test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options
FAW - Just delete it and start over
neppakyo
Member Posts: 245 Arc User
Everyone knows FAW is still quite broken. The devs should just remove the ability and start over. Copy CSV, and rename it FAW. tweek it so it works with only beams.
This would probably be unpopular with the bfaw scimitard players tho.
This would probably be unpopular with the bfaw scimitard players tho.
Quote about STO on consoles: "Not quite as bad as No man's sky, but a close second."
Post edited by neppakyo on
0
Comments
Seconded. It needs a 90 degree arc.
If the arrays have a 250 degree arc...why would B:FAW limit it to 90?
Because folks that come to the forums to complain about what killed them last are not usually thinking in the most rational manner.
That said, the Devs know that it's been problematic from the start - and - if they'd simply redone the ability at some point in the past, the overall development cost would have been less than it has been. They need to look at the potential development cost down the road and decide whether or not to redo it at this point. Considering how many issues arise with it - rather than tweaking it, fixing it, nerfing it, buffing it over and over - they may want to take a moment to bounce some ideas around on a means to recreate it...
Exactly. The arc is fine.
More likely bored at STFs being ruined by too-short-to-bother runs. Because honestly who PVPs? :P
Just get rid of FAW and CSV at the same time. Problem solved.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
yeah I agree. Overcapping is the problem. Beams and FAW were originally balanced by weapons drain, but with overcapping you get no meaningful drain so you hit at 125 power almost all the time. If there was a meaningful drain then people wouldn't be doing all this crazy, no-target-needed, 360 degree ball of destruction.
That's not true in the least. I don't get why folks keep saying that. It comes up time after time in multiple posts and even multiple threads.
Not only can you overcap cannons in the same manner as beams, it takes less overcap to do the same thing. You need to overcap more with beams to get the same benefit as you would with cannons.
Overcap "increases" damage by reducing the amount of damage lost...it doesn't simply increase damage. Because of the difference in drain mechanics between cannons and beams, to stave off the loss of damage you're looking at around 135 with cannons and 180 or more with beams.
The Omega proc would reduce it for both. The Cruiser Command would reduce it for both.
I'm sure the beam guy would like to put that 45+ subsystem power somewhere else like the cannon guy could...though, in this day and age of power ooze - folks are overcapped all over the place, even where it doesn't matter.
Should FAW increase drain? Sure...more shots are being fired. Drain should increase. The same would go for CSV though...
I would get on board with this, the whole WC being able to push you over 125 is the issue it didn't specify how far over 125 and think is where the mechanic got busted. Now imagine if BOL could benefit from overcapping. :eek:
well since CSV has a 3 target max limit, it's not even close to what FAW can do. FAW does drain more than normal firing, they added that last "fix". The extra cycle adds more drain, but it effectively does nothing to balance FAW because of overcapping.
Stopping it at 135 would kill beams...because cannons would be fine at that point.
Cannons would still be doing 250% damage because of Weapon Power, while Beams would be doing 160% or lower.
I do think that increased drain on FAW would make sense - with potentially double the shots, there should be double the drain.
That way you would affect the FAW spamming folks without adversely affecting the non-FAW spamming beam users...eh?
FAW is 2 target max...at a time. It's either the targeted target and a random target or two random targets in the case where no target is selected. While the hits from FAW can end up hitting multiple targets, if there's enough targets so none are hit twice - that damage is spread out amongst them...it's not the same as all of them being hit by each pulse through the cycle.
There isn't actually an increased drain with FAW. You're going from 4 shots at 1s intervals to 5 shots at 0.8s intervals. You're still looking at 4s of firing with 1s recharge. There's no change there. Not only does FAW increase the number of shots to a single target, it increases the damage (outside of FAW1) done to a target, and adds that second target...there should be increased drain for that, imho.
Go after the FAW spammers - not the guys using beams in general.
To the OP and everyone else crying I recommend some ice cream, some tissues to dry the tears and metanium ointment for the sore bum.
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.
yeah FAW is 2 targets, but on a 8 beam cruiser it's not even comparable to CSV.
(edited)
So you're saying a system that isn't intuitive, has no UI, works differently than what the devs even say, and only benefits single beams and not DBBs, DHCs , single cannons and turrets is a good thing because it helps beams? Come on man. The whole system is weird.
FAW works without targetting. CSV and CRF require the player to line up their shot. The only build where CSV does not require targets is a turret boat but those at the moment are pretty much extinct.
Different scenarios call for different things. X might be better with ABC, but Y might be better with DEF.
It's not an increased interval - it's a reduced interval. From 4 shots in 4s with 1s downtime to 5 shots in 4s with 1s downtime.
I'm confused where you say it only benefits single beams...
...and as far a system that's not intuitive, lol - if we removed everything from STO that wasn't intuitive - what would we have left? :P We could start by removing Tac Consoles, eh? Cause those bonuses are one of the most misunderstood things in the game...
I fly it. And i dont like flying it really. Its just fun to see it being so OP. Its laughable. But no i wouldnt shred a tear if it got nerfed, dont even like the scimitar.
gg neppy
It would make DEM/Marion more valuable to folks using FAW...but as you said, it would only cover part of it. They'd still have more of a loss of damage while Marion wasn't in play or while OWA wasn't in play. Even with the Cruiser Command, they'd still be looking at needing that much more overcap to cover it - which they could only go so far with...they'd be looking at needing higher levels of EPtW, maybe even going with higher levels of AtB, etc, etc, etc. There would be more cost involved to do what they're doing - and - since what they're doing is pretty nifty, shouldn't there be more cost involved?
If I go to the car dealership, I shouldn't expect to pay the same for a Corvette as I would for a Spark...right?
you caught me before I edited my post lol
I agree it does need more drain, but that extra drain is just going to get filled with overcapped power
yeah ok, DDBs, DHCs, single cannons, and turrets overcap to 135, but beams have no real cap thats been found. I didn't know I needed to split hairs.... Beams still get a bigger boost from it. If it was a good system, it would have a UI that supports it and all weapons would get the same boost. At least singe beams and dual beams.
I'm a teacher by profession and I come from a family of teachers. Maybe I'm weird, but I'm not a big fan of showing something one way ( in this case the UI) and having it work in a different manner (overcapping). I'm also not a big fan of secret knowledge that is only learned from the "knowing." A new player cant look at the UI and game instructions and figure it out.
As for tac consoles, you still get a gain from the extra console, it's not as much as one thinks but its there. It's at least somewhat intuitive.
Look I'm all for being totally wrong. I'm just looking at the whole system and seeing that overcapped power one of the big problems with power creep. If it wasn't, leech consoles wouldn't be so in demand.
Just as CSV fires 3 shots instead of 1 and boosts damage, so also needs more drain.
Just as CRF fires more shots but with reduced damage but also slaps on a damage boost so also needs more drain.
As for overcapping there is very little people who clearly understand how it works. If you have 100 excess power weapons still drain power initially, you could have 1000 excess weapon power and it will still drain power initially. The mechanic isn't working as intended according to Gecko. Go on VD quote it.
Simple test for people to test if it is working that way, use a battery and fire at something, did weapon power drop below 125? If it did it ain't working as described.
Power creep is the problem, nothing else, it's nothing new, either embrace it or say f*** it and go play something else. This game isn't going to get more balanced, it's going to become drowned in creep till nothing matters.
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.
If turret has 360 degree arc, why would csv limit it to 90? Simple, to prevent gaint 20km wide ball of nonstop fire spray while you cycle them. Oh wait, we already have that.:rolleyes:
There's nothing wrong with powercreep, but if it comes in the form of mindless button mashing for omni-directional pwnage, then what's left of a game? Remember the olden days when there used to be a thing called piloting?
It's a 70 overlap. Cannons do more damage in their 45 arc vs. beams in their 70 arc. Beams can do more damage to targets outside the 45 arc of cannons (cause cannons aren't doing damage to targets outside their arc). So it gets into various scenarios...
If I GW a bunch of targets to clump them up, I'm going to do more damage to them with CSV than FAW. If I can't clump them, and depending on how spread they are - I'm going to do more with FAW than CSV.
Heck, it's like with Willard - no cannons/beams involved. If I'm in ISE...well, it's basically plink-plink against the Gens - but get somebody to drop a Gen early so the Nanites are coming, wheeee - I'm going to clump them, Spread Crit some Grav Torp procs, and share a bunch of splash damage...going to light it up like neither FAW nor CSV can. But then I'll be back to my plink-plink...and the CSV guy can do what he does faster than what I do...so yeah, I just have those odd moments of whee joy in pugs from time to time (can't remember the last time I ran ISE on Willard though, he just does the random CCE for FMs).
Overcap only goes so far - increased drain would push past what could be covered - or they'd have to make changes to their builds to cover it. Go from EPtW1 to 2 or 3. Go from AtB1 to AtB2. Find more ways to boost Aux for larger boosts from AtB, knowing that they'll be overcapping other subsystems for no return.
The boost that beams get at 180+ is the same that cannons get at 135 though. It's not that beams get a bigger boost, they need to put more energy in to get the same boost. They have a higher cost to get the same boost. Cryptic's allowing beams to get the same boost if they spend more power to do so...
I'm not a teacher by profession and I do not come from a family of teachers...but I agree that Cryptic needs to do a Hell of a better job at explaining and showing things. I hate to say it, but it appears tied into the intended audience for game. Cryptic's not targeting folks that...well...yeah. The intended audience is pretty much a bunch of spacebar mashing mouthbreaters. They want anybody to be able to get in and have a blast...it's not a game for folks that care the least about understanding how things work much less theorycrafters. It's for the folks that put the key in the ignition and go...not for folks that drive stick or can change their own oil. But still, I wish they'd take a look at providing more info to folks and that the info they provided was correct...
Heh, for how long have folks been looking at VR Mk XII's thinking they were going to get some massive boost...when that 1.9% was miniscule? The whole before Weapon Power, after Weapon Power, before CrtD, after CrtD, before Resistance, and after Resistance...it's still confusing to me on some aspects. I can never remember if AMP is before or after (I'm pretty sure it's before) Weapon Power. Then add into that a lack of consistency with things - the T'varo and Obelisk 2pc are post Weapon Power while KHG and most of the 2pc bonuses are after power. Look at the new Proton boosts, eh? The 2pc +13.1% is before Weapon Power...but what about the bonus from the Deflector/Zen set...before or after? Will have to see once those are released and folks share info on it...
Damage is a cumbersome mess...yes, there's the this will give more - but beyond more, the extent of the more...a royal PITA, imho.
Change the drain mechanics for beams to match cannons, so they both receive the same benefit at 135 (don't do that, I agree with Cryptic's choice of having a higher requirement for beams to get the same benefit) and you might see the demand drop off for Leech outside of builds using it for something else (or even Romulans just looking to make up some of the loss).
I think there are a few bugs here and there with how it works. Gets into my discussions on AtB and begging for consistency. I never (okay, almost never - I mean like almost never) saw zero Aux on Prophet when I still had him in his AtB JHEC with Leech (an Eng). I switched his BOFFs, and it began to work as described by other folks - I actually saw zero Aux and low Aux. Then after a period of time again, it went back to the way it was - not working as described. I've got another guy, and he gets zero Aux all the time - more than other people have described it normally happening - it's trippy.
I had guys that never dropped below 125. I had guys that would blink to 105-115 before bouncing back to 125. I had guys drop to 80-90 for a blink before bouncing back up. No discernible differences in their builds (my guys tended to have the same traits, same skill builds, same gear - just different ships and careers). Heh, in almost all the threads discussing power - I was always pleading for some consistency...meh. Can we just start with consistency...and then take it from there? Meh...
There is no 270 arc...what does that say?
There's fore 250.
There's aft 250.
There's broadside 70.
edit: Something for them to address overall, though, would be fixing it so weapons did not continue to fire while out of arc. Cause you can fudge arcs...nothing like firing aft mounted Hypers like they're fore mounted.