test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Should we have more weapons slots?

i'me sure this has been brought up multiple times. but i have been watching all the star trek movies and shows. and i've noticed in the time periods of the enterprise-e in nemesis and such and they have far more weapons capability then the we have in game. in nemesis i would have to say. the sovereign had at least three forward torpedos. two to three pairs of phaser cannons on the front. and at least four single phaser banks. it also had two rear mounted phaser cannons at least one torpedo bay. and four more phasers. there also seemed to be various side mounted phaser arrays.

anyways what i'me trying to say is. i think we should get more than eight weapons mounted max. and even get the ability to add weapons to the sides not just the front of our ships of course this would probably mess with the balance but i feel that the ships in the game lack firepower. at least in visuals and we should be able to mount cannons on some of the later federation ships. some tier fours. and most tier fives.

What is everyone elses opinions on this?

Comments

  • johnnymo1johnnymo1 Member Posts: 697 Arc User
    I'd take more any time. I think the simplest way would just to be make a separate torpedo slot, but I'm sure that would be some kind of a nightmare for the programming team.
  • seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 10,919 Arc User
    Well, considering that the Sovereign refit had 16 Phaser Arrays, 1 Forward Quantum Torpedo, 3 Forward Photon Torpedo launchers, and 6 Aft Photon Torpedo Launchers.. I highly doubt they are going to ever bring the weapon number in line with the cannon ships. Under the games current structure, those numbers are not realistic with what we would ever see in game.

    Personally, I would have preferred if the game were designed with more banks doing less damage per weapon, but I understand why they did things they way they did. Imagine doing Crystaline with 10 ships firing 16 beam banks each. The old STO graphics engine could never render all of it.

    Changing the system would require a complete overhaul not only of the combat system, but probably the game engine as well. I just don't see it happening.
    Insert witty signature line here.
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 11,016 Arc User
    You have to realize that STO just simplifies the model to be easier to master and manage. When you put a phaser beam array on your ship you don't just have one phaser bank there. Hit FAW - you will see all kinds of hardpoints being used. The ship models do have varied hardpoints being used, by slotting weapons in your slots you just determine the "flavour" of those hardpoints, not their number.​​
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • edited July 2015
    This content has been removed.
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    I think it might have been better to give us less weapon slots. Hardpoints on the model should of course be canonical, but I think it makes little sense that we can, for example, make rainbow builds. It seems more likely a ship would be build around one type of energy weapon and one type of projectile weapon. (It happens to be that this is mostly how we play anyway, due to the way damage buff consoles work.)

    How much firepower a ship actually has would probably depend only on its class and the mark and rarity of the items.
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • kittyflofykittyflofy Member Posts: 1,004 Arc User
    LOL. More? are you crazy? the game is having sooo much trouble with the ones we already got .. lol..
  • shadowwraith77shadowwraith77 Member Posts: 6,395 Arc User
    deokkent wrote: »
    I prefer they actually revamped the firing sequence animation on ships to make it look more trek genuine. It's also kind of weird that beams are passing through hulls.

    Seriously why deny us this awesomeness??https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTPdWYo9zhQ

    It's mainly because they get the actual harpoints incorrect!
    I think it might have been better to give us less weapon slots. Hardpoints on the model should of course be canonical, but I think it makes little sense that we can, for example, make rainbow builds. It seems more likely a ship would be build around one type of energy weapon and one type of projectile weapon. (It happens to be that this is mostly how we play anyway, due to the way damage buff consoles work.)

    How much firepower a ship actually has would probably depend only on its class and the mark and rarity of the items.

    Pretty much agreed!
    tumblr_nq9ec3BSAy1qj6sk2o2_500_zpspkqw0mmk.gif


    Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!

  • bloodyrizbloodyriz Member Posts: 1,756 Arc User
    Heck we need one more slot in ground combat too. Melee, Short Range, and Long Range.
    signature.png
    We come in peace, SHOOT TO KILL!
  • warmaker001bwarmaker001b Member Posts: 9,205 Arc User
    With damage output just absolutely through the roof in today's STO more than any other time in the game, we need more weapon slots?
    XzRTofz.gif
  • svindal777svindal777 Member Posts: 856 Arc User
    Yeah, I want the 52 canons and 27 torp launchers that the Scimitar in the movie had.
    Well excuse me for having enormous flaws that I don't work on.
  • kittyflofykittyflofy Member Posts: 1,004 Arc User
    deokkent wrote: »
    I prefer they actually revamped the firing sequence animation on ships to make it look more trek genuine. It's also kind of weird that beams are passing through hulls.

    Seriously why deny us this awesomeness??

    well, its even more stupid to see torpedoes firing from parts of the ship that are even smaller than the torpedoes emselves.. or piloting a shuttle firing phasers bigger than the ship itself (not to mention torpedoes, its ridiculous lol), and other dozens of things.. it is not so easy as you think lol. They will need to revamp not only the beam spots, but the torpedo ones , in every ship that is A LOT of work.. ende, never gonna happen. Well, if you give them money everytime they do that on one ship maybe they will think about it.. lol.
  • leemwatsonleemwatson Member Posts: 5,602 Arc User
    They should've actually stuck to canon hard-points and arcs (check out Starfleet Command 3) as well as giving a true limitation on the amount of power a ship could generate. That would have been the best option, and you wouldn't be getting the absurd amount of weapons related lag here! It's always been a 'bug-bear' of mine about this game, especially the amount of power that doesn't get used. Although you could explain as possibly faster charging and better capacity, the one thing that you don't run out of is weapons power. You only need to watch the numerous battles through-out the series where they talk about how much power they have left.
    "You don't want to patrol!? You don't want to escort!? You don't want to defend the Federation's Starbases!? Then why are you flying my Starships!? If you were a Klingon you'd be killed on the spot, but lucky for you.....you WERE in Starfleet. Let's see how New Zealand Penal Colony suits you." Adm A. Necheyev.
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 11,016 Arc User
    edited July 2015
    leemwatson wrote: »
    They should've actually stuck to canon hard-points and arcs (check out Starfleet Command 3) as well as giving a true limitation on the amount of power a ship could generate. That would have been the best option, and you wouldn't be getting the absurd amount of weapons related lag here! It's always been a 'bug-bear' of mine about this game, especially the amount of power that doesn't get used. Although you could explain as possibly faster charging and better capacity, the one thing that you don't run out of is weapons power. You only need to watch the numerous battles through-out the series where they talk about how much power they have left.

    The problem with this is that STO is set up as a "1vs1" type of game. No matter what kind of ship you choose, be it a massive star cruiser or a nimble raider, the encounter is always balanced to be able to duke it out 1 vs 1 or in other terms you can play the entire game in either of those ships but you are facing the exact same content artificially setting to equal levels what never should be equal to begin with.

    Play a 1vs1 in a game like Klingon Academy and pit a B'Rel against a Excelsior. Without pulling really insane tactics this should not even be worth a second thought. Players wanting to use a B'Rel had to play the game massively different, especially since their choice of ship is one that relies on pack tactics. In STO, however, the both ships are basically completely identical, can carry the same weapons and are just superficially different.

    Mind you, of course power creep and all do make them different today, but the basic principle in STOs design is that they are interchangeable.​​
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • kerygankerygan Member Posts: 254 Arc User
    ... NO .... maybe with a drastic reduce of dmg ,
  • coupaholiccoupaholic Member Posts: 2,188 Arc User
    Our ships lack firepower? Are we playing the same game friend?

    I think I know what the OP means, but the same effect can be gained not by adding more weapons to a ship - more by adding more weapon hardpoints to a ship model. And when a beam for example fires it's shots per cycle, have them use numerous hardpoints instead of just the one.

    Spread out the fire to give the effect of more weapons being fired from the ship. It's for this reason that my typical cannon build uses a single DC up front. Combined with DHCs and turret fire it makes it more visually pleasing since all the forward facing hardpoints get used.​​
  • lilchibiclarililchibiclari Member Posts: 1,193 Arc User
    bloodyriz wrote: »
    Heck we need one more slot in ground combat too. Melee, Short Range, and Long Range.

    Yeah, let's have one melee weapon, one pistol/shotgun (15-25 meter range), and one rifle (30+ meter range).
  • sovereign47sovereign47 Member Posts: 399 Arc User
    edited July 2015
    I think that's good idea. Especially for higher ship tiers. Tier 6 already should have 9/10 weapon slots, but since that isn't the case, I believe that tier 7 will have more weapon slots.
    leemwatson wrote: »
    They should've actually stuck to canon hard-points and arcs (check out Starfleet Command 3) as well as giving a true limitation on the amount of power a ship could generate. That would have been the best option, and you wouldn't be getting the absurd amount of weapons related lag here! It's always been a 'bug-bear' of mine about this game, especially the amount of power that doesn't get used. Although you could explain as possibly faster charging and better capacity, the one thing that you don't run out of is weapons power. You only need to watch the numerous battles through-out the series where they talk about how much power they have left.

    And I strongly agree with this, because that whole weapon scheme of STO seems wrong to me too. They should have gone with SFC3 model instead as it is more plausible and not complicated at all as some like to think. And all that balance thing kinda ruins the game too. Nobody should be able to destroy Sovereign class with B'Rel for example, but due to that balance system people can actually do that. It is simply not right. In SFC3 a Sovereign class could probably take out 3 or more B'Rels, and several ships were required to defeat Borg Cube. So yeah, balance in this game is not welcome for me. If you want some balance you can always play strategy games like Starcraft and Command & Conquer where balance is necessary.
    FED ENG: FA Sirius Verax (USS Leviathan) , FED TAC (Delta): FA Adria Tyllex (USS Thunderblade) , ROM TAC: ADM Kill'ina (IRW Imperix Thrai) , KLING ENG (Delta): LT. GEN Ghol'Vaq Martok (IKS Qeh'Ral II) - 44th Fleet member
    SZ1RgUL.jpg
    SUPPORTING PLAYABLE CARDASSIAN AND DOMINION FACTIONS!
Sign In or Register to comment.