test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

The Phaser Lance, "how already available assets can make it a 'real-boy'" relocation

projectfrontierprojectfrontier Member Posts: 0 Arc User
I co-drafted this idea back when the Andorian Escort was introduced and given what has been occurring figured that, as my co-author does not post on the forums anymore, this fairly straightforward (and cheap) improvement to player satisfaction/experience was worth mentioning again. (note: this thread's proposal now includes expanded content).

TL;DR of Proposal: We recycle weapon assets to get a gun item for use on the Galaxy-X Dreadnought to complement its "gun power" in much the same way as the Andorian Escort has a gun+gun-power. A number of other current ships (e.g. Bortas/Bortasqu') have gun-powers without a gun-item or have been shown with gun's that could have powers (e.g. the ST:Voyager series with the short-lived Iso-Kinetic Cannon) with all cases being near-costless opportunities for Cryptic to improve content. We recycle the Dyson Science Destroyers "Tactical Mode" ship-mechanic assets to give the Galaxy-Dreadnought platform greater utility while maintaining "reasonable balance" (by making the player choose between hangar and lance for example). This can be applied to other ships with feasible novel gun-items (e.g. Bortas/Bortasqu', Voyager, etc) and feasible player experience systems not currently in game at all (e.g. directly controlling space stations in combat).

Read quote below for shortened proposal statement:

Proposal #1 Part A: TL;DR: Make the phaser lance a "real boy" by recycling item/VFX/SFX assets:
Take Kumari-Phaser-Wing-Cannons
+ Phaser Beam VFX/SFX
+ Context appropriate boff powers
==== in-game context sensitive Dreadnought phaser lance weapon item
& numerous potential concept applications (Bortas/Bortasqu' Autocannon Item, Voyager's Isokinetic Cannon, Undine's/Species 8472's Main Gun, etc)
& little to no cost
& support is generally universal with only dissension being in the form of doubting Cryptic's willingness to play ball.

Expanded content TL;DR:
Proposal #1 part B TL;DR: Improve the Galaxy-X Dreadnought as a platform by recycling other assets, specifically "tactical mode" mechanics from the DSD:
Take above in-game context sensitive legit Dreadnought phaser lance item w/ benefits
+ modified Dyson Science Destroyer Tactical Mode
==== massive overall ship improvement
& little to no cost
& numerous potential expanded concept applications (mode-toggles for all reasonable choices of novel special weapons, mode-toggles for those under the "Dreadnought" moniker where their defining characteristic is hangars + weak comms arrays, and even far-flung ideas like players "flying space stations" in combat - or generally multi-use templates for "guns, lots of guns/hangars? we don't need no stinking hangars!"/"analogous line")

Support is also universal for this from those people who have addressed it.

Read quote below for full statement:
I posted

this
in the wrong section


Full statement (which is TL;DR of original + expanded content) for entire proposal:
A slightly modified (VFX/SFX/power & ship association) Kumari-Phaser-Wing-Cannons is a proper asset for a "legitimate" in-game representation of the "Phaser Lance" in a "weapon-item" format. An engineer's proof-of-concept may only require the time equivalent to a coffee break (and possibly as much deploying it) to validate the argument

This solution to the "phaser lance wants to be a real item-boy" problem provides a simple update that does not involve reinventing any wheels, breaking the game, or removing existing content (the current toggle power is retained in whatever format is appropriate). If anything it enhances the user-experience for all parties by correlating appropriate visuals with appropriate feedback in line with the ten-or-so seconds the weapon actually cycled on screen ("STTNG "All Good Things..."; footage which, contrary to the declarations of "it's a God Gun", is the VFX equivalent to a combat log entry of "(currently) Plot Immune Hero-ship 'Enterprise' successfully hits 'Generic Klingon Opponent-ship' with 'Artistic License (i.e. time+budget constrained) VFX Shot Eye-Candy' Attack for 'Plot-Progression' damage, onto the next plot point!")

This proposed change can be used as a template for creating numerous game-enhancing content elements including: (1) Bortasqu'/Bortas auotcannon item; (2) Voyager's mysterious "Isokinetic Cannon" (think STO:Season 9+); (3) Species 8472's certain-to-be lockbox ship gun; (4) a template for beam weapons on player-controlled space-stations.

Additionally, Tactical Mode can (and should reasonably be) be recycled off of the Dyson Science Destroyer to let the player choose between "Cruise/Normal mode" and "Attack mode" where the player would be able to choose between 4/4 + Hangar and some configuration where the lances-item's slot activates (perhaps 5/3 + Lance-in-5th-slot + some change to boffs/comms-arrays) which summarily results in game-enhancing element item (5): a template that can be used on all Dreadnoughts if not all cruiser-types in general.


post "+1" if you support the idea above; OR post an alternative solution that achieves the indicated objective purpose.

Leave all Pro/Anti-Cryptic propaganda/commentaries outside.

/// UPDATE: Original Post Proposal has been:
/Supported by projectfrontier, caasicam, captaind3, reynoldsxd, johnsteward
/Rejected by

=====
reynoldsxd wrote: »
+1 for using assets already existing in the game to refurbish this TRIBBLE of an ability.
And since were are on it: Guramba lance and bortas auto turret can use a rework too.

Secondary note: this type of recycling could be used for other ships (as noted here); as an
aside the Guramba has "nice synergy" with the A.Maco deflector power KDF side.

/// ADDITION:
PROPOSAL: ALSO create a Bortas-based copy of this modification which goes with its
"Autocannon console" power.

/Supported by at least projectfrontier, reynoldsxd, and caasicam
/Rejected by
Post edited by projectfrontier on
«1

Comments

  • caasicamcaasicam Member Posts: 228 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Yes to this idea so much.

    I had a similar (read: exact same) idea back when the Andorian Escorts came out as well, and I couldn't want it more for the Dreadnought's Lance. Not only would it be updating an older ship with mechanics from a new one, it would certainly make the Lance a more effective weapon as well as solve the problem of the "Phaser-only" Dreadnought. Besides, how cool would it be to see a gaint Phaser fire off a volley time after time.

    Mechanics wise, it shouldn't be any different from the Kumari Wing Cannons (comparable DPS to DCs and DHCs, 3 sec recharge, etc) while it could easily recycle the Beam Overloaded visuals for actual looks. Granted, probably with a higher "visual" rate of fire.

    Have you considered the idea of having the Lance "Weapon" and the Cloak Console as a 2-piece set, with the current incarnation of the Phaser Lance as the set bonus ability?
  • captaind3captaind3 Member Posts: 2,448 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    The idea that the phaser lance should be a beam equivalent to the Andorian wing cannons just makes sense. It's supposed to be a monster weapon. It is not currently a monster or even scary.
    tumblr_mr1jc2hq2T1rzu2xzo9_r1_400.gif
    "Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many — they are few"
  • caasicamcaasicam Member Posts: 228 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    captaind3 wrote: »
    The idea that the phaser lance should be a beam equivalent to the Andorian wing cannons just makes sense. It's supposed to be a monster weapon. It is not currently a monster or even scary.

    The two weapons are so thematically similar when one thinks about it that it's almost redicuous that they've got different mechanics.

    BFG? Wing cannons, check; Lance, check.

    Extremely visable BFG? Wing cannons, check; Lance, check.

    Extremely visable BFG built into structure of ship? Wing cannons, check; Lance, check.

    Extremely visable BFG built into structure of ship that tears through things? Wing cannons, check; Lance--


    Oh right.

    ;3
  • projectfrontierprojectfrontier Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    caasicam wrote: »
    The two weapons are so thematically similar when one thinks about it that it's almost redicuous that they've got different mechanics.

    BFG? Wing cannons, check; Lance, check.

    Extremely visable BFG? Wing cannons, check; Lance, check.

    Extremely visable BFG built into structure of ship? Wing cannons, check; Lance, check.

    Extremely visable BFG built into structure of ship that tears through things? Wing cannons, check; Lance--


    Oh right.

    ;3

    Is it funny that they could leave the current toggle powers ON the ship and just add this "weapon item" as a weapon that must be equipped to use those powers (like the Kumari's "charged wing cannon" power console)?
  • caasicamcaasicam Member Posts: 228 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Is it funny that they could leave the current toggle powers ON the ship and just add this "weapon item" as a weapon that must be equipped to use those powers (like the Kumari's "charged wing cannon" power console)?

    That would certainly be preferable, though I'm mostly going with Cryptic's current track record when it comes to such things.

    (E.g., the Scimitars green cone of death, the Voth Cloak, etc.)

    That, or a bonus increasing Phaser damage by 10% would be nice.
  • projectfrontierprojectfrontier Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    caasicam wrote: »
    That would certainly be preferable, though I'm mostly going with Cryptic's current track record when it comes to such things.

    (E.g., the Scimitars green cone of death, the Voth Cloak, etc.)

    That, or a bonus increasing Phaser damage by 10% would be nice.

    The Scimitar's "cone of death" - how many times have they recycled that animation sequence?

    Either way - a gun we should have!
  • caasicamcaasicam Member Posts: 228 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    The Scimitar's "cone of death" - how many times have they recycled that animation sequence?

    Either way - a gun we should have!

    At least twice, one for the Tarantula's giant killer web cannon, and I believe also for the Elachi's super crescent shooter.

    On the topic of other ships, I think that the Bortas' autocannon could use a similar rework, though because it's a console ability, I'm not exactly sure how that would work. Perhaps the Klingon equivalent of the Kumari's cannons for the full Bortas line, with the current autocannon being the mega upgrade mode.
  • reynoldsxdreynoldsxd Member Posts: 977 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    As long as the lance gets consitently out damaged by flinging BO from a beam array, the thing is worthless...
  • captaind3captaind3 Member Posts: 2,448 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    caasicam wrote: »
    At least twice, one for the Tarantula's giant killer web cannon, and I believe also for the Elachi's super crescent shooter.

    On the topic of other ships, I think that the Bortas' autocannon could use a similar rework, though because it's a console ability, I'm not exactly sure how that would work. Perhaps the Klingon equivalent of the Kumari's cannons for the full Bortas line, with the current autocannon being the mega upgrade mode.
    That makes sense. A cannon as a console is as bad as a saucer separation as a console.

    reynoldsxd wrote: »
    As long as the lance gets consitently out damaged by flinging BO from a beam array, the thing is worthless...

    Precisely.
    tumblr_mr1jc2hq2T1rzu2xzo9_r1_400.gif
    "Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many — they are few"
  • johnstewardjohnsteward Member Posts: 1,073 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Posted something similar somewhere in the gal x threads so i'm all for it.

    It should have minimal arc like 10 degree arc, a longer cycle and pack quite a punch. Also would be great if it could actually hit its target. Maybe even add sone build in shield penetration to match what we saw in the show.
  • caasicamcaasicam Member Posts: 228 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Posted something similar somewhere in the gal x threads so i'm all for it.

    It should have minimal arc like 10 degree arc, a longer cycle and pack quite a punch. Also would be great if it could actually hit its target. Maybe even add sone build in shield penetration to match what we saw in the show.

    What about as an extra proc? Perhaps something like the Piercing Tetryon weapons, 2.5% chance for 50% shield penetration. Basically a third of the Elachi proc but without any lockout, thus allowing for it to occure more than once each volley.

    Stat-wise, could look something like...

    Phaser Spinal Lance [Dmg]x3
    Energy Damage

    45' targeting arc
    10 kilometer Range
    3 sec recharge
    to target: X Phaser Damage (_DPS)
    to self: -15 Weapon Power when firing other weapons
    to target: 2.5% Chance: Disable 1 Subsystem for 5 sec
    2.5% Chance for 50% of attack to ignore enemy shields
  • projectfrontierprojectfrontier Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    caasicam wrote: »
    At least twice, one for the Tarantula's giant killer web cannon, and I believe also for the Elachi's super crescent shooter.

    On the topic of other ships, I think that the Bortas' autocannon could use a similar rework, though because it's a console ability, I'm not exactly sure how that would work. Perhaps the Klingon equivalent of the Kumari's cannons for the full Bortas line, with the current autocannon being the mega upgrade mode.

    So then they have a fairly clear precedent to follow through with this request as clearly for them recycling assets = good thing.

    As for the Bortas's Autocannon? Supported. They could slap the thing onto the ship, change its color and call it a day. I would not even be surprised if the wing cannons started out as an item for that ship.
    captaind3 wrote: »
    caasicam wrote: »
    At least twice, one for the Tarantula's giant killer web cannon, and I believe also for the Elachi's super crescent shooter.

    On the topic of other ships, I think that the Bortas' autocannon could use a similar rework, though because it's a console ability, I'm not exactly sure how that would work. Perhaps the Klingon equivalent of the Kumari's cannons for the full Bortas line, with the current autocannon being the mega upgrade mode.

    That makes sense. A cannon as a console is as bad as a saucer separation as a console.
    reynoldsxd wrote: »
    As long as the lance gets consitently out damaged by flinging BO from a beam array, the thing is worthless...
    Precisely.

    Is that inferred support for this thread's proposition (including the Bortas inclusion) AND inferred support for the gimmick consoles should be the devices or innate powers they try-hard to be proposal?
    Posted something similar somewhere in the gal x threads so i'm all for it.

    It should have minimal arc like 10 degree arc, a longer cycle and pack quite a punch. Also would be great if it could actually hit its target. Maybe even add sone build in shield penetration to match what we saw in the show.

    Yes, I posted in your thread about this thread.
    caasicam wrote: »
    What about as an extra proc? Perhaps something like the Piercing Tetryon weapons, 2.5% chance for 50% shield penetration. Basically a third of the Elachi proc but without any lockout, thus allowing for it to occure more than once each volley.

    Stat-wise, could look something like...

    Phaser Spinal Lance [Dmg]x3
    Energy Damage

    45' targeting arc
    10 kilometer Range
    3 sec recharge
    to target: X Phaser Damage (_DPS)
    to self: -15 Weapon Power when firing other weapons
    to target: 2.5% Chance: Disable 1 Subsystem for 5 sec
    2.5% Chance for 50% of attack to ignore enemy shields

    The Kumari Phaser Wing Cannon's base stats are fine, adding another proc (especially one using the phased out mechanics) muddies the waters by diminishes their value.
  • caasicamcaasicam Member Posts: 228 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    The Kumari Phaser Wing Cannon's base stats are fine, adding another proc (especially one using the phased out mechanics) muddies the waters by diminishes their value.

    Just me playing around with things, as those are the Kumari Wing Cannon's copy pasted stats, albiet with a [DMG] modifier removed for the Piercing Tetryon's copy pasted proc.

    On another, but similar subject, I don't think that the Guramba's Javalin should be changed, on the fact that it works and it works well. That, and the entire ship is basically the weapon, rather than a weapon strapped on that could theoretically be removed/go unused.
  • captaind3captaind3 Member Posts: 2,448 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    caasicam wrote: »
    What about as an extra proc? Perhaps something like the Piercing Tetryon weapons, 2.5% chance for 50% shield penetration. Basically a third of the Elachi proc but without any lockout, thus allowing for it to occure more than once each volley.

    Stat-wise, could look something like...

    Phaser Spinal Lance [Dmg]x3
    Energy Damage

    45' targeting arc
    10 kilometer Range
    3 sec recharge
    to target: X Phaser Damage (_DPS)
    to self: -15 Weapon Power when firing other weapons
    to target: 2.5% Chance: Disable 1 Subsystem for 5 sec
    2.5% Chance for 50% of attack to ignore enemy shields

    Not as a proc, but as a function of the weapon.

    The shield penetration of the lance wasn't even a question, when it hit, it just punched right through. It wasn't an instance of knocking the shield subsystem offline, it just ignored it. It told that Negh'var's shields to go sit in the corner.

    I'm not sure that it would work as well being a typical cannon or beam type weapon.

    I would prefer that it remain a Howitzer, a knockout weapon.

    On the other hand if we make it a weapon that can be swapped out, then how about different weapon types? I know, everyone will equip an Anti-Proton lance and call it a day. :rolleyes:


    I don't really want a proc if the trade off is that the weapon doesn't do what it's supposed to. Damage. If it's popping off ten thousand per individual shot, then no shield outside of the Scimitar with her backup shields will have shields after the second shot. If we're considering what was shown in the episode, then it's probably higher than that.
    So then they have a fairly clear precedent to follow through with this request as clearly for them recycling assets = good thing.

    As for the Bortas's Autocannon? Supported. They could slap the thing onto the ship, change its color and call it a day. I would not even be surprised if the wing cannons started out as an item for that ship.



    Is that inferred support for this thread's proposition (including the Bortas inclusion) AND inferred support for the gimmick consoles should be the devices or innate powers they try-hard to be proposal?
    Yes. It's only logical.

    As are having Star Trek themed smilies so I can drop an IDIC or Vulcan Salute emote when I say logical.

    The Kumari Phaser Wing Cannon's base stats are fine, adding another proc (especially one using the phased out mechanics) muddies the waters by diminishes their value.

    Agreed.
    tumblr_mr1jc2hq2T1rzu2xzo9_r1_400.gif
    "Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many — they are few"
  • projectfrontierprojectfrontier Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    caasicam wrote: »
    Just me playing around with things, as those are the Kumari Wing Cannon's copy pasted stats, albiet with a [DMG] modifier removed for the Piercing Tetryon's copy pasted proc.

    Yes, I noticed - and I am not discounting an adjustment to procs. However we would better off starting with the elephants in the room - "why are the Kumari Phaser Wing Cannons lacking a +Crit Severity buff while their smaller cousin, the DHC, has one?" & "when will all weapon procs be updated to the new ON CRITICAL mechanic?"

    caasicam wrote: »
    On another, but similar subject, I don't think that the Guramba's Javalin should be changed, on the fact that it works and it works well. That, and the entire ship is basically the weapon, rather than a weapon strapped on that could theoretically be removed/go unused.

    I am told it works really well with the adapted maco space set, something about the 3-piece deflector power charging the javelin up to full power on impact and maybe having a shorter CD than the Fed version. So while I do not disagree with the Guramba being effective as is and that that toggled mode, toggled fire setup works would you find a "Dyson Science Destroyer Cannon" fixture that activates in "shooter mode" desirable?
  • caasicamcaasicam Member Posts: 228 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Yes, I noticed - and I am not discounting an adjustment to procs. However we would better off starting with the elephants in the room - "why are the Kumari Phaser Wing Cannons lacking a +Crit Severity buff while their smaller cousin, the DHC, has one?" & "when will all weapon procs be updated to the new ON CRITICAL mechanic?"

    Agreed. It makes sense that DHCs have a Crit Severity buff, because they're firing larger shots. Now the wing cannons fire gigantic shots, and yet get nothing.

    Taking this over to the Lance, if the Wing Cannons (and Bortas Autocannon, assuming it gets changed to the general design of the Kumari's Cannons) get a Crit Sev. increase, would it make sense that the beam version of those weapons (Lance) would get a Crit Chance increase?

    I am told it works really well with the adapted maco space set, something about the 3-piece deflector power charging the javelin up to full power on impact and maybe having a shorter CD than the Fed version. So while I do not disagree with the Guramba being effective as is and that that toggled mode, toggled fire setup works would you find a "Dyson Science Destroyer Cannon" fixture that activates in "shooter mode" desirable?

    Something along the lines of what the Dyson Science Destroyers recieve when going into a different mode would certainly be welcome on the Guramba, as it's Siege Mode is doing almost the exact same thing as the Tactical Mode.

    As for an additional weapon that activates when switching to the alternate mode, it could definitely work. The Javalin itself is fairly similar to that general design, though more of an ability (I find it akin to Beam: Overload 4 with a 1 minute cooldown) that activates than a weapon.

    Having the Guramba's BOff layout alter when switching modes could also be a viable use of Dyson assets for this ship.
  • projectfrontierprojectfrontier Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    captaind3 wrote: »
    (...)

    The shield penetration of the lance wasn't even a question, when it hit, it just punched right through. It wasn't an instance of knocking the shield subsystem offline, it just ignored it. It told that Negh'var's shields to go sit in the corner.

    I re-reviewed the footage. Over the course of the scene there are 8 disparate rounds fired; #1 seems to miss; #2, #4, #6 pierce the ship; #3 may be the cause of a fire midships; #5 seems to do nothing; #7 and #8 are followed by secondary explosions right before the ship detonates.

    Erring on the side of "plot device VFX shot with as much accuracy as budget and time constraints allow" caution, if we were to put the scene within game-context as mechanics are now so that "All Good Things..." are reasonably equivalent?

    Riker clearly dev-consoled the Enterprise to have a Singularity Core for its Overcharge and the Phaser-Beam "Lance" so it can use Cannon: Rapid Fire.
    TL;DR: Riker has more than one maneuver.
    captaind3 wrote: »
    (...)
    On the other hand if we make it a weapon that can be swapped out, then how about different weapon types? I know, everyone will equip an Anti-Proton lance and call it a day. :rolleyes:

    No reason why they could not do that; it would be simpler if weapons were pre-defined on ships though and the slots were "enhancers" used to determine specialization (energy type - which is another word for "buffs").
    caasicam wrote: »
    Agreed. It makes sense that DHCs have a Crit Severity buff, because they're firing larger shots. Now the wing cannons fire gigantic shots, and yet get nothing.

    Taking this over to the Lance, if the Wing Cannons (and Bortas Autocannon, assuming it gets changed to the general design of the Kumari's Cannons) get a Crit Sev. increase, would it make sense that the beam version of those weapons (Lance) would get a Crit Chance increase?

    If the Wing Cannons have Crit Severity perhaps the Beam could have Crit Chance instead. If you mean would both having a Crit enhancement of some type be appropriate I have no context-reasonable argument against it for this case (or any case of any "HEAVY" beam)
    caasicam wrote: »
    Something along the lines of what the Dyson Science Destroyers recieve when going into a different mode would certainly be welcome on the Guramba, as it's Siege Mode is doing almost the exact same thing as the Tactical Mode.

    As for an additional weapon that activates when switching to the alternate mode, it could definitely work. The Javalin itself is fairly similar to that general design, though more of an ability (I find it akin to Beam: Overload 4 with a 1 minute cooldown) that activates than a weapon.

    Having the Guramba's BOff layout alter when switching modes could also be a viable use of Dyson assets for this ship.

    The Guramba as I understand it is quite a fun ship and leveraging reasonably appropriate tech from the Dyson onto it is not unreasonable.
  • leviathan99#2867 leviathan99 Member Posts: 7,747 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Shared again:

    I looked into this as a low, arc, always on weapon and did a fourth order polynomial comparing weapon arc and damage assuming a Dmg x4 mod.

    45 degree weapon - 287 DPS
    90 degree weapon - 257 DPS
    180 -238 DPS
    250 - 197 DPS
    360 - 148 DPS

    This gives us a polynominal regression equation of:

    y = 1.252035127·10^-7 x^4 - 9.862171854·10^-5 x^3 + 2.556652797·10^-2 x^2 - 2.891322634 x + 373.8107908

    Where x=arc.

    So a 10 degree weapon would do 347 DPS and 521 DPV.
  • projectfrontierprojectfrontier Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Shared again:

    I looked into this as a low, arc, always on weapon and did a fourth order polynomial comparing weapon arc and damage assuming a Dmg x4 mod.

    45 degree weapon - 287 DPS
    90 degree weapon - 257 DPS
    180 -238 DPS
    250 - 197 DPS
    360 - 148 DPS

    This gives us a polynominal regression equation of:

    y = 1.252035127·10^-7 x^4 - 9.862171854·10^-5 x^3 + 2.556652797·10^-2 x^2 - 2.891322634 x + 373.8107908

    Where x=arc.

    So a 10 degree weapon would do 347 DPS and 521 DPV.

    What do you think of the first post in this thread AND where did you get your static values from in your equation?
  • projectfrontierprojectfrontier Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Current Status of Proposal to "Use Kumari Phaser Wing Cannons to make proper megaphase/phaser-lance weapon item for Galaxy Dreadnought": no rejections, one abstention, otherwise unanimous support.
  • captaind3captaind3 Member Posts: 2,448 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    I re-reviewed the footage. Over the course of the scene there are 8 disparate rounds fired; #1 seems to miss; #2, #4, #6 pierce the ship; #3 may be the cause of a fire midships; #5 seems to do nothing; #7 and #8 are followed by secondary explosions right before the ship detonates.

    Erring on the side of "plot device VFX shot with as much accuracy as budget and time constraints allow" caution, if we were to put the scene within game-context as mechanics are now so that "All Good Things..." are reasonably equivalent?

    Riker clearly dev-consoled the Enterprise to have a Singularity Core for its Overcharge and the Phaser-Beam "Lance" so it can use Cannon: Rapid Fire.
    TL;DR: Riker has more than one maneuver.
    I don't interpret it that way. I feel that we saw the ship fire, then there's the lag and then we see the first shot connect.

    The only people that actually missed were the Klingons.
    No reason why they could not do that; it would be simpler if weapons were pre-defined on ships though and the slots were "enhancers" used to determine specialization (energy type - which is another word for "buffs").
    .
    That's not unreasonable and is in fact more logical except that it wouldn't allow differences such as dual beam bank vs array.


    Shared again:

    I looked into this as a low, arc, always on weapon and did a fourth order polynomial comparing weapon arc and damage assuming a Dmg x4 mod.

    45 degree weapon - 287 DPS
    90 degree weapon - 257 DPS
    180 -238 DPS
    250 - 197 DPS
    360 - 148 DPS

    This gives us a polynominal regression equation of:

    y = 1.252035127·10^-7 x^4 - 9.862171854·10^-5 x^3 + 2.556652797·10^-2 x^2 - 2.891322634 x + 373.8107908

    Where x=arc.

    So a 10 degree weapon would do 347 DPS and 521 DPV.

    Which is way too low. This is a weapon that's supposed to be able to destroy a full size battleship in 5-7 shots. 521 per volley is not worth it. That weapon is in the 10K per volley range.
    tumblr_mr1jc2hq2T1rzu2xzo9_r1_400.gif
    "Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many — they are few"
  • caasicamcaasicam Member Posts: 228 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    I'm going to log on soon and get some numbers for the Kumari's Wing Cannons, to then apply them to what a weaponized Lance may look like.

    Damage Per Second really is the only value that needs to be balanced out, though that leaves whether the Lance deals that damage in fewer, stronger hits (thus higher Damage Per Shot) or with more shots (but less Damage Per Shot). Think Dual Heavy Cannons versus Dual Cannons, if that makes it more clear.

    I personally feel that it's current one-two shot isn't visually accurate to what we saw in the Episode, but I'd much rather have heavy-hitting shots rather than a greater number of weaker beams. Obviously, to make the transition of assests easier, it probably should be closer to how the Kumari's Cannons operate.

    And thoughts on this?
  • leviathan99#2867 leviathan99 Member Posts: 7,747 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    What do you think of the first post in this thread AND where did you get your static values from in your equation?

    That is tricky to recall. I remember one came from quad cannons. I think I had to extrapolate the others based on stock equipment and the effectiveness of a Dmg mod.

    My preference would be for the "real boy" dreadnought to be offered as a separate ship. No hangar. Different BO loadout. New costume. Access to Galaxy costume only for owners of the regular Dreadnought.

    But I support the idea in principle.

    I think 45 degrees or whatever is too broad, would look silly in animated form, and would feel too much cannons with a beam graphic. But if you narrow the arc as I outlined and up the damage, you'd have a unique feeling weapon that would feel true to the show.

    I think it would finally justify running a max engine power, all RCS, Turn x3 engine build if you had a regular weapon with a very narrow arc and very high damage.... and cannons would make sense as a supplement to the beam weapon. It would bring out the synergy of that approach in a way the current Dreadnought doesn't.
  • leviathan99#2867 leviathan99 Member Posts: 7,747 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    caasicam wrote: »
    I'm going to log on soon and get some numbers for the Kumari's Wing Cannons, to then apply them to what a weaponized Lance may look like.

    Damage Per Second really is the only value that needs to be balanced out, though that leaves whether the Lance deals that damage in fewer, stronger hits (thus higher Damage Per Shot) or with more shots (but less Damage Per Shot). Think Dual Heavy Cannons versus Dual Cannons, if that makes it more clear.

    I personally feel that it's current one-two shot isn't visually accurate to what we saw in the Episode, but I'd much rather have heavy-hitting shots rather than a greater number of weaker beams. Obviously, to make the transition of assests easier, it probably should be closer to how the Kumari's Cannons operate.

    And thoughts on this?

    My thinking is basically that you can balance out all of that by NOT restricting firing speed (same speed as a normal beam) or making the damage lower but by giving the weapon a super narrow firing arc. Without the cannon range penalty, you achieve the sniper like function because a ten degree arc is an easier shot to make at long range.
  • caasicamcaasicam Member Posts: 228 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Made a quick graphic of different arcs compared to the current 45' one for the Lance, just to see where everything falls.

    Link

    Now, I'm all for decreasing the arc for more damage, but I'm not so sure about 10'...
  • projectfrontierprojectfrontier Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    captaind3 wrote: »
    I don't interpret it that way. I feel that we saw the ship fire, then there's the lag and then we see the first shot connect.
    (...)
    The only people that actually missed were the Klingons.

    footage (17 seconds, 6 shots) being disputed:

    Shot A - Riker
    Shot B - Enterprise
    Shot C - Klingon
    Shot D - Enterprise
    Shot E - Klingon (until Enterprise passes through)
    Shot F - Worf

    It is the case that in order to satisfy you arguments shot B and D must overlap (phaser blast 2 in B is 1 in D), meaning between B and D we have 3 actual phaser blasts: 1 hitting in shot C; 1 hitting off-screen (as indicated by the start of shot E where there is a 2nd visible damage shot ventral amidships aft); 1 hitting at the start of E. However, if this is the case then the disruptor fire through-out shot D would also be in part of shot C where it is not present at all.

    Therefore in order to satisfy your arguments we have to either:
    (a) mute the video and stop watching with the first hit
    or
    (b) assume egregiously horrendous editing
    d
    By chance, did you do A?
    caasicam wrote: »
    I'm going to log on soon and get some numbers for the Kumari's Wing Cannons, to then apply them to what a weaponized Lance may look like.

    (...)

    I personally feel that it's current one-two shot isn't visually accurate to what we saw in the Episode, but I'd much rather have heavy-hitting shots rather than a greater number of weaker beams. Obviously, to make the transition of assests easier, it probably should be closer to how the Kumari's Cannons operate.

    And thoughts on this?

    Idea #1: Cannon Rapid Fire (meaning slightly different tactical powers than one would assume for a "beam")

    Idea #2: Change the duration of the animation used to represent the shot being fired to synchronize with the weapon's firing pattern.
    caasicam wrote: »
    Made a quick graphic of different arcs compared to the current 45' one for the Lance, just to see where everything falls.

    Link

    Now, I'm all for decreasing the arc for more damage, but I'm not so sure about 10'...

    Firing arc is one of those game elements, like flight pitch, that requires the suspension of disbelief.
  • projectfrontierprojectfrontier Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    (...)
    My preference would be for the "real boy" dreadnought to be offered as a separate ship. No hangar. Different BO loadout. New costume. Access to Galaxy costume only for owners of the regular Dreadnought.

    But I support the idea in principle.
    (...)
    I think it would finally justify running a max engine power, all RCS, Turn x3 engine build if you had a regular weapon with a very narrow arc and very high damage.... and cannons would make sense as a supplement to the beam weapon. It would bring out the synergy of that approach in a way the current Dreadnought doesn't.

    As for "real boy" being a new ship, that may result in a lot of backlash. How about the following non-backlash-inducing alternative that leverages currently in-game technology?

    -- Give the ship it's own analog to the "Tactical Mode" found on the Dyson Science Destroyer. Add a 5th, inactive, weapon slot to the front with the phaser-item permanently affixed. When you turn "Tactical Mode" on the hangar closes for business; the boff layout changes***; the 5th forward slot is enabled and one rear-slot is disabled. And vice versa.

    *** They could reasonably go with CMDR->LT->CMDR Eng:Tac however I have an alternative that uses LTC->LT->LTC Eng:Tac (see next bullet)

    -- It begins with letting separation systems change layouts (as explained here). By allowing that to function with Tactical-mode they could reasonably leverage the same code used to implement the example schema for the Exploration Cruiser Retrofit.

    What do you think?
  • kadamskadams Member Posts: 204 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Hangar mode or Lance mode? I like.

    What would stop players from launching small craft, then switching to Lance mode? The hangar may be disabled, but the fighters are still in play.
  • leviathan99#2867 leviathan99 Member Posts: 7,747 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    As for "real boy" being a new ship, that may result in a lot of backlash. How about the following non-backlash-inducing alternative that leverages currently in-game technology?

    -- Give the ship it's own analog to the "Tactical Mode" found on the Dyson Science Destroyer. Add a 5th, inactive, weapon slot to the front with the phaser-item permanently affixed. When you turn "Tactical Mode" on the hangar closes for business; the boff layout changes***; the 5th forward slot is enabled and one rear-slot is disabled. And vice versa.

    *** They could reasonably go with CMDR->LT->CMDR Eng:Tac however I have an alternative that uses LTC->LT->LTC Eng:Tac (see next bullet)

    -- It begins with letting separation systems change layouts (as explained here). By allowing that to function with Tactical-mode they could reasonably leverage the same code used to implement the example schema for the Exploration Cruiser Retrofit.

    What do you think?

    I don't see this happening without people willing to put another $25 down on a new ship. You're talking work that involves art, testing, systems, database hookups that are non-trivial.

    I think this is a separate $25 purchase or it doesn't happen and if people lose enthusiasm at the idea of people buying it as a separate ship, the dev response internally will be that it isn't financially justifiable.
  • captaind3captaind3 Member Posts: 2,448 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    footage (17 seconds, 6 shots) being disputed:

    Shot A - Riker
    Shot B - Enterprise
    Shot C - Klingon
    Shot D - Enterprise
    Shot E - Klingon (until Enterprise passes through)
    Shot F - Worf

    It is the case that in order to satisfy you arguments shot B and D must overlap (phaser blast 2 in B is 1 in D), meaning between B and D we have 3 actual phaser blasts: 1 hitting in shot C; 1 hitting off-screen (as indicated by the start of shot E where there is a 2nd visible damage shot ventral amidships aft); 1 hitting at the start of E. However, if this is the case then the disruptor fire through-out shot D would also be in part of shot C where it is not present at all.

    Therefore in order to satisfy your arguments we have to either:
    (a) mute the video and stop watching with the first hit
    or
    (b) assume egregiously horrendous editing
    d
    By chance, did you do A?
    I've done A now.

    I don't think the lag is big enough to discount that it could be the same shot. And missing at that range in that sequence just doesn't make sense. They did the Jaws thing on those ships, the Big E had them dead to rights. And none of the shots in shot D were shown as missing. The punch of that shot was that you just saw the Enterprise perforate the warships with no difficulty, it doesn't hold up if they missed the first shot. On another note, unless the opponent is cloaked, the Enterprise never missed that I can recall (especially not at the ridiculous rate that you miss in this game).
    Idea #1: Cannon Rapid Fire (meaning slightly different tactical powers than one would assume for a "beam")

    Idea #2: Change the duration of the animation used to represent the shot being fired to synchronize with the weapon's firing pattern.
    Well people have been asking for a rapid fire single target phaser ability for a while now.


    On another note, why isn't there a long burn phaser attack? It transpired plenty of times in the show that they would fire continuously on a single spot until they went through, it would be similar if not identical to how the Kinetic Cutting Beam fires now.
    Firing arc is one of those game elements, like flight pitch, that requires the suspension of disbelief.

    Well legitimately every beam array had a 360 arc barring line of sight. The old dual beam banks had multiple emplacements to cover all arcs.

    What I wouldn't I could see a Phaser lance actually having maybe a 45 degree firing arc, I think the 10 degree arc is reasonable for in game purposes however.

    And what I wouldn't give to be able to do a Yeager loop or a barrel roll.
    tumblr_mr1jc2hq2T1rzu2xzo9_r1_400.gif
    "Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many — they are few"
Sign In or Register to comment.