Yet it's fair to have cannon builds that can throw X number of cannons in the tail and cover full 360 AND have full firepower to the front?
Yeah somehow I do not find that fair.
Sorry just because a few Boff powers are out of whack does not mean cruisers should be hampered by it. Fix the BOFF issues then watch as cruisers suddenly lose 80% off their punch, where do you go from there?
Oh wait, allow them to equip omni's like cannon turrets. Who'd of thunk it?!
Divorce equipment from boffs before going off half cocked friend.
Cruisers can actually equip turrets (the 360 degree cannons you mentioned, since DHC, DC, and single cannons have actual firing arcs) if they so choose. Anyway, with a standard pair of builds our Cruisers have some rather nice firing arcs already compared to an Escort.
If you pair 4 DHC w/2 turrets + KCB you end up with:
45 degress fore of 4 DHC w/2 turrets + KCB (7 weapons)
315 degrees fore, port, starboard, and aft of 2 turrets + KCB (3 weapons)
vs
If you pair 4 beam arrays fore with 2 beam arrays + Omni + KCB aft you end up with:
110 degrees fore of 4 beams + Omni + KCB (6 weapons)
70 degrees port of 6 beams + Omni + KCB (8 weapons)
70 degrees starboard of 6 beam + Omni + KCB (8 weapons)
110 degrees aft of 2 beams + Omni + KCB (4 weapons)
Bottom line as far as basic builds, a Cruiser gets 140 degrees of optimal firing solution compared to the Escort 45 degree optimal firing solution... in other words a 211.11% increase on top of the Escort firing arc. Broadsides are awesome. :P
If you don't like escorts on your aft, you can go a different route and redistribute things.
If you pair 2 beam arrays + Omni + KCB fore with 4 beam arrays aft you end up with:
110 degrees fore of 2 beams + Omni + KCB (4 weapons)
70 degrees port of 6 beams + Omni + KCB (8 weapons)
70 degrees starboard of 6 beam + Omni + KCB (8 weapons)
110 degrees aft of 4 beams + Omni + KCB (6 weapons)
If you prefer a more balanced setup, you can actually equip the Omni or KCB fore, allowing a beam array to be moved to cover your aft, without giving up the broadside.
If you pair 3 beam arrays + Omni fore with 3 beam arrays + KCB aft you end up with:
110 degrees fore of 3 beams + Omni + KCB (5 weapons)
70 degrees port of 6 beams + Omni + KCB (8 weapons)
70 degrees starboard of 6 beam + Omni + KCB (8 weapons)
110 degrees fore of 3 beams + Omni + KCB (5 weapons)
If you are more traditional, and prefer to have a torpedo fore and aft, you still enjoy some solid arcs, and of course getting ahold of one or two of the 180 degree torpedoes can really help out.
If you pair 2 beam arrays + torp + Omni fore with 2 beam arrays +torp + KCB aft you end up with:
110 degrees fore of 2 beams + torp + Omni + KCB (5 weapons)
70 degrees port of 4 beams + Omni + KCB (6 weapons)
70 degrees starboard of 4 beam + Omni + KCB (6 weapons)
110 degrees fore of 2 beams + torp + Omni + KCB (5 weapons)
*using a combination of the Wide-Angle Quantum Torpedo Launcher, Voth Transphasic-Chroniton Torpedo Launcher from the Bulwark, or Ferengi Rapid Fire Missile Launcher fore and aft can ensure that you always have torpedoes firing port and starboard as well, though even using a single Wide-Angle Quantum Torpedo Launcher with another Quantum Torpedo Launcher can give you a 270 degree coverage area around your ship
If you like the cannon skills better, you can always use single cannons and turrets. Yes, single cannons suck in most instances, but they do work better than beams as far as per-hit procs like DEM, the Omega 2-piece, and Protonic Polarons. They can also use C:RF to increase the stream of per-hit and per-cycle procs, and C:SV actually lets you hit 3 targets per damage pulse compared to the 2 targets per damage pulse that B:FAW provides; both cycle faster at 15 sec duplicate cooldowns, rather than the 20 duplicate cooldown of B:FAW.
If you pair 4 single cannons fore with 3 turrets + KCB aft you end up with:
180 degrees fore of 4 single cannons + 3 turrets + KCB (8 weapons)
180 degrees aft of 3 turrets + KCB (4 weapons)
*suggest a Heavy Turret if using Phaser or Disruptor damage type
Finally, if you really hate your WASD buttons, you can just use turrets and an Omni. The decreased damage of the turrets balances out the 360 degree coverage, but turrets work just as well as any other cannon-type weapon for delivering per-hit procs. Adding in the Omni allows you to use B:O wherever you like as well, and higher base damage than a turret provides.
If you pair 4 turrets fore with 2 turrets + Omni + KCB aft you end up with:
360 degrees fore, port, starboard, and aft of 6 turrets + Omni + KCB (8 weapons)
*suggest a Heavy Turret if using Phaser or Disruptor damage type
Yes, those all had a KCB; it serves as a pseudo-torp on ships lacking a torpedo and/or captains lacking the projectile skills, and has the 360 degree targeting area. Plus, Omega is the easiest Rep to progress now as we can get Omega Marks w/the Daily Bonus Marks while gathering Fleet Marks on Defera. It's not like we don't already have nice firing arcs on our Cruisers, and the addition of the special Omni beams does already help even limited to one. It provides more damage than a turret since it trades a [Mod] rather than being downgraded to a "beam turret", which is a nice selling point to picking up this special weapon.
Of course, if they create aft restricted "beam turrets" without the ship restriction and actual turret DPS, that might be a reasonable solution to the DBB conundrum... but additional full-damage Omnis just makes those weapons lose what makes them special. I can't say I favor allowing a full payload that allows you to hit everything, everywhere, without any thought of positioning or noticeable decrease in damage output. That doesn't make the game more fun. :P
With each passing day I wonder if I stepped into an alternate reality. The Cubs win the world series. Donald Trump is President. Britain leaves the EU. STO gets a dedicated PvP season. Engineers are "out of control" in STO.
We already have that.
->Turrets + DHCs = standard Escort/Battlecruiser
Technically yes, but let's be honest: When was the last time anyone was impressed by Turrets in PVE or even PVP?
360 Beams can do quite a bit more, esp. with a certain ability that got buffed recently. Or the old standby beam ability that's been FOTM for eons now. Not to mention that Beam abilities are cheaper in rank costs.
Yeah, i think that DBBs are the real problem here.
Maybe Omnis and DBB should exclude each other, or for each DB equiped you can equip one Omni less. (just an idea)
But i think this discussion will get a new impulse as soon as FAW is being nerfed. Maybe then some ppl will be more open to this idea.
Technically yes, but let's be honest: When was the last time anyone was impressed by Turrets in PVE or even PVP?
360 Beams can do quite a bit more, esp. with a certain ability that got buffed recently. Or the old standby beam ability that's been FOTM for eons now. Not to mention that Beam abilities are cheaper in rank costs.
True, but it shouldn't be forgotten that that certain ability works perfectly with one single Omni beam alone, which is very handy for escorts and other DHCs using builds, making them even more powerful.
It doesn't help Cruisers, or especailly Starfleet Cruisers very much. It was basicly another Escort buff.
Strange, no one seems to complain about escorts getting buffed all the time.
You see, i don't care about FAW or the already non existant balance between the various ship classes.
My goal is to make Starfleet Cruisers a bit interesting to fly and let's be honest they are extreme boring to fly.
STO distances itself more and more from being like a Star Trek game, making Star Treks most prominent ships (Starfleet Cruisers) more and dispensable and boring.
Sure they have their popularity bonus, but besides that what's left?
Basicly they are just boring flying bricks that feature nothing anyone else could do better.
Cryptics devs always talk about how exciting things are supposed to be, but the ships most ppl love aren't exciting in any way IMO. Sure they got a little bit more hull and a comm command that says "hey shoot at me!", wow that's really exciting.:rolleyes: [sarcasm /off]
Giving them 4 omnis in their rear weapons slots would make them special, similar to KDF battlecrusiers DHCs, just not that powerful. (Which is allright, IMO. )
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Yeah, i think that DBBs are the real problem here.
Maybe Omnis and DBB should exclude each other, or for each DB equiped you can equip one Omni less. (just an idea)
But i think this discussion will get a new impulse as soon as FAW is being nerfed. Maybe then some ppl will be more open to this idea.
Why would DBBs be the problem...? Those are the reason that I'd consider aft "beam turrets", simply to allow a forward weapons focus for players that really, really want that on a slower ship... or want to make their non-Defiant Escorts look more like they did in the shows. The limitation on Omnis simply prevents us from enjoying 250 to 360 degree "Broadsides", which is a good thing since it gives Cruiser pilots a different way of flying than simply drifting in the general direction of our target... that would be boring.
With each passing day I wonder if I stepped into an alternate reality. The Cubs win the world series. Donald Trump is President. Britain leaves the EU. STO gets a dedicated PvP season. Engineers are "out of control" in STO.
Reasons why not:
1) Removes turning penalty from cruisers.
2) You can use a bunch of new mods and proc away.
3) Until the aux2bat debacle is fixed, cruisers don't deserve any more power creep.
Why would DBBs be the problem...? Those are the reason that I'd consider aft "beam turrets", simply to allow a forward weapons focus for players that really, really want that on a slower ship... or want to make their non-Defiant Escorts look more like they did in the shows. The limitation on Omnis simply prevents us from enjoying 250 degree "Broadsides", which is a good thing since it gives Cruiser pilots a different way of flying than simply drifting in the general direction of our target... that would be boring.
I thought some ppl, may find the combination of 4DBB and 4 omnis too powerful.
I wouldn't think of 4BA+4Omni as being boring, it would open up much more different tactics in space combat. DBB on a slow turning Starfleet Cruiser isn't very optimal IMO.
Maybe they should have given DBBs the same arc as Beam Arrays but a slower fireing cyle. That would work much better for such a ship.
Just look at other Star Trek games, they surely wheren't boring, simply because Starfleet ships had a wider fireing arc then 70° port and starboard. (which is a strange concept anyway tbh)
In my opinion Starfleet ships (cruisers) in STO belong to the most boring and first and foremost impractical ships to fly. As someone who wants to fly a cruiser you are basicly forced to use a beamboat build to be effective. No torpedoes and nothing that could remotely being called exciting. Just park and spam broadsides (with or without FAW, it doesn't matter)
If cryptic would have deliberately want to make crusiers boring they couldn't have done better IMO.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
3) Until the aux2bat debacle is fixed, cruisers don't deserve any more power creep.
Everyone can use A2Bat it's not Cruiser specific.
Most 20 or 30k DPS Odysseys don't even use A2Bat at all.
AtB only helps to multiply a ships tac abilities, not their active weapons.
FAW WILL be nerfed, we surely won't get 4 omnis for cruisers before.
What about Klingon/ROM Battlecruisers that can A2Bat AND have acess to DHCs+turrets? Are they OP too? Does anyone prohibit them to become FAW beamboats?
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
I thought some ppl, may find the combination of 4DBB and 4 omnis too powerful.
I wouldn't think of 4BA+4Omni as being boring, it would open up much more different tactics in space combat. DBB on a slow turning Starfleet Cruiser isn't very optimal IMO.
Maybe they should have given DBBs the same arc as Beam Arrays but a slower fireing cyle. That would work much better for such a ship.
Just look at other Star Trek games, they surely wheren't boring, simply because Starfleet ships had a wider fireing arc then 70° port and starboard. (which is a strange concept anyway tbh)
In my opinion Starfleet ships (cruisers) in STO belong to the most boring and first and foremost impractical ships to fly. As someone who wants to fly a cruiser you are basicly forced to use a beamboat build to be effective. No torpedoes and nothing that could remotely being called exciting. Just park and spam broadsides (with or without FAW, it doesn't matter)
If cryptic would have deliberately want to make crusiers boring they couldn't have done better IMO.
4 DBBs + 4 Omnis would be too powerful, 4 DBBs + 4 "beam turrets" (with turret DPS) would not. That's the main rub, since each weapon receives diminishing DPS as their firing arc widens. The Omnis are special weapons that outperform conventional beam arrays in terms of arc and turrets in terms of DPS, which is why they are limited to 1 per ship like every other special weapon.
Plus, just wait until the DBB + "beam turret" folks start complaining how bad the beam skills are, with B:O firing off their "beam turrets" half the time and B:FAW having no focus whatsoever. :P
With each passing day I wonder if I stepped into an alternate reality. The Cubs win the world series. Donald Trump is President. Britain leaves the EU. STO gets a dedicated PvP season. Engineers are "out of control" in STO.
4 DBBs + 4 Omnis would be too powerful, 4 DBBs + 4 "beam turrets" (with turret DPS) would not. That's the main rub, since each weapon receives diminishing DPS as their firing arc widens. The Omnis are special weapons that outperform conventional beam arrays in terms of arc and turrets in terms of DPS, which is why they are limited to 1 per ship like every other special weapon.
Plus, just wait until the DBB + "beam turret" folks start complaining how bad the beam skills are, with B:O firing off their "beam turrets" half the time and B:FAW having no focus whatsoever. :P
hehe
[sarcasm /on]
Then i fear that introducing beam turrets would still be OP for some, since FAW it OP anyway.
I think it would be best to remove all beam weapons, since FAW is OP anyway, lool.
[sarcasm /off]
Seriously, i surely could live with 3 beam turrets and 1 omni in the rear weapons slots of a Cruiser.
I just hate to use cannon turrets.
Maybe Starfleet Crusiers are condemned to be boring and teethless in STO, if that's what makes ppl happy...:rolleyes:
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
[sarcasm /on]
Then i fear that introducing beam turrets would still be OP for some, since FAW it OP anyway.
I think it would be best to remove all beam weapons, since FAW is OP anyway, lool.
[sarcasm /off]
Seriously, i surely could live with 3 beam turrets and 1 omni in the rear weapons slots of a Cruiser.
I just hate to use cannon turrets.
Maybe Starfleet Crusiers are condemned to be boring and teethless in STO, if that's what makes ppl happy...:rolleyes:
Ahem... teethless they are not. They just work differently than the Battle- and Dreadnought Cruisers.
Anyway, as far as "beam turrets", if they were simply...
Beam Turret
standard aft weapon type (added to drop tables, crafting, Fleet, and future Rep systems)
standard [Mods] in standard quantity (0/1/2/3/4)
turret DPS
turret drain
turret arc
beam skills
beam firing cycle
...it'd be fine, even a tad worse than standard turrets due to the firing cycle. Leave them like the Omnis and let you have multiples... kinda OP.
With each passing day I wonder if I stepped into an alternate reality. The Cubs win the world series. Donald Trump is President. Britain leaves the EU. STO gets a dedicated PvP season. Engineers are "out of control" in STO.
Ahem... teethless they are not. They just work differently than the Battle- and Dreadnought Cruisers. As long as the "beam turrets" were simply...
Beam Turret - aft weapon
standard weapon type (added to drop tables, crafting, Fleet, and future Rep systems)
standard [Mods] in standard quantity (0/1/2/3/4)
turret DPS
turret arc
beam skills
beam firing cycle
...it'd be fine, even a tad worse than standard turrets due to the firing cycle. Leave them like the Omnis and let you have multiples... kinda OP.
It's hard to say considereing how much and in what way they will nerf FAW.
(not that i'm a fan of FAW in the first place)
Let's just exclude FAW for a moment.
I don't know if "Turret" Beams would be a good alternative to broadsiding for many players IMO.
On the other side 4 omnis may be OP, but on the other side i don't know how OP DHCs and turrets are, espcecially on a nimble escort.
I can see that 4DBB+4omnis would be extreme, maybe more powerful than 4DHCs+Turrets. But a slow turnig Starfleet Cruiser surely can't make much use of DBBs IMO.
Of course against a stationary target like a Borg gate i would be alright, but as soon as the enemy ship keeps moving you're in trouble.
Maybe restricting equippable DBBs in favour of Omnis would be the sollution for (some) Starfleet Cruisers, but on the other hand it can easily get complicated.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
I just tested, you can only equip one omni-directional beam array, no matter if its the same energy weapon type or not.
So, the rep space set omni-directional AP array doesn't work with the crafted weapons?
That doesn't sound like that's working as intended. Does that mean the crafted emission plasma torp won't work with the rom and omega plasma torps?
Also, in regards to DHCs + Turrets, keep in mind that, with exception to the hybrid escorts, the majority of escorts have 3 aft weapons. Some with 2.
My ultra rare Omni-Directional Disruptor actually has higher DPS than my turrets (including the heavy turret), even when my turrets have C:RF1 buffing them. Of course, C:RF3 puts it just slightly above the array, but if I used FAW (I'm actually using BO1 to give me more spike in my alpha, but still not going down the vaper path), I'm sure it'll be higher than the turrets again.
Here's what my damage looks like:
DHCs = ~1615
ODBA = ~1100
Turrets = ~800
If I went with all cannons/turrets, my sum damage would be 4x1615 + 3x800 = 8860.
If I had a cruiser with 5 tac consoles with all beams and I was broadsiding a target, my sum damage would be 8x1100 = 8800.
Granted, consoles makes a difference in the damage, but theoretically, they are pretty close in damage. Except, DHCs have a smaller firing arc. And if you gave a cruiser the ability to have more Omni-Directional arrays, they would have higher overall DPS than escorts (sadly, we can't keep every target in our firing arc all of the time).
Now throw in FAW, and you're pretty much putting out escort damage to every target within 10km of you.
Originally i wanted to present some maths i have done, but well it went lost so to say.
Omnis are pretty strong, granted. (especially in combination with DBBs and DHCs.)
I'm reluctant to suggest even more restrictions, so i think now it would be better they would introduce some kind of beam turrets additionally, like breadandcircuses suggested.
Again, the goal is not to create a FAW monstrosity, but to give Starfleet cruisers something unique that makes them feel more like a Starfleet ship is supposed be. But obviously this isn't possible within Cryptics game mechanics, it favours Escorts way too much.
I seriously hope that FAW gets nerfed better sooner than later, so people can start tinking about this, without getting their arguments and ideas smashed with the FAW hammer.
Thinking about it, i think it would be best to simply keep ship weapons as they are and let us simply switch the weapons appearance from cannons to beams and vice versa.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Hey if they want to lower the damage on Omni turrets to more match cannon turrets no skin off my nose. Infact somewhere in this thread I suggested EXACTLY that.
Step down the omni turrets to match more of the cannon turret DPS, I mean the Kinetic cutting beam and the 360 AP array you get from the worf FE(can't remember the name off the top of my head) are special and should be left alone, but I don't see an issue with LOW dps 360 arrays.
I mean really why should cannon builds be able to do that, but beam builds either have to broadside, or run a bastardised build to get 360 deg coverage until you get level 2 borg and run that FE?
To me it's not fair by a long shot. Again, I support both sides for lack of a better term. 360 arrays, but step down the damage.
Edit: Hell I'd even take a 360 deg array with LOWER DPS than a cannon turret just to get more of the damn things on the cruisers.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
Originally i wanted to present some maths i have done, but well it went lost so to say.
For giggles, I parsed a run through of Infected space.
On my Fleet Defiant (5x Spire Tac consoles with critical hit) :
My 4x Elachi DHCs had a net damage of 1.9mil. This included regular damage, CRF3, and CRF1. Which is a little less than 500k per cannon.
My heavy turret and bio-molecular turret had a net damage of 457k. This included regular damage, CRF3, and CRF1. Which is about 225k per turret.
My ultra rare Omni-Directional disruptor beam array (which has a PvP Dmg modifier, and was not relevant to this test) had a net damage of 516k. This included regular damage and BO1.
If you want to just look at the regular damage and no buffs;
4x Elachi DHCs had a net damage of 597k. Which comes out to about 149k per cannon.
2x Turrets had a net damage of 162k. Which comes out to about 81k per turret.
Omni-Directional disruptor beam array had a net damage of 371k.
For giggles, I parsed a run through of Infected space.
On my Fleet Defiant (5x Spire Tac consoles with critical hit) :
My 4x Elachi DHCs had a net damage of 1.9mil. This included regular damage, CRF3, and CRF1. Which is a little less than 500k per cannon.
My heavy turret and bio-molecular turret had a net damage of 457k. This included regular damage, CRF3, and CRF1. Which is about 225k per turret.
My ultra rare Omni-Directional disruptor beam array (which has a PvP Dmg modifier, and was not relevant to this test) had a net damage of 516k. This included regular damage and BO1.
If you want to just look at the regular damage and no buffs;
4x Elachi DHCs had a net damage of 597k. Which comes out to about 149k per cannon.
2x Turrets had a net damage of 162k. Which comes out to about 81k per turret.
Omni-Directional disruptor beam array had a net damage of 371k.
It's hard to tell from a parsed log which weapon combination does more dmg. There are too many factors included IMO.
What interested me the most was the relative difference between Beam arrays+Omnis and DHCs+Turrets and some other combinations.
Of course some combinations like DBBs+Omnis are too extreme. That's why i think there needs some trade off if someone wants to use several Omnis and DBBs at the same time.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
I have written this at another thread already, but i feel this should be discussed on it's own.
Klingon Cruisers have acess to DHCs, and cloak.
Romulan Warbirds have acess to DHCs, Battle(?)cloak and singularity powers.
Starfleet Cruisers have ... ?
I know that a very old debate and that Starfleet Cruisers get a tiny bit more hull, but STOs game mechanics allow to heal hull faster than anything. So a bit more hull is worth nothing IMO.
My suggestion would be to allow Starfleet Cruisers (Exclusively Starfleet Cruisers!) to equip multiple Onmi Beam Arrays in their rear weapon slots. Namely more than only one, depending on their turnrate/size.
It could work like this:
Basic Turnrate <6 = 4 Onmi Beam Arrays/rear weapons slot
Basic Turnrate 7-12 = 3 Onmi Beam Arrays/rear weapons slot
Basic Turnrate 13+ = 2 Onmi Beam Arrays/rear weapons slot
Please consider:
The point of this is NOT to make them OP in any form!
It is only about making Starfleet Cruisers more interesting to fly and to give them something on their own.
That wouldn't turn them into DMG monsters, but it would raise their effectiveness and first and foremost they would have something no other ship has.
I think it would be much easier to implement this, than to introduce a complete new weapon type like "heavy Beam Arrays" or things like that. As many ppl have suggested.
All other ships have so many possiblilites, like cannon builds (or science magic) for example, Starfleet Crusiers can't even make use of Torpedoes, since they would have to break from their Broadside position.
Single Cannon builds are problematic too, since most Starfleet cruisers only have acess to Lt. Level tactical BOFF powers. So the only viable tactics is broadsiding ad nauseam, not very exciting IMO.
I mean every Cruiser can broadside that's nothing special.
Allowing more than one 360degrees Beam Array in the rear weapons slot of a Starfleet Cruiser would allow much more diverse playstyles.
And btw. it would feel much more like Star Trek, if you hadn't to broadside all the time.
It would open up much more tactical possibilities for those ships, without making them totally OP.
It would make flying Starfleet ships finally a bit more entertaining and less boring.
I'd love to hear your opinion about this!
(please keep it friendly, constructive criticism is welcome though. )
So instead of creating an new weapon (heavy arrays) and remedy many problem faced by beam boats, finally stomping down on the aux2batfaw marrion spam at the same time and as such solving a lot of issues centered around the fact that beam arrays are a self deprecating weapon that sucks .... you propose... creating a new type of weapon (omni beams, which they did) that does not in fact address ANY of the problems that beam arrays face. I fact you added an even weaker variant now.
Oh yes, and of course the weapons aren't even properly available. Only the mission reward and the multi million crafting weapons. Yeah. lets totally make a faction depend on this shiite. What? The faction won't be depending on it? Then WHY BOTHER?!
Allow ALL ships to mount multiple Omni Beams, 2 Omni Beams (1 fore, 1 aft) or keep it the way it is.
In most Trek series, most beam arrays while not technically, are effectively omni. Especially on ships like the Enterprise D. The firing arc of it's ventral phaser array is for all intents and purposes 360. It has only a very small arc at the rear of the saucer that isn't covered by phaser strip and even then, the emitters at the edges, can cover that small gap.
The dorsal phaser strip has a bit less rear coverage, but not y much and that is covered by the dorsal strips on the pylons and the belly strip.
So since all phaser beam arrays are canonically, effectively 360, allow ALL ships to mount multiple Omni Beams, 2 Omni Beams (1 fore, 1 aft) or keep it the way it is.
"Go play with your DPS in the corner, I don't care how big it is." ~ Me "There... are... four... lights!" ~Jean Luc Picard
So instead of creating an new weapon (heavy arrays) and remedy many problem faced by beam boats, finally stomping down on the aux2batfaw marrion spam at the same time and as such solving a lot of issues centered around the fact that beam arrays are a self deprecating weapon that sucks .... you propose... creating a new type of weapon (omni beams, which they did) that does not in fact address ANY of the problems that beam arrays face. I fact you added an even weaker variant now.
Heavy Beam Arrays (whatever you think that is) wouldn't solve the FAW problem nor they would change anything about A2Bat issue.
3-4 omni beams in the rear weapons slot would in fact enhance Starfleet Cruisers versatility regaring their tactical operations. At least players wheren't forced to broadside all the time.
Sure, Beam weapons suck in STO, that's without question.
Instead of introducing ANOTHER weapon type (heavy arrays), why not take something that would actually enhance Starfleet Cruisers options?
This isn't about solving the problems of Beam weapons in general and not about FAW, it is about Stafleet Cruisers and their very limited options compared to other factions "cruisers".
Oh yes, and of course the weapons aren't even properly available. Only the mission reward and the multi million crafting weapons. Yeah. lets totally make a faction depend on this shiite. What? The faction won't be depending on it? Then WHY BOTHER?!
Your point?
This isn't about crafting or availlability of Omni beams. You can open a according thread if you think it needs change, of course.
Tell me, what do Starfleet Cruisers have what other factions "cruisers" don't have?
What makes the overpowerd other factions "crusiers" cannot do?
Do you refer to that goofy "shoot at me button" or those 1000 more hull hitpoints?
Your problem with a "underpowered" KDF faction or your personal opinion that Klingons should get more love is not what this threat is about.
There are enough other threads taking on that issue.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Tell me, what do Starfleet Cruisers have what other factions "cruisers" don't have?
What makes the overpowerd other factions "crusiers" cannot do?
Do you refer to that goofy "shoot at me button" or those 1000 more hull hitpoints?
Your problem with a "underpowered" KDF faction or your personal opinion that Klingons should get more love is not what this threat is about.
There are enough other threads taking on that issue.[/QUOTE] Tell me? why do federation get all the science ships? will you be wanting cloaks on your cruisers as well???
The problem is that a over powered fed faction should at least have one disadvantage as feddy bears pretty much have all the advantages anyways
The problem is that a over powered fed faction should at least have one disadvantage as feddy bears pretty much have all the advantages anyways
Again i ask what advantage do Starfleet Cruisers have compared to other factions "cruisers"?
The only thing i keep hering from you is that fed is overpowered here and there.
Please give me a example of how Starfleet Crusiers like the G-R or the Star Crusier are supposed to be OP compared to their KDF or ROM counterparts.
I understand that you simply don't want Starfleet ships getting ANYTHING but it does not work like this. Most people start playing STO because they want to fly the ships they like, but instead they have to learn that exactly those ships suck the most in STO. What's the point of playing a Star Trek game, if you are almost forced to fly a OP spacefighter (escort).
I agree some ships are OP, without question. But Starfleet crusiers are not among them.
If you want to create a threat where you want to rant about some FED Escorts or Science ships being OP, i will gladly agree with you, but those ships are not what this threat is about.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Heavy Beam Arrays (whatever you think that is) wouldn't solve the FAW problem nor they would change anything about A2Bat issue.
3-4 omni beams in the rear weapons slot would in fact enhance Starfleet Cruisers versatility regaring their tactical operations. At least players wheren't forced to broadside all the time.
Sure, Beam weapons suck in STO, that's without question.
Instead of introducing ANOTHER weapon type (heavy arrays), why not take something that would actually enhance Starfleet Cruisers options?
This isn't about solving the problems of Beam weapons in general and not about FAW, it is about Stafleet Cruisers and their very limited options compared to other factions "cruisers".
Btw, i'm curious what part of
was too hard to catch?
Your point?
This isn't about crafting or availlability of Omni beams. You can open a according thread if you think it needs change, of course.
I hear that all the time.
Tell me, what do Starfleet Cruisers have what other factions "cruisers" don't have?
What makes the overpowerd other factions "crusiers" cannot do?
Do you refer to that goofy "shoot at me button" or those 1000 more hull hitpoints?
Your problem with a "underpowered" KDF faction or your personal opinion that Klingons should get more love is not what this threat is about.
There are enough other threads taking on that issue.
The point. You missed it.
Dual cannons suck, because the heavier version is superior in every aspect.
Single cannons are used in very specialized builds, but generally suck.
Why do these guns suck? Because they have many firing cycles and suck power after each pulse which lowers overall power available, hence the term self deprecating weapon.
Why are heavy cannons superior? Blob blob done. power is not an issue.
Beam arrays fire 4 pulses, each pulse drains power and as such lowering the damage.
The Reason aux2bat builds are the king of the hill is the following:
It helps mitigate the power drain via its innate effect, it increases the availability of boff powers via tech doffs and again helps with weapon drain via marrion.
So that's 3 issues helped by one power and 2 doffs types. Add to that the fact that many cruisers simply have not enough tac slots to (since tac team 1 is MANDATORY, also a thing that is TRIBBLE beyond belief) mount any decent tac powers (which is a mistake cryptic themselves admitted to by.. virtually shipping every new ship with decent tac boff slots....).
Naturally powers and combos like this should not be the game shaping things that this obviously is.
How would a heavy array help?
Halve the number of pulses to 2. Double the base damage. You decrease the self deprecating effect innate to the weapon due to its pulse count and as such allow for the proper tuning of the aux2bat combo, which is simply too prevalent.
Do you know what does not help ANY of the problems? Omni arrays.
Guess what made it into the game, keeping to the old cryptic theme of "Why do something useful?".
Your point?
This isn't about crafting or availlability of Omni beams. You can open a according thread if you think it needs change, of course.
You propose a change that would require omni beams to be easily accessible. So naturally i was thinking that mentioning this little fact of availability was kinda important.
3-4 omni beams in the rear weapons slot would in fact enhance Starfleet Cruisers versatility regaring their tactical operations. At least players weren't forced to broadside all the time.
No. We would still be using FAW and aux2bat because of the massive bonuses it grants to all ship operations.
Versatility is not the ability to point your ship towards a target and being able to fire all your weapons.
Versatility would be to be able to fill multiple "roles" in one ship and accommodate many different weapon setups.
None of those things have anything to do with the number of omni arrays.
(please keep it friendly, constructive criticism is welcome though. )
The Reason aux2bat builds are the king of the hill is the following:
It helps mitigate the power drain via its innate effect, it increases the availability of boff powers via tech doffs and again helps with weapon drain via marrion.
So that's 3 issues helped by one power and 2 doffs types. Add to that the fact that many cruisers simply have not enough tac slots to (since tac team 1 is MANDATORY, also a thing that is TRIBBLE beyond belief) mount any decent tac powers (which is a mistake cryptic themselves admitted to by.. virtually shipping every new ship with decent tac boff slots....).
Naturally powers and combos like this should not be the game shaping things that this obviously is.
A2B rules because of its CD reduction, there are more than enough ways to get more power to your weapons (For ex. plasm.leech, EptW or play a engineer )
The biggest probelm is that ships that aren't "supposed" to benefit from A2B can use it just as well as ships like the Star Cruiser.
This has to change, but as i said this thread is not about that.
Halve the number of pulses to 2. Double the base damage. You decrease the self deprecating effect innate to the weapon due to its pulse count and as such allow for the proper tuning of the aux2bat combo, which is simply too prevalent.
First you have to define what you think how a heavy beam would work. Second, i cannot read minds (yet ).
Omnis + Beam arrays would drain just as much power as 8BA broadsiding. Sure some ppl. obviously have power problems by doing broadsides, but solving that "problem" is not point of my suggestion.
You propose a change that would require omni beams to be easily accessible. So naturally i was thinking that mentioning this little fact of availability was kinda important.
That's a given, i haven't thought that this is a matter to discuss. IF they would change Onmis the way suggested, they had to implement some means to get them, of course.
No. We would still be using FAW and aux2bat because of the massive bonuses it grants to all ship operations.
FAW will be nerfed, that's clear since they changed BO a few weeks back.
A2Bat will be changed as soon as they find a proper sollution.
Both, FAW and A2Bat are not the subject of this threat, sorry.
Versatility is not the ability to point your ship towards a target and being able to fire all your weapons.
Versatility would be to be able to fill multiple "roles" in one ship and accommodate many different weapon setups.
None of those things have anything to do with the number of omni arrays.
Versatility can also mean you are not bound to one single tactic in space combat.
I simply meant that Broadsiding shouldn't be the only option Starfleet cruisers have, i thought i was explicit enough. I'll try to explain so you can understand better next time.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Right. You want fed cruisers to have multiple Omni's. Ah, no thanks. Sure Roms get dreadnoughts with 5 fore slots, battlecloak, hangar LA LA LA LA. If you actually looked you have 2 very very incredibly capable deadly ships with dhc capability, com commands, cloak, and way more hull. Also, scims thalaron is way crappier than the now galx's never missing spread phaser lance which can, unlike thalapulse be boosted by TAC consoles. Also, galx can separate for more speed and a companion, AND both can use antimatter spread. Seems a little more equal if not better for fed, mm? Now let's go to avenger. Another ship that can use cloak, dhc capability, enough TAC consoles and boff TAC slots to do the job. Oh and did I mention it has a cloak too? And com commands? Na
The boss being a gigantic Winter Epohh Researcher. As you lay waste to the Epohh Horde, she can occasionally cry out things like, "Didn't you want an Epohh friend?"
Versatility can also mean you are not bound to one single tactic in space combat.
I simply meant that Broadsiding shouldn't be the only option Starfleet cruisers have ...
You know, I agree with this idea. At the same time, I do think that cruiser *should* be Broadsiding more than not. Why? Cruisers are not escorts in reality or fiction and we should not be trying to make cruisers into escorts.
So, I'll reiterate to reduce the number suggested in the OP by 1.
halve the number of pulses and double the damage of a beam array. there the same thing currently working exceedingly well for dual cannons.
You can drone on about this thread not being about other topics, but hat does not change the fact that you need to take these things into account.
The reason heavy beam arrays are suggested over and over again is because the same method works wonderfully for dual cannons.
Un-gimping beam arrays is a required step towards nerfing aux2bat.
No, its a step closer to making a2b more powerful. Lols! If we add ability for cruisers to put multiple omnibeams on butts, know what first thing is gonna happen? People sticking 4 dbbs fore 4 Omni's back, then have 12 beams on target, 4 coming from your TRIBBLE. How canon. Also you'll noitice more broadsiding happens with beam arrays than front or back
The boss being a gigantic Winter Epohh Researcher. As you lay waste to the Epohh Horde, she can occasionally cry out things like, "Didn't you want an Epohh friend?"
No, its a step closer to making a2b more powerful. Lols! If we add ability for cruisers to put multiple omnibeams on butts, know what first thing is gonna happen? People sticking 4 dbbs fore 4 Omni's back, then have 12 beams on target, 4 coming from your TRIBBLE. How canon. Also you'll noitice more broadsiding happens with beam arrays than front or back
Just stop feeding the troll. The OP claims aux2bat has nothing to do with this but it does because cruisers would be even worse DPS machines. He can't expect this to be added in without completely rendering turn rate debuffs and the turn penalty on cruisers into useless weak points to exploit against cruisers.
If he wants to offer better suggestions like improving some engineering abilities to be used on others AFTER aux2bat is fixed then fine, but his suggestion would just blatantly break the game's balance.
Right. You want fed cruisers to have multiple Omni's. Ah, no thanks. Sure Roms get dreadnoughts with 5 fore slots, battlecloak, hangar LA LA LA LA. If you actually looked you have 2 very very incredibly capable deadly ships with dhc capability, com commands, cloak, and way more hull. Also, scims thalaron is way crappier than the now galx's never missing spread phaser lance which can, unlike thalapulse be boosted by TAC consoles. Also, galx can separate for more speed and a companion, AND both can use antimatter spread. Seems a little more equal if not better for fed, mm? Now let's go to avenger. Another ship that can use cloak, dhc capability, enough TAC consoles and boff TAC slots to do the job. Oh and did I mention it has a cloak too? And com commands? Na
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Comments
Cruisers can actually equip turrets (the 360 degree cannons you mentioned, since DHC, DC, and single cannons have actual firing arcs) if they so choose. Anyway, with a standard pair of builds our Cruisers have some rather nice firing arcs already compared to an Escort.
If you pair 4 DHC w/2 turrets + KCB you end up with:
45 degress fore of 4 DHC w/2 turrets + KCB (7 weapons)
315 degrees fore, port, starboard, and aft of 2 turrets + KCB (3 weapons)
vs
If you pair 4 beam arrays fore with 2 beam arrays + Omni + KCB aft you end up with:
110 degrees fore of 4 beams + Omni + KCB (6 weapons)
70 degrees port of 6 beams + Omni + KCB (8 weapons)
70 degrees starboard of 6 beam + Omni + KCB (8 weapons)
110 degrees aft of 2 beams + Omni + KCB (4 weapons)
Bottom line as far as basic builds, a Cruiser gets 140 degrees of optimal firing solution compared to the Escort 45 degree optimal firing solution... in other words a 211.11% increase on top of the Escort firing arc. Broadsides are awesome. :P
If you don't like escorts on your aft, you can go a different route and redistribute things.
If you pair 2 beam arrays + Omni + KCB fore with 4 beam arrays aft you end up with:
110 degrees fore of 2 beams + Omni + KCB (4 weapons)
70 degrees port of 6 beams + Omni + KCB (8 weapons)
70 degrees starboard of 6 beam + Omni + KCB (8 weapons)
110 degrees aft of 4 beams + Omni + KCB (6 weapons)
If you prefer a more balanced setup, you can actually equip the Omni or KCB fore, allowing a beam array to be moved to cover your aft, without giving up the broadside.
If you pair 3 beam arrays + Omni fore with 3 beam arrays + KCB aft you end up with:
110 degrees fore of 3 beams + Omni + KCB (5 weapons)
70 degrees port of 6 beams + Omni + KCB (8 weapons)
70 degrees starboard of 6 beam + Omni + KCB (8 weapons)
110 degrees fore of 3 beams + Omni + KCB (5 weapons)
If you are more traditional, and prefer to have a torpedo fore and aft, you still enjoy some solid arcs, and of course getting ahold of one or two of the 180 degree torpedoes can really help out.
If you pair 2 beam arrays + torp + Omni fore with 2 beam arrays +torp + KCB aft you end up with:
110 degrees fore of 2 beams + torp + Omni + KCB (5 weapons)
70 degrees port of 4 beams + Omni + KCB (6 weapons)
70 degrees starboard of 4 beam + Omni + KCB (6 weapons)
110 degrees fore of 2 beams + torp + Omni + KCB (5 weapons)
*using a combination of the Wide-Angle Quantum Torpedo Launcher, Voth Transphasic-Chroniton Torpedo Launcher from the Bulwark, or Ferengi Rapid Fire Missile Launcher fore and aft can ensure that you always have torpedoes firing port and starboard as well, though even using a single Wide-Angle Quantum Torpedo Launcher with another Quantum Torpedo Launcher can give you a 270 degree coverage area around your ship
If you like the cannon skills better, you can always use single cannons and turrets. Yes, single cannons suck in most instances, but they do work better than beams as far as per-hit procs like DEM, the Omega 2-piece, and Protonic Polarons. They can also use C:RF to increase the stream of per-hit and per-cycle procs, and C:SV actually lets you hit 3 targets per damage pulse compared to the 2 targets per damage pulse that B:FAW provides; both cycle faster at 15 sec duplicate cooldowns, rather than the 20 duplicate cooldown of B:FAW.
If you pair 4 single cannons fore with 3 turrets + KCB aft you end up with:
180 degrees fore of 4 single cannons + 3 turrets + KCB (8 weapons)
180 degrees aft of 3 turrets + KCB (4 weapons)
*suggest a Heavy Turret if using Phaser or Disruptor damage type
Finally, if you really hate your WASD buttons, you can just use turrets and an Omni. The decreased damage of the turrets balances out the 360 degree coverage, but turrets work just as well as any other cannon-type weapon for delivering per-hit procs. Adding in the Omni allows you to use B:O wherever you like as well, and higher base damage than a turret provides.
If you pair 4 turrets fore with 2 turrets + Omni + KCB aft you end up with:
360 degrees fore, port, starboard, and aft of 6 turrets + Omni + KCB (8 weapons)
*suggest a Heavy Turret if using Phaser or Disruptor damage type
Yes, those all had a KCB; it serves as a pseudo-torp on ships lacking a torpedo and/or captains lacking the projectile skills, and has the 360 degree targeting area. Plus, Omega is the easiest Rep to progress now as we can get Omega Marks w/the Daily Bonus Marks while gathering Fleet Marks on Defera. It's not like we don't already have nice firing arcs on our Cruisers, and the addition of the special Omni beams does already help even limited to one. It provides more damage than a turret since it trades a [Mod] rather than being downgraded to a "beam turret", which is a nice selling point to picking up this special weapon.
Of course, if they create aft restricted "beam turrets" without the ship restriction and actual turret DPS, that might be a reasonable solution to the DBB conundrum... but additional full-damage Omnis just makes those weapons lose what makes them special. I can't say I favor allowing a full payload that allows you to hit everything, everywhere, without any thought of positioning or noticeable decrease in damage output. That doesn't make the game more fun. :P
Technically yes, but let's be honest: When was the last time anyone was impressed by Turrets in PVE or even PVP?
360 Beams can do quite a bit more, esp. with a certain ability that got buffed recently. Or the old standby beam ability that's been FOTM for eons now. Not to mention that Beam abilities are cheaper in rank costs.
Maybe Omnis and DBB should exclude each other, or for each DB equiped you can equip one Omni less. (just an idea)
But i think this discussion will get a new impulse as soon as FAW is being nerfed. Maybe then some ppl will be more open to this idea.
EDIT: True, but it shouldn't be forgotten that that certain ability works perfectly with one single Omni beam alone, which is very handy for escorts and other DHCs using builds, making them even more powerful.
It doesn't help Cruisers, or especailly Starfleet Cruisers very much. It was basicly another Escort buff.
Strange, no one seems to complain about escorts getting buffed all the time.
You see, i don't care about FAW or the already non existant balance between the various ship classes.
My goal is to make Starfleet Cruisers a bit interesting to fly and let's be honest they are extreme boring to fly.
STO distances itself more and more from being like a Star Trek game, making Star Treks most prominent ships (Starfleet Cruisers) more and dispensable and boring.
Sure they have their popularity bonus, but besides that what's left?
Basicly they are just boring flying bricks that feature nothing anyone else could do better.
Cryptics devs always talk about how exciting things are supposed to be, but the ships most ppl love aren't exciting in any way IMO. Sure they got a little bit more hull and a comm command that says "hey shoot at me!", wow that's really exciting.:rolleyes: [sarcasm /off]
Giving them 4 omnis in their rear weapons slots would make them special, similar to KDF battlecrusiers DHCs, just not that powerful. (Which is allright, IMO. )
Why would DBBs be the problem...? Those are the reason that I'd consider aft "beam turrets", simply to allow a forward weapons focus for players that really, really want that on a slower ship... or want to make their non-Defiant Escorts look more like they did in the shows. The limitation on Omnis simply prevents us from enjoying 250 to 360 degree "Broadsides", which is a good thing since it gives Cruiser pilots a different way of flying than simply drifting in the general direction of our target... that would be boring.
Reasons why not:
1) Removes turning penalty from cruisers.
2) You can use a bunch of new mods and proc away.
3) Until the aux2bat debacle is fixed, cruisers don't deserve any more power creep.
I wouldn't think of 4BA+4Omni as being boring, it would open up much more different tactics in space combat. DBB on a slow turning Starfleet Cruiser isn't very optimal IMO.
Maybe they should have given DBBs the same arc as Beam Arrays but a slower fireing cyle. That would work much better for such a ship.
Just look at other Star Trek games, they surely wheren't boring, simply because Starfleet ships had a wider fireing arc then 70° port and starboard. (which is a strange concept anyway tbh)
In my opinion Starfleet ships (cruisers) in STO belong to the most boring and first and foremost impractical ships to fly. As someone who wants to fly a cruiser you are basicly forced to use a beamboat build to be effective. No torpedoes and nothing that could remotely being called exciting. Just park and spam broadsides (with or without FAW, it doesn't matter)
If cryptic would have deliberately want to make crusiers boring they couldn't have done better IMO.
Like every 4DHC +4 turret Escorts/Battlecruiser and most Lockbox crusiers/dreadnoughts/carriers?
Everyone can use A2Bat it's not Cruiser specific.
Most 20 or 30k DPS Odysseys don't even use A2Bat at all.
AtB only helps to multiply a ships tac abilities, not their active weapons.
FAW WILL be nerfed, we surely won't get 4 omnis for cruisers before.
What about Klingon/ROM Battlecruisers that can A2Bat AND have acess to DHCs+turrets? Are they OP too? Does anyone prohibit them to become FAW beamboats?
4 DBBs + 4 Omnis would be too powerful, 4 DBBs + 4 "beam turrets" (with turret DPS) would not. That's the main rub, since each weapon receives diminishing DPS as their firing arc widens. The Omnis are special weapons that outperform conventional beam arrays in terms of arc and turrets in terms of DPS, which is why they are limited to 1 per ship like every other special weapon.
Plus, just wait until the DBB + "beam turret" folks start complaining how bad the beam skills are, with B:O firing off their "beam turrets" half the time and B:FAW having no focus whatsoever. :P
[sarcasm /on]
Then i fear that introducing beam turrets would still be OP for some, since FAW it OP anyway.
I think it would be best to remove all beam weapons, since FAW is OP anyway, lool.
[sarcasm /off]
Seriously, i surely could live with 3 beam turrets and 1 omni in the rear weapons slots of a Cruiser.
I just hate to use cannon turrets.
Maybe Starfleet Crusiers are condemned to be boring and teethless in STO, if that's what makes ppl happy...:rolleyes:
Ahem... teethless they are not. They just work differently than the Battle- and Dreadnought Cruisers.
Anyway, as far as "beam turrets", if they were simply...
Beam Turret
standard aft weapon type (added to drop tables, crafting, Fleet, and future Rep systems)
standard [Mods] in standard quantity (0/1/2/3/4)
turret DPS
turret drain
turret arc
beam skills
beam firing cycle
...it'd be fine, even a tad worse than standard turrets due to the firing cycle. Leave them like the Omnis and let you have multiples... kinda OP.
(not that i'm a fan of FAW in the first place)
Let's just exclude FAW for a moment.
I don't know if "Turret" Beams would be a good alternative to broadsiding for many players IMO.
On the other side 4 omnis may be OP, but on the other side i don't know how OP DHCs and turrets are, espcecially on a nimble escort.
I can see that 4DBB+4omnis would be extreme, maybe more powerful than 4DHCs+Turrets. But a slow turnig Starfleet Cruiser surely can't make much use of DBBs IMO.
Of course against a stationary target like a Borg gate i would be alright, but as soon as the enemy ship keeps moving you're in trouble.
Maybe restricting equippable DBBs in favour of Omnis would be the sollution for (some) Starfleet Cruisers, but on the other hand it can easily get complicated.
That doesn't sound like that's working as intended. Does that mean the crafted emission plasma torp won't work with the rom and omega plasma torps?
Also, in regards to DHCs + Turrets, keep in mind that, with exception to the hybrid escorts, the majority of escorts have 3 aft weapons. Some with 2.
My ultra rare Omni-Directional Disruptor actually has higher DPS than my turrets (including the heavy turret), even when my turrets have C:RF1 buffing them. Of course, C:RF3 puts it just slightly above the array, but if I used FAW (I'm actually using BO1 to give me more spike in my alpha, but still not going down the vaper path), I'm sure it'll be higher than the turrets again.
Here's what my damage looks like:
DHCs = ~1615
ODBA = ~1100
Turrets = ~800
If I went with all cannons/turrets, my sum damage would be 4x1615 + 3x800 = 8860.
If I had a cruiser with 5 tac consoles with all beams and I was broadsiding a target, my sum damage would be 8x1100 = 8800.
Granted, consoles makes a difference in the damage, but theoretically, they are pretty close in damage. Except, DHCs have a smaller firing arc. And if you gave a cruiser the ability to have more Omni-Directional arrays, they would have higher overall DPS than escorts (sadly, we can't keep every target in our firing arc all of the time).
Now throw in FAW, and you're pretty much putting out escort damage to every target within 10km of you.
Omnis are pretty strong, granted. (especially in combination with DBBs and DHCs.)
I'm reluctant to suggest even more restrictions, so i think now it would be better they would introduce some kind of beam turrets additionally, like breadandcircuses suggested.
Again, the goal is not to create a FAW monstrosity, but to give Starfleet cruisers something unique that makes them feel more like a Starfleet ship is supposed be. But obviously this isn't possible within Cryptics game mechanics, it favours Escorts way too much.
I seriously hope that FAW gets nerfed better sooner than later, so people can start tinking about this, without getting their arguments and ideas smashed with the FAW hammer.
Thinking about it, i think it would be best to simply keep ship weapons as they are and let us simply switch the weapons appearance from cannons to beams and vice versa.
Hey if they want to lower the damage on Omni turrets to more match cannon turrets no skin off my nose. Infact somewhere in this thread I suggested EXACTLY that.
Step down the omni turrets to match more of the cannon turret DPS, I mean the Kinetic cutting beam and the 360 AP array you get from the worf FE(can't remember the name off the top of my head) are special and should be left alone, but I don't see an issue with LOW dps 360 arrays.
I mean really why should cannon builds be able to do that, but beam builds either have to broadside, or run a bastardised build to get 360 deg coverage until you get level 2 borg and run that FE?
To me it's not fair by a long shot. Again, I support both sides for lack of a better term. 360 arrays, but step down the damage.
Edit: Hell I'd even take a 360 deg array with LOWER DPS than a cannon turret just to get more of the damn things on the cruisers.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
For giggles, I parsed a run through of Infected space.
On my Fleet Defiant (5x Spire Tac consoles with critical hit) :
My 4x Elachi DHCs had a net damage of 1.9mil. This included regular damage, CRF3, and CRF1. Which is a little less than 500k per cannon.
My heavy turret and bio-molecular turret had a net damage of 457k. This included regular damage, CRF3, and CRF1. Which is about 225k per turret.
My ultra rare Omni-Directional disruptor beam array (which has a PvP Dmg modifier, and was not relevant to this test) had a net damage of 516k. This included regular damage and BO1.
If you want to just look at the regular damage and no buffs;
4x Elachi DHCs had a net damage of 597k. Which comes out to about 149k per cannon.
2x Turrets had a net damage of 162k. Which comes out to about 81k per turret.
Omni-Directional disruptor beam array had a net damage of 371k.
What interested me the most was the relative difference between Beam arrays+Omnis and DHCs+Turrets and some other combinations.
Of course some combinations like DBBs+Omnis are too extreme. That's why i think there needs some trade off if someone wants to use several Omnis and DBBs at the same time.
So instead of creating an new weapon (heavy arrays) and remedy many problem faced by beam boats, finally stomping down on the aux2batfaw marrion spam at the same time and as such solving a lot of issues centered around the fact that beam arrays are a self deprecating weapon that sucks .... you propose... creating a new type of weapon (omni beams, which they did) that does not in fact address ANY of the problems that beam arrays face. I fact you added an even weaker variant now.
Oh yes, and of course the weapons aren't even properly available. Only the mission reward and the multi million crafting weapons. Yeah. lets totally make a faction depend on this shiite. What? The faction won't be depending on it? Then WHY BOTHER?!
seems legit....
Feddy bears get everything so no
No deal no having more over powered stuff
No
In most Trek series, most beam arrays while not technically, are effectively omni. Especially on ships like the Enterprise D. The firing arc of it's ventral phaser array is for all intents and purposes 360. It has only a very small arc at the rear of the saucer that isn't covered by phaser strip and even then, the emitters at the edges, can cover that small gap.
The dorsal phaser strip has a bit less rear coverage, but not y much and that is covered by the dorsal strips on the pylons and the belly strip.
So since all phaser beam arrays are canonically, effectively 360, allow ALL ships to mount multiple Omni Beams, 2 Omni Beams (1 fore, 1 aft) or keep it the way it is.
"There... are... four... lights!" ~Jean Luc Picard
3-4 omni beams in the rear weapons slot would in fact enhance Starfleet Cruisers versatility regaring their tactical operations. At least players wheren't forced to broadside all the time.
Sure, Beam weapons suck in STO, that's without question.
Instead of introducing ANOTHER weapon type (heavy arrays), why not take something that would actually enhance Starfleet Cruisers options?
This isn't about solving the problems of Beam weapons in general and not about FAW, it is about Stafleet Cruisers and their very limited options compared to other factions "cruisers".
Btw, i'm curious what part of was too hard to catch?
Your point?
This isn't about crafting or availlability of Omni beams. You can open a according thread if you think it needs change, of course.
I hear that all the time.
Tell me, what do Starfleet Cruisers have what other factions "cruisers" don't have?
What makes the overpowerd other factions "crusiers" cannot do?
Do you refer to that goofy "shoot at me button" or those 1000 more hull hitpoints?
Your problem with a "underpowered" KDF faction or your personal opinion that Klingons should get more love is not what this threat is about.
There are enough other threads taking on that issue.
Tell me, what do Starfleet Cruisers have what other factions "cruisers" don't have?
What makes the overpowerd other factions "crusiers" cannot do?
Do you refer to that goofy "shoot at me button" or those 1000 more hull hitpoints?
Your problem with a "underpowered" KDF faction or your personal opinion that Klingons should get more love is not what this threat is about.
There are enough other threads taking on that issue.[/QUOTE] Tell me? why do federation get all the science ships? will you be wanting cloaks on your cruisers as well???
The problem is that a over powered fed faction should at least have one disadvantage as feddy bears pretty much have all the advantages anyways
Again i ask what advantage do Starfleet Cruisers have compared to other factions "cruisers"?
The only thing i keep hering from you is that fed is overpowered here and there.
Please give me a example of how Starfleet Crusiers like the G-R or the Star Crusier are supposed to be OP compared to their KDF or ROM counterparts.
I understand that you simply don't want Starfleet ships getting ANYTHING but it does not work like this. Most people start playing STO because they want to fly the ships they like, but instead they have to learn that exactly those ships suck the most in STO. What's the point of playing a Star Trek game, if you are almost forced to fly a OP spacefighter (escort).
I agree some ships are OP, without question. But Starfleet crusiers are not among them.
If you want to create a threat where you want to rant about some FED Escorts or Science ships being OP, i will gladly agree with you, but those ships are not what this threat is about.
The point. You missed it.
Dual cannons suck, because the heavier version is superior in every aspect.
Single cannons are used in very specialized builds, but generally suck.
Why do these guns suck? Because they have many firing cycles and suck power after each pulse which lowers overall power available, hence the term self deprecating weapon.
Why are heavy cannons superior? Blob blob done. power is not an issue.
Beam arrays fire 4 pulses, each pulse drains power and as such lowering the damage.
The Reason aux2bat builds are the king of the hill is the following:
It helps mitigate the power drain via its innate effect, it increases the availability of boff powers via tech doffs and again helps with weapon drain via marrion.
So that's 3 issues helped by one power and 2 doffs types. Add to that the fact that many cruisers simply have not enough tac slots to (since tac team 1 is MANDATORY, also a thing that is TRIBBLE beyond belief) mount any decent tac powers (which is a mistake cryptic themselves admitted to by.. virtually shipping every new ship with decent tac boff slots....).
Naturally powers and combos like this should not be the game shaping things that this obviously is.
How would a heavy array help?
Halve the number of pulses to 2. Double the base damage. You decrease the self deprecating effect innate to the weapon due to its pulse count and as such allow for the proper tuning of the aux2bat combo, which is simply too prevalent.
Do you know what does not help ANY of the problems? Omni arrays.
Guess what made it into the game, keeping to the old cryptic theme of "Why do something useful?".
You propose a change that would require omni beams to be easily accessible. So naturally i was thinking that mentioning this little fact of availability was kinda important.
No. We would still be using FAW and aux2bat because of the massive bonuses it grants to all ship operations.
Versatility is not the ability to point your ship towards a target and being able to fire all your weapons.
Versatility would be to be able to fill multiple "roles" in one ship and accommodate many different weapon setups.
None of those things have anything to do with the number of omni arrays.
meaning?
A2B rules because of its CD reduction, there are more than enough ways to get more power to your weapons (For ex. plasm.leech, EptW or play a engineer
The biggest probelm is that ships that aren't "supposed" to benefit from A2B can use it just as well as ships like the Star Cruiser.
This has to change, but as i said this thread is not about that.
First you have to define what you think how a heavy beam would work. Second, i cannot read minds (yet
Omnis + Beam arrays would drain just as much power as 8BA broadsiding. Sure some ppl. obviously have power problems by doing broadsides, but solving that "problem" is not point of my suggestion.
That's a given, i haven't thought that this is a matter to discuss. IF they would change Onmis the way suggested, they had to implement some means to get them, of course.
FAW will be nerfed, that's clear since they changed BO a few weeks back.
A2Bat will be changed as soon as they find a proper sollution.
Both, FAW and A2Bat are not the subject of this threat, sorry.
Versatility can also mean you are not bound to one single tactic in space combat.
I simply meant that Broadsiding shouldn't be the only option Starfleet cruisers have, i thought i was explicit enough. I'll try to explain so you can understand better next time.
Can't help you if you don't know yourself.
You know, I agree with this idea. At the same time, I do think that cruiser *should* be Broadsiding more than not. Why? Cruisers are not escorts in reality or fiction and we should not be trying to make cruisers into escorts.
So, I'll reiterate to reduce the number suggested in the OP by 1.
exactly in that quote.
halve the number of pulses and double the damage of a beam array. there the same thing currently working exceedingly well for dual cannons.
You can drone on about this thread not being about other topics, but hat does not change the fact that you need to take these things into account.
The reason heavy beam arrays are suggested over and over again is because the same method works wonderfully for dual cannons.
Un-gimping beam arrays is a required step towards nerfing aux2bat.
No, its a step closer to making a2b more powerful. Lols! If we add ability for cruisers to put multiple omnibeams on butts, know what first thing is gonna happen? People sticking 4 dbbs fore 4 Omni's back, then have 12 beams on target, 4 coming from your TRIBBLE. How canon. Also you'll noitice more broadsiding happens with beam arrays than front or back
Just stop feeding the troll. The OP claims aux2bat has nothing to do with this but it does because cruisers would be even worse DPS machines. He can't expect this to be added in without completely rendering turn rate debuffs and the turn penalty on cruisers into useless weak points to exploit against cruisers.
If he wants to offer better suggestions like improving some engineering abilities to be used on others AFTER aux2bat is fixed then fine, but his suggestion would just blatantly break the game's balance.