test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Solution to FAW spam and fix to beam-cannon balance
deathray38
Member Posts: 210 Arc User
Goals:
- Changes as simple as possible,
- Making cannon/ torpedo builds viability closer to Beam builds
FAW 1 => Lieutenant level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl higher station)
FAW 2 => Ltc Commander level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl higher station)
FAW 3 => Commander level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl higher station)
BO 1 => Lieutenant level, effectiveness buffed to BO2 Level (no damage change at all, since old BO2=BO1)
BO 2 => Ltc Commander level, effectiveness buffed to BO3 Level (no damage change at all, since old BO3=BO2)
BO 3 => Commander level, effectiveness buffed to never-existing BO4 Level
CSV 1 => Ensign level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl lower station)
CSV 2 => Lieutenant level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl lower station)
CSV 3 => Ltc Commander, no other changes (it require 1 lvl lower station)
CRF 1 => Ensign level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl lower station)
CRF 2 => Lieutenant level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl lower station)
CRF 3 => Ltc Commander, no other changes (it require 1 lvl lower station)
RESULTS:
- BFAW require at least LT station, which is requiring to either choose lower level FAW or sacrifice higher level Tac ability
- High level FAW is restricted to dedicated TAC ships
- BO is unaffected at Lt and LtCdr levels (except name change), lack of Ensign level won't hurt many builds, while Commander BO will open area for some BO-based constructions
- Dedicated TAC ships are able to maintain CRF3/CSV3 and APO3 at the same time,
- CRF and CSV are far less costly for build, able to occupy generally underused ensign tac slot
What do You think?
Feedback please!
- Changes as simple as possible,
- Making cannon/ torpedo builds viability closer to Beam builds
FAW 1 => Lieutenant level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl higher station)
FAW 2 => Ltc Commander level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl higher station)
FAW 3 => Commander level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl higher station)
BO 1 => Lieutenant level, effectiveness buffed to BO2 Level (no damage change at all, since old BO2=BO1)
BO 2 => Ltc Commander level, effectiveness buffed to BO3 Level (no damage change at all, since old BO3=BO2)
BO 3 => Commander level, effectiveness buffed to never-existing BO4 Level
CSV 1 => Ensign level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl lower station)
CSV 2 => Lieutenant level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl lower station)
CSV 3 => Ltc Commander, no other changes (it require 1 lvl lower station)
CRF 1 => Ensign level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl lower station)
CRF 2 => Lieutenant level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl lower station)
CRF 3 => Ltc Commander, no other changes (it require 1 lvl lower station)
RESULTS:
- BFAW require at least LT station, which is requiring to either choose lower level FAW or sacrifice higher level Tac ability
- High level FAW is restricted to dedicated TAC ships
- BO is unaffected at Lt and LtCdr levels (except name change), lack of Ensign level won't hurt many builds, while Commander BO will open area for some BO-based constructions
- Dedicated TAC ships are able to maintain CRF3/CSV3 and APO3 at the same time,
- CRF and CSV are far less costly for build, able to occupy generally underused ensign tac slot
What do You think?
Feedback please!
0
Comments
Let the stupid suffer
Proposed changes to Cannon Skills: Agree
Reasoning: If you're looking to reduce 'Fire at Will Spam' this solution does not accomplish that. All it does is make it so that people are mostly spamming FAW II instead of FAW III which overall won't make that much of a difference.
If you're really interested in reducing the usage for Fire At Will, then the answer is not to make sweeping changes, but to instead provide an alternative. Lets put aside for a second the effectiveness of Fire At Will and address the real issue, that it's the only option for beam boats. Cannon ships have an option, do you spec for single target damage (Rapid Fire) or AOE Damage (Scatter Volley.) With Beam Builds there is one option only, and that's fire at will.
Because of the mechanics of Overload it's only a viable skill in builds that feature one beam weapon. Running Overload on a ship with multiple beam weapons is pointless. The only Beam Skill that works well for single target damage is Surgical Strikes which is only available on a very limited number of ships. Beam builds have one option and one option only and that is fire at will. If you run a beam cruiser, what choice do you have but to take Fire At Will even if you don't want to?
The way to create parity is not through nerfs, it never has been and never will be. There have been times when Cryptic has addressed issues like this correctly and it's worked in every occasion. There was a time when Aux2Bat was the only build anyone used and it was the 'Fire At Will' of it's time. Instead of nerfing Aux2Bat, they introduced alternative options and people started diversifying their builds. Now Aux2Bat is not used nearly as much, but those that like it are stil free to use it. There was no diversity in weapon mods, everyone only wanted CritD with Pen, everything else was junk. They didn't nerf CritD, they buffed Damage and now other weapons are viable alternatives.
The fire at will issue is the same thing. You want to reduce dependency on it, give people an option to use instead. The cannon changes you proposed are needed, there is no reason for Cannon skills to be a level higher then the corresponding Beam Skill, that needs to be changed.
People need to get away from the idea that the way to reduce peoples dependency on a skill is to reduce that skills effectiveness. It's not, all that does is get everyone to all shift to the next best option instead and then that skill becomes the new 'problem.' The way you counter dependence on or overuse of an ability is to create viable alternatives. Every other method is treating the symptom and not the problem.
1: Make BO fire one powerful shot from all beams on a ship (give HYT and TS the same functionality)
2: Add FBP to all NPCs that have a state of immunity or insta-heal (See CSA nanite probes and cubes, ISA and KASA gateways and transformers)
That would create a single target alternative and make FAW spam a bad idea. On a personal note, I think the FBP idea would be hilarious.
Cannons are just in bad shape now. It's the reminiscent of Escort Online times.
Just wait till the next buff/nerf cycle.
Removing one-weapon buffs will remove any reason of mixing weapon types. BO/HY/TS will require massive nerfs in order to avoid deadly bursts from dedicated torp/beam boats, therefore adding single beam/torpedo to any ship will be obsolete.
Mixing weapons is fun part of this game, and it should be more viable. Adding torpedoboat spam to beamboat spam is not a way to fix it.
If anything, I would like to have an option to "link" specific abilities to specific weapons - for example linking THY to activate on selected torpedo launcher only, instead of the one fired first.
1. Lack of a viable alternative for beams. The gap between Beam overload and BFAW is massive.
2. Lack of damage drop off and accuracy for BFAW
3. NPC spam. The sheer amount of small NPC ships makes it less desirable to focus on a single ship to kill.
4. Energy use of beam arrays. Especially with the plasmodic leech BA have virtually no energy drain which means power can stay overcapped at 125 with all the extra critical chance.
Maybe there are others, but these are the ones who are most prominent.
If you want to fix BFAW/cannons then
1. Rework Beam overload to make it a realistic alternative. How to do this is another question.
2. Add a damage drop and accuracy drop to BFAW. However, this would mean an incredible nerf to BFAW and we all know how overjoyed the community would react to that.
3. Replace large number of NPC with smaller amounts of more potent NPC (Feed back Pulse as someone mentioned?)
4. Double/triple the energy usage for beam arrays to counter the energy gain from plasmodic leech. Again, this would be a massive nerf to beam arrays with the overjoyed response of the community to look forward to.
Overall the answer is not to nerf BFAW or beam arrays (although it would be the most optimal solution, the community would not accept it) but reduce the energy drain / damage drop for cannons.
Maybe even a 10-20% boost in damage for the cannons.
Now once outside my cannons arc then using cannons became an issue because of the limited coverage they give compared to beams.
Cannons will never be on par with beams regardless of the issues people have raised
Know issues raised
1. Overcapping does appear to work on cannons.
2. Power drain and recovery rate
3. Dmg over distance loss.
4. Firing Arc
Here's why beams unless nerfed into complete uselessness will always be better than cannons
1. Can be equipped fore and aft
2. Have a 250' firing arc per single beam array, 90' with dual beam and 360' with Omni-Directional
3. Broadsiding, because of the firing arc and ability to equip fore and aft, broadsiding a target allows if using a beam boat cruiser 8 weapons to be bared all of the same strength. Compared to a dual heavy cannon and turret user only allowing a broadside of 2/3 turrets as cannons can only fire forward
4. Beam boats have firepower and dps more evenly spread fore,aft, starboard and port, a cannon user only has full dps fore and within a 45' arc
So its not that BFAW is so overpowered vs Cannons its because Cannons just lack the versatility of Beams with the firing arcs they give. If you could park a escort nose front and fire happily away at a target without worrying about shields dropping, blow for blow they are both equal.
Its a different play style to use cannons vs beams. Piloting, timing of activating skills/powers requires more thought and skill over a beam user because of the limited firing arc and often time the target is within that arc.
Another example i'll give regarding firing arcs is i recent changed my kremin dreadnought from single beam arrays to dual beam arrays fore and omni aft. Now dual beam arrays are more powerful than single arrays. However because they only have a 90' firing arc and the ship is a slow moving brick my more powerful dual beams once outside the 90' arc are useless until i manage to get the target back into them. Does this make them useless and less powerful than single arrays. No it just means i need to fly the ship better and use my buffs with better timing.
With respect, this would be.. in my opinion.. a tremendous mistake.
The benefits from the Leech console are very expensive for Feds and doing this would be a huge kick in the jewels. In my opinion, a better solution would be altering the drain from cannons to allow them to benefit as beams currently do.
I'm a 'fed player' that uses the plasmonic leech, and in all my years of playing this game, I have never figured out how people get so much EC. The Leech for me was an enormous investment, I had to save for it for months. Honestly, this change would without question force me to quit, and I fear it would for many others as well. Even KDF Players that didn't have to save up EC for it, they still paid cash which is actually even worse. Making a change that's focused on reducing the effectiveness of the Leech console would start a firestorm of negativity.
The leech console isn't a problem, the problem is that Cannons don't benefit from it the way beams do. That definitely should change.
I dont understand why everything has to be at par with the optimal stuff where they are optimal at when both mentioned here are viable.
Right now, even using the current mechanics the problem is knowledge and the community that supports it. There is a massive community supporting beams, massive knowledge available for beams. But too few for cannons and Torps.
Also players have to stop being lazy and start discovering where cannons and torps are optimal at rather than force themselves competing with beams wherein beams are optimal at like ISA. Look at CCA for example where torps are superior than beams except one needs to discover, know and apply it. However, neither of the two DPS league records or support CCA.
So in a sense, the current problem is the community of their respective platforms. If you spend more time complaining, that means less time discovering and less time making your platforms popular.
1. Visual DPS
2. Area effect
3. Energy usage
By visual dps, I mean the fact it sprays everything means it loses a lot of effective dps (ie, dps that goes to the hull) compared to cannons - but as only the total dps can be seen (as in total wasted on shield plinking and finally hull damage), this makes cannons seem far more inferior than they actually are
This 'spray and spray' is faws weakness and strength as it effectively divides the total dps between up to eight targets, meaning the faws effective dps is lower as there is less shots to capitalise on a breached shield, while overcapping, eps, ect ensures little damage loss due to drain
Thus, if the energy drain of beams and weapons overcap was increased (say, 12 per beam array) and decreased respectively (to say, 130), this could bring faw into line with other abilities - it would still have more visual dps than other builds (as there is no parser that can differentiate bleedthrough/hull dps and shield impact dps) but the basic damage of the abilities would be more equallised
As to faws accuracy, the simple answer is to give the other abilities a 100% accuracy rate too
I'm an Arc user? Yeah, right..I'd rather eat a chainsaw, blade first
Most cruisers cannot equip cannons, so how about restricting escorts from fitting beams?</sarcasm>
1,5. Also remove "beam" part from the ability name. Let every energy weapon fire on maximum of two targets that are inside it's fire arc.
2. Leave BO where it is now, it doesn't need adjustments.
3. Move down CRF so that it starts at ensign level and remove "cannon" part from the ability name. Now beamboats will have an alternative to use instead of FAW.
4. C:SV, leave it mostly as it is, just increase it's CD to 45 seconds, shared CD to 30 seconds and 15s with other energy weapon abilities.
5. decrease cannon damage-drop-off-over-range to 4% like it is on beams or swap the two(8% per kilometer of distance for beams, 4% for cannons)
^This. Just because something needs to be fixed/brought to equal terms, doesn't mean that something else needs to be nerfed. And I totally agree that cannons/torpedoes need boost, but solution isn't nerfing beams in process.
I agree with everything except 4. point - CSV doesn't certainly need a nerf.
Edit: Point 1.5 is pretty much pointless, too, since cannons already have CSV that lets them to hit more than 2 targets.
U.S.S. Buteo Regalis - Brigid Multi-Mission Surveillance Explorer build
R.R.W. Ri Maajon - Khopesh Tactical Dreadnought Warbird build
My Youtube channel containing STO videos.
1. Battlecruisers, Dreadnaughts etc. can use Cannons. Modern days even majority of CMDR-ENGI ships are able to equip DUAL cannons... Yes, there are some exceptions, but cruisers have their "cruiser commands" as compensation. Some ships have pets, some have secondary defelectors and some of them can use DUAL cannons... BTW, every ship is able to use turrets and single cannons...
2. I haven't seen any T5U-T6 cruiser without access to Lt Tactical slot...
3. "Station level increase" will affect all ships, Non-Tac ships will be forced to use lower level version of FAW, while Tac ships will be forced to sacrifice valuable Commander Tac (APOIII) for FAWIII.
4. Don't underestimate value of lowered level for cannon skill - It is making cannons much more accessible for non-Tac ships.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
- Shield resitance against torps based on remaing shield strenght
- Better mechanics for multiple launchers
- Variants of launchers (duas, wide, omega-like etc)
With that said, i dislike the current FAW implementation that promotes...well, boring game style.
Cannons? The severe power dropoff, excessive energy cost, even the depressed overall power GOTZ TA GAO! A more moderate dropoff, as well as energy cost, comparable to beams is necessary. And it needs more punch. I still don't use rapid fire on most of my ships because even with them, they don't do the job.
And torpedoes, particularly the basic six types, still need to pack more punch if they are going to be anything other than something BFAWers joke about at torpboaters expense.
Energy weapons abilities stuck at Lt/Ltc/Com is a bad idea and would ruin more builds than the problems would solve to fix them. Putting cannon abilities in Ens/Lt/LtC would be much much more tolerable.
^^ 100 Agreed.
Back in the days of Escorts Online, cannons were the bomb, and slotting CRF3 required a Cmdr. station even. Nowadays, cannons are if not crappy, then considerably weaker then the spam which is BFAW. So, the simple solution, for 'parity', is to drop CRF3/CSV3 to Lt. Cmdr. level too (and the rest of the cannon abilities 1 rung down too). And even then cannons probably need an extra buff; but let's start with this.
I think changing the level of powers is out as an option. On a very fundamental level. It would like cause problems with existing bridge officers and loadouts and what not. And it will hurt mostly Cruisers.
Altering the benefits BFAW builds give could be an option. Lowering the damage, lowering the amount of extra shots, or something like that. Basically, a nerf option.
Or maybe something needs to be done to help cannon or cannon abilities. Bascially a buff option.
Maybe it requires looking into overcapping and the way weapon energy drain works.
Remove the "beam" and "cannon" from these abilities, and make them work with all weapons. I don't run any beam boat builds because BFaW looks so ugly and un-Trek-like. If I could use beams with SV or RF, I would, and I think a lot of others would too.
Support 90 degree arc limitation on BFaW! Save our ships from looking like flying disco balls of dumb!
indeed, + a lot of players don't have the plasmonic leech, the increase of the energy usage would be a disaster for these players, myself included (for the majority of my toons.)
As far as Cannons vs Beams... they need to remove the damage drop off. I feel that beams do not pay for there huge arcs as much as cannons do for there damage. With things like pedal to the metal and trait off the pilot ship for armor pen and now the iconinon engines rewarding full engine power all its done it push more and more to use beams as only beams can keep fire on target all the time while maintaining full speed.
Removing the damage drop off at range will at least allow cannons to do hit and run and keep damage up.. though not as much as beam boat but much better then what we currently have.
Torpedoes are a more complex issue. Many torpedoes get less percentage damage boost going from MK XII to XIII and less again from XII to XIV when compared to cannon or beam weapon types.
I already mentioned the increase in energy usage would not be welcomed by the community. Though i may have used a hyperbole to demonstrate how much of a problem there currently is with the A2B, plasmonic leech and over cap energy builds an increase in the energy drain from beam arrays would actually have the least impact and be the easiest to implement.
Beam arrays simply have to many advantages over other weapon types at this time.
There are weapon types which can only be found on gimmick builds and those weapon types are easily summarized: Not beam array.
Cannons need more than a slight boost. They only take 1/8 of the pie (no I don't include the pea shooting turrets) where beams get around 3/4 of being omni directional arcs. Damage per second is a fine stat but one needs to start figuring out damage per arc. Considering that, the cannons suffer greatly.
One thing I've thought of and someone has mentioned it before...is beams costing less power than cannons and suffering no damage drop off...or a small one.
Personally one would think it would be the opposite...for the fact that cannons are bursts of fire while beams are a long concentrated burst...you'd think the beam having to stretch to the target would consume more energy or at least have a greater drop off. But with their Torpedo logic I can't say I'm surprised beams are like this.
Lovely...FaW is op but makes no attempt to try and buff cannons or CSV or CRF.
It's "one skill to rule them all" and that needs to change. You can't alter it's BO levels because of cruisers but you can adjust accuracy, energy, cooldown or damage.
Between removing cannon drop off and removing FAW as the spammy best choice for every situation in every ship we might see some balance between weapon types and skill choices, not including torpedoes which are a whole other can of worms.
BO is supposed to be the beam single target skill. FAW is supposed to be the lower damage AOE skill for fighters and targetable torps and whatnot that also draws aggro (cruisers are the "tanks").
Personally I wouldn't mind seeing beam drop off increased. I've always thought beams should have more drop off than cannons. Without drop off they're like lightsabers, ending abruptly at a certain range because what the hell why not. Without drop off they can theoretically reach across an entire system and do damage, hell they can extend infinitely if they had no drop off at all.
I'm also not opposed to FAW having a damage or energy penalty, depending on how beams are said to work: Either as a sort of DPS weapon, delivering their damage from the moment they hit to the moment they end so the longer they stay on target the more damage they do, or doing a set amount of damage no matter their duration (an instant beam like a lightning bolt delivers it all at once, a 1 second beam delivers it over the course of that second). If they're DPS then with FAW each beam stays on it's target for a shorter time so less damage is done each hit. If they do a set amount of damage no matter their duration then their energy usage increases with more beam spam. You can't increase beam spam and keep their damage the same without increasing energy usage. If they do the same damage no matter their duration one of those three has to decrease if the other two increase. Beam: Overload follows this rule but FAW doesn't.
Putting FAW 3 into commander is a bad idea, cruisers do not have cmd tac, the highest is lt cmd and anyhows ts3 seems to be more popular with cruisers atm
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius