test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

weapons type synergy bonuses'

2

Comments

  • edited March 2015
    This content has been removed.
  • disposeableh3r0disposeableh3r0 Member Posts: 1,927 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    onerats wrote: »
    This suggestion is just silly, as any viable build is already inherently doing what's being suggested for other reasons that lead to increased damage. Beam boats run full beam arrays (many +KCB) because it allows both fore and aft weapons to fire broadside. The only other option they have is running all turrets.. and that'd just be stupid. 5/3 ships also run DBB/Omni setups, again.. greatest amount of damage in one firing arc.

    Cannon setups run as many DHC's as possible up front, with turrets in back to utilize the rear arc.

    In the end, what you're suggesting won't encourage viable builds - it will only make 4/4 cruisers more powerful at the cost of escorts and science ships that can run fewer weapons. It also seems to encourage running things like all DBB's up front, and all DBB's in back.. which is silly, even with this suggestion. You'd still be better off with DBB/Omni.. so what changed?

    Actually you cant run dbb in an aft slot, or at least I don't think you can I have never tried.

    And no not every kind of build would see an improvement, but others might.

    And the bonuses were just examples since damage is the simplest thing to give the wide arc weapons that's what I went with. Mainly because I couldn't decide on anything else.
    As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?

    Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln

    Occidere populo et effercio confractus
  • platewearingbirdplatewearingbird Member Posts: 455 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    The point isn't to buff rainbow builds, I have said that. Tac consoles being what they are is a separate thing. I'm talking about the weapons.

    If you have a suggestion on how to make the non specific tac consoles useful post a thread about it.

    What is the point of your suggestion, then? It'd be an all-encompassing damage boost for everyone because everyone stacks weapon types, even a little.


    We don't need more damage output. Especially not on ships that ONLY use one type of weapon like torp boats and FAW scims.
  • antoniosalieriantoniosalieri Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    Actually you cant run dbb in an aft slot, or at least I don't think you can I have never tried.

    Ok so your trolling.... or your completely new.

    I will assume new. May I suggest you hunt around the build forums, perhaps the PvP forums. Go read some more about the game. Its ok we all had some ideas about the game when we started that we may not share now that we know better.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack.
  • disposeableh3r0disposeableh3r0 Member Posts: 1,927 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    westmetals wrote: »
    (points back to the "you don't know as much as you think you do" comment.)

    I know you completely ignored my earlier examples. Go look at them again. Two ships both equipped with 3 DHCs, a torpedo, and 3 turrets. Both benefit exactly the same from your proposal. Two ships both equipped with six single beams. Both benefit exactly the same from your proposal.

    WHY do this if the types of builds that most players pursue... all benefit from it? It's just power creep. So what if every single ship that currently does 30k DPS would then do 31.5k.



    Recognize that quote? It's from your signature.

    Because 2 ships similarly equipped will always do the same damage. If you just want to go with what everyone else is doing why don't we just have one ship in the game and it can have a locked load out too.

    You ignored that some of my suggested bonuses increased not damage specifically but firing rate and firing arc.

    While no I didn't have them in my op they are in the thread.
    As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?

    Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln

    Occidere populo et effercio confractus
  • edited March 2015
    This content has been removed.
  • oneratsonerats Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    Yeah, you can put any weapon you want anywhere.. provided the ship can run it. There are just some that would be downright silly to use.

    Either way, this suggestion is pointless. You're suggesting a damage increase be given to ships as they use more of a given type of weapon. Logically, you're suggesting this because you think that people should be running a single type of weapon - and that they should benefit from this.

    What you're not realizing, is that almost everyone (indeed, everyone that is halfway decent) already does this. They do so because the game is setup in such a way that maximizing your offensive power leads you to use one of two options - either the best arrays you can get all around to broadside with.. or frontal weapons like cannons or DBB's combined with turrets or omni beams in back.

    What you're suggesting is like saying we should buff oxygen to get people to breathe more air.
  • disposeableh3r0disposeableh3r0 Member Posts: 1,927 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    Ok so your trolling.... or your completely new.

    I will assume new. May I suggest you hunt around the build forums, perhaps the PvP forums. Go read some more about the game. Its ok we all had some ideas about the game when we started that we may not share now that we know better.

    Nope not new or trolling just legitimately never tried dbbs in an aft slot. And I admitted as such.
    As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?

    Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln

    Occidere populo et effercio confractus
  • platewearingbirdplatewearingbird Member Posts: 455 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    Because 2 ships similarly equipped will always do the same damage. If you just want to go with what everyone else is doing why don't we just have one ship in the game and it can have a locked load out too.

    You ignored that some of my suggested bonuses increased not damage specifically but firing rate and firing arc.

    While no I didn't have them in my op they are in the thread.

    More firing speed = more shots = more damage output

    Wider arcs = more weapon uptime on the move = more damage output.

    I think those guys are right, you know very little about how weapons work in this game. Or you're a bored Sunday night troll.

    Both are equally possible at this point.
  • edited March 2015
    This content has been removed.
  • disposeableh3r0disposeableh3r0 Member Posts: 1,927 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    westmetals wrote: »
    I didn't ignore what the proposed benefits are - it's just that it actually doesn't matter what the specific bonuses are that you're proposing; the proposal is set up in such a way that pretty much every viable build would qualify for them. So it just becomes pointless power creep.

    Ok I get it you don't agree. Now please contribute something to the thread.
    As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?

    Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln

    Occidere populo et effercio confractus
  • edited March 2015
    This content has been removed.
  • disposeableh3r0disposeableh3r0 Member Posts: 1,927 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    More firing speed = more shots = more damage output

    Wider arcs = more weapon uptime on the move = more damage output.

    I think those guys are right, you know very little about how weapons work in this game. Or you're a bored Sunday night troll.

    Both are equally possible at this point.

    Larger arcs mean more ships can do higher damage yes. Larger arcs mean that some of the under performing ships can now perform slightly better. Maybe there should be a diminishing return on damage for the dbb suggestion maybe not, some one should use their own brain and come up with a counter buff that is still in the spirit of the op. I shouldn't have to do all the thinking, else why would I even talk to you guys.

    Higher firing rate equals more damage yes bit depending on the weapon may just improve dps and not spike damage. The dual cannons currently have the same listed dps with different damage values. This is due to the firing rate of the dual cannon being twice as fast as the heavy cannons. Altho I don't tend to see alot of dual cannon builds, may be wrong about their usefulness don't tend to use them myself
    As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?

    Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln

    Occidere populo et effercio confractus
  • platewearingbirdplatewearingbird Member Posts: 455 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    Ok I get it you don't agree. Now please contribute something to the thread.

    He is, but whenever he does you cup your hands over your ears and start going "LALALALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!"
  • disposeableh3r0disposeableh3r0 Member Posts: 1,927 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    westmetals wrote: »
    I have, but you're willfully ignoring it.

    My contribution is this: proposing a new system of bonuses that benefits everyone is pointless power creep. It only has meaning if it benefits certain types of builds and not others (such as buffing rainbows while not buffing matched, as my counterproposal to improe the style-specific tac consoles would have done).

    And also this: When using the same styles of weapons, energy-matched loadouts with energy-specific tac consoles are superior to mixed/rainbow loadouts with style-specific tac consoles. Your arguments have been consistently ignoring that point and you have been consistently claiming that it does not matter.

    Because what you have ignored is that rainbow boats were not the focus of this suggestion. Rainbow boats are bad the mechanics behind them being bad have nothing to to with weapons and everything to do with tac consoles. Since my suggestion had nothing to do with tac consoles or even every types your argument is out of place.
    As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?

    Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln

    Occidere populo et effercio confractus
  • disposeableh3r0disposeableh3r0 Member Posts: 1,927 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    ummm tac consoles effect the weapons, its all the same thing. Which game are you playing... you didn't click the wrong button on the never winter forums or something did you ?

    Yes they do. But then its a given youll have them, and that they will most likely be matches to your weapons so what point is there in mentioning them? Their existance or buffs would not affect the bonus system in suggesting
    As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?

    Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln

    Occidere populo et effercio confractus
  • edited March 2015
    This content has been removed.
  • platewearingbirdplatewearingbird Member Posts: 455 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    Larger arcs mean more ships can do higher damage yes. Larger arcs mean that some of the under performing ships can now perform slightly better. Maybe there should be a diminishing return on damage for the dbb suggestion maybe not, some one should use their own brain and come up with a counter buff that is still in the spirit of the op. I shouldn't have to do all the thinking, else why would I even talk to you guys.

    Higher firing rate equals more damage yes bit depending on the weapon may just improve dps and not spike damage. The dual cannons currently have the same listed dps with different damage values. This is due to the firing rate of the dual cannon being twice as fast as the heavy cannons. Altho I don't tend to see alot of dual cannon builds, may be wrong about their usefulness don't tend to use them myself

    Yeah, that underperforming ship now performs better, but it's also improving every other ship that is better than it as well, provided the same loadout. You're not improving anything, you're moving the goal post farther away, moving everyone else forward the same distance, then saying "look, you've gotten closer!" when really they're no better off than when they started.

    We don't need to offer you a counter-buff, because our argument isn't that the buffs are insufficient. Our argument is the buff isn't needed and has no point.
  • edited March 2015
    This content has been removed.
  • disposeableh3r0disposeableh3r0 Member Posts: 1,927 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    westmetals wrote: »
    I'm not ignoring anything.

    Your proposal as stated... ignores the basic reality that those things DO matter. It's all one integrated system.

    If you're NOT trying to boost rainbows without boosting matched, then this proposal is trying to boost EVERYONE, and there is simply no point in doing that.

    And boosting only some people creates imbalance. Not everything has to be all or nothing true. But then some times there isn't anything wrong with all or nothing.

    You see to be of the position that rainbow boats should be viable, maybe they should, but since my suggestion is targeted toward everyone you take issue.

    Would it some how be more palatable to you if it was raindow boat only buffs?

    And while its impossible to tell what kind of boost you would realm get since we have no test platform to tell us how this would interact with the rest of the system, we can't say for sure everyone would get the same level of boost.

    And again I was never married to the actual bonus, only that it would be nice if we had a real reason to go all beam or mix beam and cannon or what not that actually had differential benefits with out one way being flat out superior
    As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?

    Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln

    Occidere populo et effercio confractus
  • disposeableh3r0disposeableh3r0 Member Posts: 1,927 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    Yeah, that underperforming ship now performs better, but it's also improving every other ship that is better than it as well, provided the same loadout. You're not improving anything, you're moving the goal post farther away, moving everyone else forward the same distance, then saying "look, you've gotten closer!" when really they're no better off than when they started.

    We don't need to offer you a counter-buff, because our argument isn't that the buffs are insufficient. Our argument is the buff isn't needed and has no point.

    Well a good counter proposal would have included the deficiencies in my op and enhanced it or altered it to cover the deficiencies.

    I get that you don't agree with the op, but you don't need to keep telling me that if you aren't going to either add to the idea to make it better in your mind, or propose one of your own in the same vein as my op.
    As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?

    Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln

    Occidere populo et effercio confractus
  • platewearingbirdplatewearingbird Member Posts: 455 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    And boosting only some people creates imbalance. Not everything has to be all or nothing true. But then some times there isn't anything wrong with all or nothing.

    You see to be of the position that rainbow boats should be viable, maybe they should, but since my suggestion is targeted toward everyone you take issue.

    Would it some how be more palatable to you if it was raindow boat only buffs?

    And while its impossible to tell what kind of boost you would realm get since we have no test platform to tell us how this would interact with the rest of the system, we can't say for sure everyone would get the same level of boost.

    And again I was never married to the actual bonus, only that it would be nice if we had a real reason to go all beam or mix beam and cannon or what not that actually had differential benefits with out one way being flat out superior

    The reason why no one mixes beams and cannons has nothing to do with them not doing enough damage, it's skill synergy. If you're using all beams, you use FAW and BO, all cannons you use CRF and CSV.

    Going beams AND cannons means your FAW is now only affecting your beams, and CSV is now only affecting your cannons. It's very ineffective.
  • edited March 2015
    This content has been removed.
  • disposeableh3r0disposeableh3r0 Member Posts: 1,927 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    The reason why no one mixes beams and cannons has nothing to do with them not doing enough damage, it's skill synergy. If you're using all beams, you use FAW and BO, all cannons you use CRF and CSV.

    Going beams AND cannons means your FAW is now only affecting your beams, and CSV is now only affecting your cannons. It's very ineffective.

    Sorry I meant to add the word types in there, my auto correct is having a seizure with all the abbreviations in using.

    That should have said beam types and cannon types.
    As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?

    Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln

    Occidere populo et effercio confractus
  • disposeableh3r0disposeableh3r0 Member Posts: 1,927 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    westmetals wrote: »
    Reading comprehension.

    "we can't say for sure everyone would get the same level of boost" - yes, we can, because I was referring to different builds using the same styles of weapons. Every six-single-beam ship would get the same boost under your proposal.

    "only that it would be nice if we had a real reason to go all beam or mix beam and cannon or what not that actually had differential benefits with out one way being flat out superior" - we already do, and most people already do it, because this maximizes the benefits of using Beam Fire at Will and Beam overload (if you choose beams) or Cannon Scatter Volley and Cannon Rapid Fire (if you choose cannons). Almost every thread in the shipyard section of the forums addresses this point, it's considered obvious and basic, and the few threads in which it is not mentioned is because the original poster is already doing it. I personally never mix beams and cannons on the same ship for precisely this reason.

    As for my perceived lean toward rainbow builds - not at all. I couldn't honestly care less one way or the other. Despite your statements to the contrary, though, that was the only logical reason I could see why you would be pursuing this proposal.

    Again obviously any ships with similar load outs benefit the same. What about the ship with 4 beams and 4 torpedo's.

    Or the one with 3 dbbs 3 arrays and 2 torpedo's.

    We know how that works now by not how it would work with the bonuses.
    As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?

    Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln

    Occidere populo et effercio confractus
  • platewearingbirdplatewearingbird Member Posts: 455 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    Well a good counter proposal would have included the deficiencies in my op and enhanced it or altered it to cover the deficiencies.

    I get that you don't agree with the op, but you don't need to keep telling me that if you aren't going to either add to the idea to make it better in your mind, or propose one of your own in the same vein as my op.

    We all have pointed the deficiencies several times, and you have hand-waved away every one of them under the reason "that doesn't matter", when it very much does matter.

    Here's my counter-proposal: Take the entirety of your suggestion, every bit of it, and throw it in the trash can.

    It is not needed. Period.
  • disposeableh3r0disposeableh3r0 Member Posts: 1,927 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    We all have pointed the deficiencies several times, and you have hand-waved away every one of them under the reason "that doesn't matter", when it very much does matter.

    Here's my counter-proposal: Take the entirety of your suggestion, every bit of it, and throw it in the trash can.

    It is not needed. Period.

    Very well, I acknowledge that you don't agree and think the idea is worthless thank you for your contribution
    As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?

    Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln

    Occidere populo et effercio confractus
  • edited March 2015
    This content has been removed.
  • disposeableh3r0disposeableh3r0 Member Posts: 1,927 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    westmetals wrote: »
    The reason that the idea is worthless is because it is based on a flawed concept. You're trying to encourage people to use all beams or all cannons? Guess what? Everyone pretty much already does (aside from maybe setting aside some slots for torpedoes). Any ship that is using a mixture of beams and cannons... is fundamentally flawed, even without this proposal.

    Taking that one step further... a buff that applies to everyone is not a buff at all.

    The point was to encourage the choice between all of one type or a mix.

    Many of the examples given have focused on the current norm of going all arrays, and you really cant go all cannons under my suggestion as turrets get different bonuses.

    So yes all arrays would get a buff but would that outweigh having the buff from the dbbs? Or some torpedoes (over the standard 2)

    I will and have admitted the suggested buffs leave room for improvement.
    As a time traveller, Am I supposed to pack underwear or underwhen?

    Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln

    Occidere populo et effercio confractus
  • edited March 2015
    This content has been removed.
Sign In or Register to comment.