Oh, well, ****, if we're going *there*, ships should only be able to carry 32 mines. Just two DPB3 drops. Gone are the days of dumping mines all over NPCs, you have to *carefully* time them and, once they're gone, they're *gone* for that STF.
Well, while we're at it, why don't we have persistent ship injuries until you visit a starbase and specifically seek out the chief engineer to have your ship repaired.
I'd get behind that for sure, but most people would be like 'hell no'.
I like this idea... or, at least, for the critical ones. Minor injuries slowly autorepair over time?
And maybe making ship injuries do *more* obvious things. "Energy weapon system damage" should disable a randomized energy weapon, "targetting subsystem failure" should give this HUGE -20% [acc] debuff or something.
Perhaps there should be something like "Deflector Damage", which disables or severely nerfs all deflector abilities?
All of which would be balanced out by you getting a quest explaining WTF ship injuries are at level 50 or so, seeing as STO has no documentation about them beyond one of the tutorial missions, which nobody plays, ever.
The more I think about this, the more I think that ships should have a predetermined loadout. All of this customization is silly.
Example:
Intrepid class (based on what I could find through Google):
2X forward phaser beam arrays on the port and starboard sides of the primary hulll, ventral side
2X forward phaser beam arrays on the port and starboard side of the primary hull, dorsal side
2X mid hull phaser beam arrays on the port and starboard side of the primary hull, dorsal and ventral side
1 phaser beam array on the ventral side of the secondary hull
2X forward torpedo launchers above the main deflector
2X forward tricobalt launcher
1X aft torpedo launcher on the dorsal side
1X aft tricobalt launcher
Also worth noting, the Intrepid had an auxiliary deflector dish.
This means an intrepid was capable of firing 4 phaser arrays at any forward or side targets. It could also fire up to 3 phaser arrays at aft targets. This isn't too far removed from the weapon slots we already have on most ships. It also has projectile launchers, making a total of 14 weapon slots (9 phaser arrays and 6 projectile launchers).
So the configuration would look like this:
2 fore array slots port side, one dorsal and one ventral
2 fore array slots starboard side, one dorsal and one ventral
4 fore projectile launcher slots (torpedo and tricobalt)
2 mid array slots port side, one dorsal and one ventral
2 mid array slots starboard side, one dorsal and one ventral
1 aft array slot
2 aft projectile slots (torpedo and tricobalt)
Go here and show your support for a better Foundry!
The more I think about this, the more I think that ships should have a predetermined loadout. All of this customization is silly.
No, no, the people in favor are correct: For canonicity, ships should have dedicated torp slots defining that only torps are fired from there, and they must be used.
While, of course, that same adherence to canon is thrown out the window with energy weapons since a TNG "phaser strip" and a DS9 Defiant phaser cannon port are the same thing and thus should be interchangeable.
Not that there's any double standard in play whatsoever. :rolleyes:
The more I think about this, the more I think that ships should have a predetermined loadout. All of this customization is silly.
Give it a cost and a penalty.
X Dil/Zen to change a weapon hardpoint. Less cost for weapons similar - more cost for weapons not so similar. Going from a Beam Array to a Beam Bank wouldn't cost as much as going from a Beam Array to a Torpedo.
Going from Beam Array to Beam Bank would have less of a penalty than going from a Beam Array to a Torpedo. Torpedo to Mine less than Torpedo to Dual Heavy Cannon. Etc, etc, etc.
Penalties could be increased energy cost, reduced damage, reduced firing speed - etc, etc, etc - something to reflect that the hardpoint was not originally designed for that weapon.
X Dil/Zen to change a weapon hardpoint. Less cost for weapons similar - more cost for weapons not so similar. Going from a Beam Array to a Beam Bank wouldn't cost as much as going from a Beam Array to a Torpedo.
Going from Beam Array to Beam Bank would have less of a penalty than going from a Beam Array to a Torpedo. Torpedo to Mine less than Torpedo to Dual Heavy Cannon. Etc, etc, etc.
Penalties could be increased energy cost, reduced damage, reduced firing speed - etc, etc, etc - something to reflect that the hardpoint was not originally designed for that weapon
Okay, I've got to ask...cause, I've read those a few times now (more than a few times)...
...is my sarcasm meter broken? I mean, you're joking...right? Right?
Nope. Not kidding this time.
The torpedo-system of STO is... ...bad. By thinking outside the box, a revamp of it could change gameplay mechanics to the better, even if it might sound bad in you head.
Why is everyone saying buff torpedoes? Why is it that they are underperforming?
You wanna make torpedoes more desirable then make energy weapons do 25-50% less damage to hull just like torpedoes do less damage to shields. It will encourage mixing and matching of weapons.
I'll read the rest of VDs posts during the 15 mins between turning the roast potatoes.
Ships carry a load of torpedoes, mines and probes, all of which are deployed via a launcher. There are specific locations as to where these launchers are on a ship. Torps mines and probes are not balls of energy, they are tangible consumeable items.
This needs to be represented in STO. I'm good with them adding launcher slots to ships as I've said in other threads but the launched item needs to be burned and need to be replenished either by going to spacedock or other equipment resupply facility.
This isn't modern era, I doubt star bases are used for restock more than they are outposts and places for crew to stretch their legs and get some parts new to the ship.
Like food and basic materials, torpedo ammunition is probably replicated.
Nope. Not kidding this time.
The torpedo-system of STO is... ...bad. By thinking outside the box, a revamp of it could change gameplay mechanics to the better, even if it might sound bad in you head.
You believe they're a niche weapon, but many do not - what you want to do to them would make them a niche weapon.
You speak of them being used in alphas, trying to change that, by limiting them so they're only used in alphas?
There were so many contradictory statements in the two posts...it was pretty confusing.
(...)
Like food and basic materials, torpedo ammunition is probably replicated.
It has been established that torpedoes incorporate unreplicatable materials, so you'd still need a facility to restock on those. A replicator isn't a magic creation device, it's just a transporter that assembles the contents of the replicated object in shape. Thus, you still need the resources to make the torpedo tube and all and then you'd the unreplicatable part, probably the antimatter charge. How do you get that I don't know XD
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Why is everyone saying buff torpedoes? Why is it that they are underperforming?
You wanna make torpedoes more desirable then make energy weapons do 25-50% less damage to hull just like torpedoes do less damage to shields. It will encourage mixing and matching of weapons.
I'll read the rest of VDs posts during the 15 mins between turning the roast potatoes.
That's not such a bad idea. That would force more mixing and matching of weapons. It will also result in fire fights lasting much longer (which is alright in my book).
MY IDEAS (sticking to torpedo's)
1. Make Torpedo's limited.
So that you have to buy them in bulk from a star base. For example 50 Harg'Peng Torpedo's will cost 200,000 EC. When you run out, you'll have to rely on your other weapons.
But how will that work with the carrier pets? Will they also have limited torpedo's? Or will they have infinite torpedo's? If they have infinite torpedo's, then most players will start flying carriers just for that reason.
2. Instead of Starboard weapons. Allow all of the beams to have a "ARC" modifier (360 degree firing arc).
3. Remove the reduced damage torpedo's have against shields. Instead allow torpedo's for the NPC and player to have full damage. To balance that out, allow for reduced cool downs on the shield repairing abilities.
This will balance out the fight. Now these escort pilots will actually be afraid to get hit by a NPC's torpedo (Instead of just laughing it off). Exotic Torpedo's (like my beloved Breen Transphsic Cluster Torpedo and my precious Hargh'peng Torpedo) will become even more sought after, because now their AOE and other effects will elevate their lethality in PVP and PVE.
I believe this is one reason why this game is so "easy" it's because we players have 10 times more of an advantage over the NPC's. But Torpedo's can level the playing field.
That's just my 10 cents.
One day Cryptic will be free from their Perfect World overlord. Until that day comes, they will continue to pamper the whales of this game, and ignore everyone that isn't a whale.
Compared to what, eh? Are they underperforming compared to five FAW boats (including a Recluse or two sporting Weavers) wearing out the spacebar while stacking debuffs out the wahzoo? Heh, yeah - definitely - but should that be happening in the first place?
Kind of like how a JHAS might outperform a RA Qin, eh?
You wanna make torpedoes more desirable then make energy weapons do 25-50% less damage to hull just like torpedoes do less damage to shields. It will encourage mixing and matching of weapons.
It's difficult because we can't really make the comparisons...because they're apples and oranges.
Sure, I keep saying the HY3 Quant no consoles will do more hull damage than the BO3 five consoles will...while the BO3 no consoles will do more shield damage than the HY3 Quant with five consoles...but that's a specific case.
Sure, I can show how 3x Quants with PWO's will do more hull DPS than 3x DHCs...but uh, that's not a "real" comparison. Cause it would likely be 4x DHCs/3x Turrets. You add a 4th Quant, you wouldn't notice - it wouldn't add anything. You add in a longer CD torp into the mix, well - that's going to be a calculation I can't be bothered doing right now...lol...but you'd still be missing the 3x Turrets unless you ran them as well on the Torp boat. But then...at what Weapon Power? Then you're giving up some of what you were getting by running Torps in the first place by not having to bother with Weapon Power.
It gets pretty cumbersome...meh.
In my lil' delusional world, I keep picturing the following Damage Trinity:
A) Some sort of Tetryon Some sort of Disruptor
C) Torps!
B would help A take down the shields while also increasing the damage of C as it wrecks the exposed hull...
But the DPS levels in STO are so ridiculously high, there's no point to it.
Something that may be overlooked in regard to Torps not playing well with others...imho...simply comes about because the target's already fragged to Hell and back. How many Torps are wasted? That TS3 that hits...nothing...cause the target is already toast, eh?
It comes down to expectations, imho - if people have (imho) unrealistic expectations that 30k+ DPS is fine...yeah, skip Torps. Simple as that...they're off in their own world playing STO at an extreme. If folks know that if everybody is pulling at least 2k DPS, then the job can get done with time to spare...it's a different world.
What would be nifty, imho, would be if there were content that matched that 30k+ DPS. If five folks doing ~2k DPS can do ISE, then there should be an ISE that needs five folks doing 30k+ DPS...
I've thought about what STO would be like if Cryptic had licensed Bridge Commander's engine and modified it for MMO play. Perhaps you would see cruisers not only having moderately strong shields and high hull, but also fixed beam emplacements (which you could only change the 'mark' and damage type of by drops, and possibly only at a Starbase or Ship Yard) and Torpedoes (that would require ammunition slotted into torpedo tubes); while escorts had weak shields and hull but high speed and mounted the very damaging cannon emplacements. STO would become a much more cerebral game than it is now, with you having to interact with your Engineer to allocate power, your Science Officer to scan for anomalies, and so on. It could be a cool game, but I'm not sure players would have flocked to the complex mechanics that BC utilizes, nor am I sure the 'swap phasers for polaron beams' mechanic would work as desired.
Besides. It took a modding community to get the Sovereign right in BC. And considering the disdain for 'rainbow' mixed loadout ships, how would you handle the canon Sovereign that mounts both photon and quantum torpedoes (the photons launch from the traditional torpedo tubes, of which the Refit Sovereign from the movies has many (2 above the deflector dish, two below, two on the front of the saucer, one under the bridge, two facing aft on the stardrive, two more on the aft sauncer, IIRC), and the quantums launch from the dome under the Saucer described as a wide-angle Quantum Launcher in STO)?
I don't think we should have this ammunition stuff with projectile weapons only. Like it or not this game is built on mostly overarching rules so if you apply it to one thing you should apply it to all.
So in other words if you're going down that route how's about having fuel for your warp core, when it's run out you can't fire energy weapons and you have less speed and manuevering. He'll lets add a cost to everything because it will make the game SOOOO much more fun having to always restock everything after missions.
If I wanted something like this I'd probably be going off to play something like EvE...I say play...
Edit because VD posted while I posted.
Yeah I guess but how long would your torp boat take to kill those targets shields and hull vs the all energy weapon DHC boat?
I mean we can compare hull damage levels and dps but I'd rather not see us make the game more damaging at the top and I certainly don't think torps need a buff. They just need to be the better option for destroying hull.
Especially when you also consider that all these 40-50k builds are all energy weapons. Yes we're there and these spire console may even push us higher.
Yeah I guess but how long would your torp boat take to kill those targets shields and hull vs the all energy weapon DHC boat?
I mean we can compare hull damage levels and dps but I'd rather not see us make the game more damaging at the top and I certainly don't think torps need a buff. They just need to be the better option for destroying hull.
Especially when you also consider that all these 40-50k builds are all energy weapons. Yes we're there and these spire console may even push us higher.
In the end, does one really need to bother with shields? Whether talking energy or projectile...mixed in with other goodies? With all the bleed potential with stacked debuffs, energy can easily shred hull while ignoring shields. And like I think I mentioned earlier in this thread, I can go from plink-plink with Willard to there's a bunch of dead Borg in the blink of an eye with torps.
Seriously, consider the following, eh?
Gravity Well I
Sensor Scan III
Singularity Jump V
Refracting Tetryon Cascade
Torp Spread II of Graviton Photons
Destabilized Plasma Torpedo
High Yield Torp I Omega Torpedo
Temporal Disruption Device
Hargh'peng Torpedo
Breen Transphasic Cluster Torpedo
Dispersal Pattern Beta III of Quantum Mines
Tricobalt Torpedo
It's fun to do....most of it ends up being a waste, things are already long dead...but it's fun to do.
In the end, does one really need to bother with shields? Whether talking energy or projectile...mixed in with other goodies? With all the bleed potential with stacked debuffs, energy can easily shred hull while ignoring shields. And like I think I mentioned earlier in this thread, I can go from plink-plink with Willard to there's a bunch of dead Borg in the blink of an eye with torps.
Seriously, consider the following, eh?
Gravity Well I
Sensor Scan III
Singularity Jump V
Refracting Tetryon Cascade
Torp Spread II of Graviton Photons
Destabilized Plasma Torpedo
High Yield Torp I Omega Torpedo
Temporal Disruption Device
Hargh'peng Torpedo
Breen Transphasic Cluster Torpedo
Dispersal Pattern Beta III of Quantum Mines
Tricobalt Torpedo
It's fun to do....most of it ends up being a waste, things are already long dead...but it's fun to do.
Oh don't get me wrong it's fun, you can do something like that with energy weapons, BO3 with nukara DBB, refracting tets, cascade, ISO charge and CSV. In fact a more creative person will give you a super energy version.
But the fundamentals of my scimitar which is all beams is APB/APO, FAW, EptW1 and that's more or less it. Sure it ain't quite spiking like your torp boat but it's melting the transformers and everything with little effort.
Course I also have the energy spike and the energy dps, do kinetic weapons have a dps option? I mean photons maybe but, plink, plink, plink, plink....
...just to TRIBBLE off the min/maxers how about this - We remove one weapon slot fore and aft on ALL ships and those become dedicated torpedo launcher hardpoints? :cool: *runs away*
...just to TRIBBLE off the min/maxers how about this - We remove one weapon slot fore and aft on ALL ships and those become dedicated torpedo launcher hardpoints? :cool: *runs away*
*As nikephorus runs away, a loud boom is heard, and a tornado of rage begins to form*
As my title suggests, I am against adding more weapon slots, especially for just one weapon type. Especially as the most of the few that I have seen liking this idea, are also against getting weapon damage lowered to compensate for the added damage output this would cause.
Another aspect of why I'm against, a notable proponent of it, will bear little to no discussion of it, if it doesn't agree with his proposal, he tends to refer to said opponents, as "you got yours" type of people, along with worse.
I think there are FAR better ways to improve customization. Adding beam turrets. Making starboard & port weapon slots, along with reducing weapon arcs, to balance out the fact that you could now mount weapons on either side.
And there's tons of other ideas, that I am sure that could be brought out, that would work far better than locking up slots for just 1 type of weapon, or adding more slots gratuitously.
I welcome discussion, just keep it to a dull roar please.
Um... adding new weapon slots to the sides would be FAR more unbalancing and is just silly. These are NOT battleships in space with big deck guns. If you want something more like that then EVE is your game.
I would say a Torpedo slot is a bit silly however. Beam Turrets are totally fine and a great idea and if we want to add a slot what about Mine slots? Mines are next to useless so having one mine slot would not really make a huge difference.
Explain how beam array strips and cannons that are afixed and integrated into the spaceframe like they are on the Enterprise's saucer or the Defiant and the Klink's Bird of Prey can be 'easily moved'. Those things aren't just plugged into the ship-wide power network, they are built into the ship, like weapon systems are in real life. And behind them unseen because they would be entirely internal to the spaceframe are complicated electronics and power relay systems (and probably things like capacitors and heat sinks) that are designed to channel some heavy-duty wattage into them in order for the weapon system to actually do its job.
Everything you've just written about torpedo launchers being hardpoints can just as easily be written about directed energy weapons with a bit of tweaking. It's certainly no justification for adding a mechanic to STO that is, frankly, not required.
Ok lets see if I can draw a little picture here....
The ship has a power core that transfers power to the outer areas of the ship, where it hits a converter and is tranfered to the weapon conduit (Array, Cannon etc.)
]#:#[----//
]#:#~~~
]#:#[----\\
These lines do not need to be straight from point A to B to fire energy weapons. So this means if I wanted to move where I have placed my cannons on my ship, I could relocate them as long as I have a power junction they can tap into.
On the other hand launchers are not the same. They need a tube that runs internal to external directly.
Storage and loading system, tubular to exit.
_____
[____]=========//
[____]=========\\
The space it takes on the ship is very subantial to what is taken by energy weapon systems.
Oh don't get me wrong it's fun, you can do something like that with energy weapons, BO3 with nukara DBB, refracting tets, cascade, ISO charge and CSV. In fact a more creative person will give you a super energy version.
But the fundamentals of my scimitar which is all beams is APB/APO, FAW, EptW1 and that's more or less it. Sure it ain't quite spiking like your torp boat but it's melting the transformers and everything with little effort.
Course I also have the energy spike and the energy dps, do kinetic weapons have a dps option? I mean photons maybe but, plink, plink, plink, plink....
Yes they do... It is called the Omega Torpedo. That thing has MASSIVE DPS and even huge spike if you use THY III. But if you just let it fire it can literally hammer things to death especially combined with its burn proc which is one of the highest.
Oh don't get me wrong it's fun, you can do something like that with energy weapons, BO3 with nukara DBB, refracting tets, cascade, ISO charge and CSV. In fact a more creative person will give you a super energy version.
But the fundamentals of my scimitar which is all beams is APB/APO, FAW, EptW1 and that's more or less it. Sure it ain't quite spiking like your torp boat but it's melting the transformers and everything with little effort.
Course I also have the energy spike and the energy dps, do kinetic weapons have a dps option? I mean photons maybe but, plink, plink, plink, plink....
He did ~10.4-10.9k DPS...with a bunch of that time spent with plink-plink on the Gens. There's a range there, cause there's a mix of ~500k damage that was a mix between me and another guy that dropped out some Plasma Torps and the Destabilized Torp. Wasn't lucky enough to get a run where I was the only guy.
The Destablized Torp alone, not counting its Plasma DoT - did 1997.27 DPS. I believe I fired five of them.
The other guy fired his three times...and not counting the PDoT - did 172.16 DPS with it.
The other guy's max hit was 29940. He had 7 hits with an average of 9923.57 damage. He did a total of 69465 non-PDoT damage with his Beach Balls.
My max hit was 201531. With 31 hits, and an average of 25996.71 damage. I did a total of 805898 damage (non-PDoT) with my Beach Balls.
He's a Sci. A Reman. Only 3x Sup Op (still haven't been able to DOFF to the two others). It was a funky build (I didn't check it before going, lol). APO1 instead of APO3...meh.
Take a Tac Rom...gear it right...have somebody that's doing more than just wheeee...and it would do better.
To take out the first set of Spheres coming out of the Gate, Willard did ~24-26.4k DPS (again, just can't separate the Plasma DoTs out - pesky parent-child-grandchild stuff with how the log works). No APBs, no Disruptors...just his Sensor Scan and the debuff from the Beach Ball.
But yeah, the time spent going plink-plink while waiting on them dropped his overall down to ~10.4-10.9k DPS.
It's not 30k+...but c'mon, anybody that's seen me fly Willard - that I can pull 10k or more...there's something wrong with the system. :P
...just to TRIBBLE off the min/maxers how about this - We remove one weapon slot fore and aft on ALL ships and those become dedicated torpedo launcher hardpoints? :cool: *runs away*
Although the conept is similar to the suggestion at hand, most every ship in the manual has more than one fore and aft launcher. Generally there are Dual tubes on either side of a sensor or emitter that give the ship a wider sector of fire with torpedoes.
Ship Arrays generally have long emitter strips for directional sectors of fire. Cannons are generally affixed to the hull in a single directional posistion.
Where ships of Trek would genearlly have access to a dozen energy weapon emitters this is minimized in STO. This additionally should affect launchers in most cases. However, I feel that the sensable set up for ships is listed earlier in this thread on page 6 but I'll list them here again for you.
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
If we're going for canonical configurations, the one in my comment above is ideal. It has dedicated torp launchers, dedicated tricobalt launchers, and phaser arrays. There is no infrastructure on an Intrepid to install any kind of cannons nor beam banks, just phaser arrays. Only a refit could possibly provide the ability to install cannons.
Also, the Defiant should not be able to install beams because it's structured to carry cannons. It would also need a refit to accommodate beams. But I'm sure people would have fits if they couldn't slot cannons on their cruisers and science vessels, beams on their escorts, or fill them with torpedoes.
What I'm trying to get across here is that each ship should have each weapon slot assigned a particular weapon type and only that type. So a ship like the Vesta might have four array slots on each side that covers a 120 degree arc each and two aux DHC's slots in the front, while the aft would have only beam arrays (other sci ships might only have DBB's in the absence of any cannons). Then a pair of launchers in the fore and aft each. Then you would only be able to install cannons in the forward slots and beams in the rest. Of course, torps would have their own slots for torp ammo only. For a ship like the Defiant, they would have a set of 4 DHC's and 2-3 torp launchers in the front with 1 torp/mine launcher in the aft.
Taking a fixed configuration route for ships would create different roles for each and every ship to varying degrees. Cruisers can take on targets from all sides as support ships with beams or be a battle cruiser with heavy cannons that brings heavy sustained damage against hard targets. Science can do multi-role bringing the ability to provide some offensive and defensive support. Escorts fit the role of fast and furious damage to finish off weakened targets with high burst damage or they can be used as fleet defense loaded with more precise DBB's rather than damage dealers with DHC's which are more spray and pray.
I don't think a one-size-fits-all configuration for every class is the solution. Each ship needs it's own mix of cannons, torps, and beams that gives them a unique role. Not all escorts should have all cannons, just as not all cruisers should have all beams. Some ships should have a configuration that diverges from the main role of the class. This brings the choice of ship beyond the triad of classes and more towards the issue of what various roles a ship can fulfill. Otherwise, most people just want Bug ships, Wells, and Avengers.
Go here and show your support for a better Foundry!
Er...I'm confused as to what you're disagreeing with. You quoted me...where I'm disagreeing with the removal of the TCD - giving an example of where it would be OP. The rest of your post suggests that you're agreeing with me...but you quoted me saying you disagree with this.
What's the "this" that you're disagreeing with?
The whole torpedo alpha strike scenario you put up. I'm sorry, I thought that was assumed. I can't say that it really sounds like a good idea, especially since cannons and turrets already do this with devastating effect. I'm sorry if I was unclear.
Comments
That just points to some of the ludicrous conditions under which energy weapons are allowed to operate. Nothing can change that...but changing that.
I like this idea... or, at least, for the critical ones. Minor injuries slowly autorepair over time?
And maybe making ship injuries do *more* obvious things. "Energy weapon system damage" should disable a randomized energy weapon, "targetting subsystem failure" should give this HUGE -20% [acc] debuff or something.
Perhaps there should be something like "Deflector Damage", which disables or severely nerfs all deflector abilities?
All of which would be balanced out by you getting a quest explaining WTF ship injuries are at level 50 or so, seeing as STO has no documentation about them beyond one of the tutorial missions, which nobody plays, ever.
Example:
Intrepid class (based on what I could find through Google):
2X forward phaser beam arrays on the port and starboard sides of the primary hulll, ventral side
2X forward phaser beam arrays on the port and starboard side of the primary hull, dorsal side
2X mid hull phaser beam arrays on the port and starboard side of the primary hull, dorsal and ventral side
1 phaser beam array on the ventral side of the secondary hull
2X forward torpedo launchers above the main deflector
2X forward tricobalt launcher
1X aft torpedo launcher on the dorsal side
1X aft tricobalt launcher
Also worth noting, the Intrepid had an auxiliary deflector dish.
This means an intrepid was capable of firing 4 phaser arrays at any forward or side targets. It could also fire up to 3 phaser arrays at aft targets. This isn't too far removed from the weapon slots we already have on most ships. It also has projectile launchers, making a total of 14 weapon slots (9 phaser arrays and 6 projectile launchers).
So the configuration would look like this:
2 fore array slots port side, one dorsal and one ventral
2 fore array slots starboard side, one dorsal and one ventral
4 fore projectile launcher slots (torpedo and tricobalt)
2 mid array slots port side, one dorsal and one ventral
2 mid array slots starboard side, one dorsal and one ventral
1 aft array slot
2 aft projectile slots (torpedo and tricobalt)
No, no, the people in favor are correct: For canonicity, ships should have dedicated torp slots defining that only torps are fired from there, and they must be used.
While, of course, that same adherence to canon is thrown out the window with energy weapons since a TNG "phaser strip" and a DS9 Defiant phaser cannon port are the same thing and thus should be interchangeable.
Not that there's any double standard in play whatsoever. :rolleyes:
Give it a cost and a penalty.
X Dil/Zen to change a weapon hardpoint. Less cost for weapons similar - more cost for weapons not so similar. Going from a Beam Array to a Beam Bank wouldn't cost as much as going from a Beam Array to a Torpedo.
Going from Beam Array to Beam Bank would have less of a penalty than going from a Beam Array to a Torpedo. Torpedo to Mine less than Torpedo to Dual Heavy Cannon. Etc, etc, etc.
Penalties could be increased energy cost, reduced damage, reduced firing speed - etc, etc, etc - something to reflect that the hardpoint was not originally designed for that weapon.
Is covered by the default 2x Array - 1x Torp Fore & Aft...STO doesn't sport Dorsal/Ventral. The 250 Arc of the Array covers the D/V arcs already.
Nope. Not kidding this time.
The torpedo-system of STO is... ...bad. By thinking outside the box, a revamp of it could change gameplay mechanics to the better, even if it might sound bad in you head.
You wanna make torpedoes more desirable then make energy weapons do 25-50% less damage to hull just like torpedoes do less damage to shields. It will encourage mixing and matching of weapons.
I'll read the rest of VDs posts during the 15 mins between turning the roast potatoes.
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.
This isn't modern era, I doubt star bases are used for restock more than they are outposts and places for crew to stretch their legs and get some parts new to the ship.
Like food and basic materials, torpedo ammunition is probably replicated.
You believe they're a niche weapon, but many do not - what you want to do to them would make them a niche weapon.
You speak of them being used in alphas, trying to change that, by limiting them so they're only used in alphas?
There were so many contradictory statements in the two posts...it was pretty confusing.
It has been established that torpedoes incorporate unreplicatable materials, so you'd still need a facility to restock on those. A replicator isn't a magic creation device, it's just a transporter that assembles the contents of the replicated object in shape. Thus, you still need the resources to make the torpedo tube and all and then you'd the unreplicatable part, probably the antimatter charge. How do you get that I don't know XD
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Yah. Ok. If that confused You, this is a lost cause. so... ...That is my cue for leaving...
Thank you
That's not such a bad idea. That would force more mixing and matching of weapons. It will also result in fire fights lasting much longer (which is alright in my book).
MY IDEAS (sticking to torpedo's)
1. Make Torpedo's limited.
So that you have to buy them in bulk from a star base. For example 50 Harg'Peng Torpedo's will cost 200,000 EC. When you run out, you'll have to rely on your other weapons.
But how will that work with the carrier pets? Will they also have limited torpedo's? Or will they have infinite torpedo's? If they have infinite torpedo's, then most players will start flying carriers just for that reason.
2. Instead of Starboard weapons. Allow all of the beams to have a "ARC" modifier (360 degree firing arc).
3. Remove the reduced damage torpedo's have against shields. Instead allow torpedo's for the NPC and player to have full damage. To balance that out, allow for reduced cool downs on the shield repairing abilities.
This will balance out the fight. Now these escort pilots will actually be afraid to get hit by a NPC's torpedo (Instead of just laughing it off). Exotic Torpedo's (like my beloved Breen Transphsic Cluster Torpedo and my precious Hargh'peng Torpedo) will become even more sought after, because now their AOE and other effects will elevate their lethality in PVP and PVE.
I believe this is one reason why this game is so "easy" it's because we players have 10 times more of an advantage over the NPC's. But Torpedo's can level the playing field.
That's just my 10 cents.
Not everybody is...some are saying that some folks need to RTFM.
Compared to what, eh? Are they underperforming compared to five FAW boats (including a Recluse or two sporting Weavers) wearing out the spacebar while stacking debuffs out the wahzoo? Heh, yeah - definitely - but should that be happening in the first place?
Kind of like how a JHAS might outperform a RA Qin, eh?
It's difficult because we can't really make the comparisons...because they're apples and oranges.
Sure, I keep saying the HY3 Quant no consoles will do more hull damage than the BO3 five consoles will...while the BO3 no consoles will do more shield damage than the HY3 Quant with five consoles...but that's a specific case.
Sure, I can show how 3x Quants with PWO's will do more hull DPS than 3x DHCs...but uh, that's not a "real" comparison. Cause it would likely be 4x DHCs/3x Turrets. You add a 4th Quant, you wouldn't notice - it wouldn't add anything. You add in a longer CD torp into the mix, well - that's going to be a calculation I can't be bothered doing right now...lol...but you'd still be missing the 3x Turrets unless you ran them as well on the Torp boat. But then...at what Weapon Power? Then you're giving up some of what you were getting by running Torps in the first place by not having to bother with Weapon Power.
It gets pretty cumbersome...meh.
In my lil' delusional world, I keep picturing the following Damage Trinity:
A) Some sort of Tetryon
C) Torps!
B would help A take down the shields while also increasing the damage of C as it wrecks the exposed hull...
But the DPS levels in STO are so ridiculously high, there's no point to it.
Something that may be overlooked in regard to Torps not playing well with others...imho...simply comes about because the target's already fragged to Hell and back. How many Torps are wasted? That TS3 that hits...nothing...cause the target is already toast, eh?
It comes down to expectations, imho - if people have (imho) unrealistic expectations that 30k+ DPS is fine...yeah, skip Torps. Simple as that...they're off in their own world playing STO at an extreme. If folks know that if everybody is pulling at least 2k DPS, then the job can get done with time to spare...it's a different world.
What would be nifty, imho, would be if there were content that matched that 30k+ DPS. If five folks doing ~2k DPS can do ISE, then there should be an ISE that needs five folks doing 30k+ DPS...
He just grumbles...not worth reading. :P
Besides. It took a modding community to get the Sovereign right in BC. And considering the disdain for 'rainbow' mixed loadout ships, how would you handle the canon Sovereign that mounts both photon and quantum torpedoes (the photons launch from the traditional torpedo tubes, of which the Refit Sovereign from the movies has many (2 above the deflector dish, two below, two on the front of the saucer, one under the bridge, two facing aft on the stardrive, two more on the aft sauncer, IIRC), and the quantums launch from the dome under the Saucer described as a wide-angle Quantum Launcher in STO)?
So in other words if you're going down that route how's about having fuel for your warp core, when it's run out you can't fire energy weapons and you have less speed and manuevering. He'll lets add a cost to everything because it will make the game SOOOO much more fun having to always restock everything after missions.
If I wanted something like this I'd probably be going off to play something like EvE...I say play...
Edit because VD posted while I posted.
Yeah I guess but how long would your torp boat take to kill those targets shields and hull vs the all energy weapon DHC boat?
I mean we can compare hull damage levels and dps but I'd rather not see us make the game more damaging at the top and I certainly don't think torps need a buff. They just need to be the better option for destroying hull.
Especially when you also consider that all these 40-50k builds are all energy weapons. Yes we're there and these spire console may even push us higher.
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.
In the end, does one really need to bother with shields? Whether talking energy or projectile...mixed in with other goodies? With all the bleed potential with stacked debuffs, energy can easily shred hull while ignoring shields. And like I think I mentioned earlier in this thread, I can go from plink-plink with Willard to there's a bunch of dead Borg in the blink of an eye with torps.
Seriously, consider the following, eh?
Gravity Well I
Sensor Scan III
Singularity Jump V
Refracting Tetryon Cascade
Torp Spread II of Graviton Photons
Destabilized Plasma Torpedo
High Yield Torp I Omega Torpedo
Temporal Disruption Device
Hargh'peng Torpedo
Breen Transphasic Cluster Torpedo
Dispersal Pattern Beta III of Quantum Mines
Tricobalt Torpedo
It's fun to do....most of it ends up being a waste, things are already long dead...but it's fun to do.
Oh don't get me wrong it's fun, you can do something like that with energy weapons, BO3 with nukara DBB, refracting tets, cascade, ISO charge and CSV. In fact a more creative person will give you a super energy version.
But the fundamentals of my scimitar which is all beams is APB/APO, FAW, EptW1 and that's more or less it. Sure it ain't quite spiking like your torp boat but it's melting the transformers and everything with little effort.
Course I also have the energy spike and the energy dps, do kinetic weapons have a dps option? I mean photons maybe but, plink, plink, plink, plink....
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.
*As nikephorus runs away, a loud boom is heard, and a tornado of rage begins to form*
Um... adding new weapon slots to the sides would be FAR more unbalancing and is just silly. These are NOT battleships in space with big deck guns. If you want something more like that then EVE is your game.
I would say a Torpedo slot is a bit silly however. Beam Turrets are totally fine and a great idea and if we want to add a slot what about Mine slots? Mines are next to useless so having one mine slot would not really make a huge difference.
Ok lets see if I can draw a little picture here....
The ship has a power core that transfers power to the outer areas of the ship, where it hits a converter and is tranfered to the weapon conduit (Array, Cannon etc.)
]#:#[----//
]#:#~~~
]#:#[----\\
These lines do not need to be straight from point A to B to fire energy weapons. So this means if I wanted to move where I have placed my cannons on my ship, I could relocate them as long as I have a power junction they can tap into.
On the other hand launchers are not the same. They need a tube that runs internal to external directly.
Storage and loading system, tubular to exit.
_____
[____]=========//
[____]=========\\
The space it takes on the ship is very subantial to what is taken by energy weapon systems.
Yes they do... It is called the Omega Torpedo. That thing has MASSIVE DPS and even huge spike if you use THY III. But if you just let it fire it can literally hammer things to death especially combined with its burn proc which is one of the highest.
Hrmmm, so I just ran an ISE with Willard.
Fore: Omega, Graviton, 2x VR Mk XI Plasma [Acc]x3
Aft: Hyper-Plasma, Hargh'peng, VR Mk XII Plasma Mines [CrtD]x3
3x VR Ambiplasma Mk XI, 2pc T'varo
He did ~10.4-10.9k DPS...with a bunch of that time spent with plink-plink on the Gens. There's a range there, cause there's a mix of ~500k damage that was a mix between me and another guy that dropped out some Plasma Torps and the Destabilized Torp. Wasn't lucky enough to get a run where I was the only guy.
The Destablized Torp alone, not counting its Plasma DoT - did 1997.27 DPS. I believe I fired five of them.
The other guy fired his three times...and not counting the PDoT - did 172.16 DPS with it.
The other guy's max hit was 29940. He had 7 hits with an average of 9923.57 damage. He did a total of 69465 non-PDoT damage with his Beach Balls.
My max hit was 201531. With 31 hits, and an average of 25996.71 damage. I did a total of 805898 damage (non-PDoT) with my Beach Balls.
He's a Sci. A Reman. Only 3x Sup Op (still haven't been able to DOFF to the two others). It was a funky build (I didn't check it before going, lol). APO1 instead of APO3...meh.
Take a Tac Rom...gear it right...have somebody that's doing more than just wheeee...and it would do better.
To take out the first set of Spheres coming out of the Gate, Willard did ~24-26.4k DPS (again, just can't separate the Plasma DoTs out - pesky parent-child-grandchild stuff with how the log works). No APBs, no Disruptors...just his Sensor Scan and the debuff from the Beach Ball.
But yeah, the time spent going plink-plink while waiting on them dropped his overall down to ~10.4-10.9k DPS.
It's not 30k+...but c'mon, anybody that's seen me fly Willard - that I can pull 10k or more...there's something wrong with the system. :P
Although the conept is similar to the suggestion at hand, most every ship in the manual has more than one fore and aft launcher. Generally there are Dual tubes on either side of a sensor or emitter that give the ship a wider sector of fire with torpedoes.
Ship Arrays generally have long emitter strips for directional sectors of fire. Cannons are generally affixed to the hull in a single directional posistion.
Where ships of Trek would genearlly have access to a dozen energy weapon emitters this is minimized in STO. This additionally should affect launchers in most cases. However, I feel that the sensable set up for ships is listed earlier in this thread on page 6 but I'll list them here again for you.
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
Also, the Defiant should not be able to install beams because it's structured to carry cannons. It would also need a refit to accommodate beams. But I'm sure people would have fits if they couldn't slot cannons on their cruisers and science vessels, beams on their escorts, or fill them with torpedoes.
What I'm trying to get across here is that each ship should have each weapon slot assigned a particular weapon type and only that type. So a ship like the Vesta might have four array slots on each side that covers a 120 degree arc each and two aux DHC's slots in the front, while the aft would have only beam arrays (other sci ships might only have DBB's in the absence of any cannons). Then a pair of launchers in the fore and aft each. Then you would only be able to install cannons in the forward slots and beams in the rest. Of course, torps would have their own slots for torp ammo only. For a ship like the Defiant, they would have a set of 4 DHC's and 2-3 torp launchers in the front with 1 torp/mine launcher in the aft.
Taking a fixed configuration route for ships would create different roles for each and every ship to varying degrees. Cruisers can take on targets from all sides as support ships with beams or be a battle cruiser with heavy cannons that brings heavy sustained damage against hard targets. Science can do multi-role bringing the ability to provide some offensive and defensive support. Escorts fit the role of fast and furious damage to finish off weakened targets with high burst damage or they can be used as fleet defense loaded with more precise DBB's rather than damage dealers with DHC's which are more spray and pray.
I don't think a one-size-fits-all configuration for every class is the solution. Each ship needs it's own mix of cannons, torps, and beams that gives them a unique role. Not all escorts should have all cannons, just as not all cruisers should have all beams. Some ships should have a configuration that diverges from the main role of the class. This brings the choice of ship beyond the triad of classes and more towards the issue of what various roles a ship can fulfill. Otherwise, most people just want Bug ships, Wells, and Avengers.
The whole torpedo alpha strike scenario you put up. I'm sorry, I thought that was assumed. I can't say that it really sounds like a good idea, especially since cannons and turrets already do this with devastating effect. I'm sorry if I was unclear.