This does not include the fact that firing multiple Energy Weapons depreciates the damage. If you have 100 Energy Power and fire 1 energy weapon system it will do 100% energy weapon damage per shot. Firing 2 weapon systems will make weapon 1 do 100% while weapon 2 does ~ 90%. 3rd weapon deals ~80% and so on.
This is not the case with projectiles. They deal what is listed on the launcher itself. Projectile Tubes that have specific hard point positioning might be directional, thus the command to ?Fire Tube 2!? This can be represented on ships as well. With a 90? firing arc, 2 Fore Launchers could actually have a 180? firing arc.
As I stated here:
All Cruisers should be outfitted with 4 fore/4 aft energy weapons, 2 fore/2 aft launchers.
All Escorts should be outfitted with 4 fore/3 aft energy weapons, 2 fore/2 aft launchers.
All Science/Support should be outfitted with 3 fore/3 aft energy weapons, 2 fore/2 aft launchers.
All Carriers should be outfitted with 3 fore/3 aft energy weapons, 2 fore/1 aft launchers.
All Raiders should be outfitted with 4 fore/3 aft energy weapons, 1 fore/1 aft launchers.
All Destroyers should be outfitted with 5 fore/2 aft energy weapons, 2 fore/1 aft launchers
All Small Craft should be outfitted with 1 fore/1 aft energy, 1 fore launcher.
And again, Torpedoes, Mines and Probes are all expended items that do not get recycled so there for should be consumed on use. They should be purchased in stacks of 250 ea. and be slotted in the launcher like slotting a battery in the device slot. When you fire the launcher it consumes X projectiles. Normal launch, 1 projectile, HY ^5, Spread ^15, Deploy 5, Dispersal Pattern A ^12, DPB ^16. It would still take you a while to burn through all your projectiles.
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"