*Cannons have the power drain altered to match beams,
*Damage drop off is reduced to be on par with beams outside of a 5km radius but more deadly within 5km
*Base damage of cannons is increased by 15%. So base damage exceeds single beam arrays by at least 15% if not more
*Acc of cannons is increased by 10% as well as crit hits within 5km radius
*Firing Arc is still kept at 45 degrees. Outside of Wide arc cannons
So some issues with cannons are fixed, however BFAW still comes out king after testing because
1. 250' degree firing arc for singles vs 45 degrees for cannons
2. You can equip 8 beams on cruiser and through firing cycles use 8 of the same type of weapon on a single target when broadsiding compared to 4/5 Cannons facing forward depending on ship.
So will you guys still call nerf to BFAW if you got those fixes i listed or you realise firing arc, piloting and positioning of a all cannon ship is also one of the biggest challenges/disadvantages to a weapon that has a very small firing arc and window of opportunity to strike and hit.
I said before flying a beam ship and a cannon ship require different styles of play and it requires a lot more skill to fly a ship using cannons than a ship using beams because of that limited firing arc.
Putting my text above into a different type of context lets take firing arcs and think of them as time firing on a target so
How do you balance a weapon that can only spend 45 secs compared to a weapon that can spend 250 secs on a target ?
What is the top DPS achieved with a dual heavy cannon based setup in ISA? Why don't we start there so we can compare it to a dual beam bank setup in an apples to apples kind of comparison to end all of the guess work and get down to hard facts?
There are several issues which have firmly cemented BFAW as it is now.
2. Lack of damage drop off and accuracy for BFAW
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
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.
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.
2. I forget which Dev stated it, but BFAW is not affected by Accuracy; it has a hit/no-hit check. In fact, he said that all AOE attacks do, including CSV and TS. If you want BFAW to have an Accuracy penalty, you will first need to have it affected by Accuracy, including Accuracy overflow. This would also need to be done for CSV and TS as well.
4. Not everyone has Plasmonic Leech, either from not being KDF or not being able to afford it. You would be punishing the players that don't have it, for no other reason than they use beams and are too poor to afford it. This would not be considered a solution by any definition of the word.
"I'm not big on telepaths myself. I'm not big on guns either. But if everyone else has them, I want to make sure I can get my hands on the biggest one I can."
1) It should be a multi-target ability that hits lots of stuff but with low damage. It should be a spam killer but it's not just that. It can be made so powerful it outguns practically every other ability. You can kill multiple spam mobs, or kill a single target just as quickly as a single target attack ability.
2) There's no alternative which forces players to just pick it as the go-to beam attack. That's why you get such inappropriate use of it (e.g. in ISA killing generators early), because people are just using it because nothing else compares for beams.
3)It has very few drawbacks. Little to no power drain, especially with a leech slotted, less range dropoff, 360 degree arc, hits targets out of your field of view, fires faster.....the list goes on.
I'd never consider a massive nerf of it be required, but other abilities should be buffed or maybe introduce new ones to provide an alternative for players.
- Lower cannon ability ranks so they are available at ensign.
- Look at range dropoff for cannons.
- Allow rear facing or broadside cannons other than turrets.
- Change BO to affect all beams at once, or change it so it is a timed affect not a single shot.
- Add a rapid fire single target beam ability.
- Lower the damage output of BFAW shots to account for the faster fire rate.
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.
You keep telling yourself that. Mean while. Cryptic will continue to nerf things proving your point moot.
More and more I wonder if this is intentional...there is like literally nothing from what I can tell that gives cannons a real advantage. Yet Beams have things like overcapping, reroute reserves to weapons, and the critting with plasma explosions just to name a few...so far only critting was disabled till it works for all.
It just gets harder and harder to believe this is all just a bunch of bumbling happenstance bugs...
Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
the biggest issue with removing FAW from the ensign seat is you remove the only ensign level area of effect ability in game. the next one in line begins with lt. science stations with abilities like tactor beam repulsars. there are needs for FAW other than spam.
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!
Note: "Spoilered" to save space... it's not like I'm giving away any insider information, mostly because I don't have it.
I wouldn't flip the beam and cannon seating requirements entirely; B:FAW is better than C:SV thanks to underlying weapons requirements and that C:RF is better than B:O thanks to a full 10 sec spike affecting all equipped cannon-type weapons, so maybe...
BO 1 => Ensign level, no other changes
BO 2 => Lieutenant level, no other changes
BO 3 => Ltc Commander, no other changes
BFAW 1 => Lieutenant level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl higher station)
BFAW 2 => Ltc Commander level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl higher station)
BFAW 3 => Commander level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl higher station)
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 => Lieutenant level, no other changes
CRF 2 => Ltc Commander level, no other changes
CRF 3 => Commander level, no other changes
...to link up with comparable effectiveness and weapon-type restrictions...
...or they could adjust seating requirements based specifically on AoE and parsing potential, so maybe...
BO 1 => Ensign level, no other changes
BO 2 => Lieutenant level, no other changes
BO 3 => Ltc Commander, no other changes
BFAW 1 => Lieutenant level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl higher station)
BFAW 2 => Ltc Commander level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl higher station)
BFAW 3 => Commander level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl higher 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 level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl higher station)
CSV 1 => Lieutenant level, no other changes
CSV 2 => Ltc Commander level, no other changes
CSV 3 => Commander, no other changes
...given our current preference for big shiny damage totals, adjusting the seating requirements to reflect that might be good...
...or they could remove weapon-type restrictions, which could help clarify whether it is the ability or the weapon-type that is OP/UP, so maybe...
O 1 => Ensign level, no weapon-type restriction
O 2 => Lieutenant level, no weapon-type restriction
O 3 => Ltc Commander, no weapon-type restriction
FAW 1 => Ensign level, no weapon-type restriction
FAW 2 => Lieutenant level, no weapon-type restriction
FAW 3 => Ltc Commander, no weapon-type restriction
RF 1 => Lieutenant level, no weapon-type restriction
RF 2 => Ltc Commander, no weapon-type restriction
RF 3 => Commander, no weapon-type restriction
SV 1 => Lieutenant level, no weapon-type restriction
SV 2 => Ltc Commander, no weapon-type restriction
SV 3 => Commander, no weapon-type restriction
...to separate the discussion about weapon-type vs. weapon-type and attack modifiers vs. attack modifiers. If this were the case, though, I'd suggest toning down Overload's individual damage boost to about 1/6 of the current boost but apply that lower boost to the next shot fired by each affected weapon; otherwise, you'd have turrets consuming your Overload entirely, making it exceedingly unpopular. At the other end of things, the +1 shot per volley from FAW should not be applied to "Heavy" weapons, for obvious reasons...
...or a combination of the first or second plus the third suggestion?
In any case, I do think cannon dropoff is a huge issue, especially with C:SV... you have to be close to your target to do solid damage, but a cone AoE is exponentially reduced in area as you get closer to your targets. Maybe additionally have C:SV reduce the dropoff rates during its duration as a start?
So many possibilities (including the OP's) for tinkering... but in the end, are we sure we'll manage to strike a better balance? Just as importantly, will these changes alter the capabilities of ships players paid real money for? Remember, Escorts can use beams, but not all Cruisers can use dual (heavy) cannons... meaning that any change to seating requirements or effectiveness of beam abilities is also a significant adjustment to every full (mostly Federation) Cruiser in the game; is this necessarily a good idea?
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.
There is nothing wrong with Overload that is fine. The issue that everyone always taps around is the mechanics of faw which are just bad... and will never ever be balanced as they exist.
The actual fix is to delete FAW completely, and replace it with Scatter volley. (rename scatter to fire at will)
Scatter volley needs to be chanced to work with beams or cannons. Same for Rapid fire.
So they can leave scatter and rapid exactly where they are with level 3 being commander. At that point people could run what ever they want cannons or beams and use the exact same buffs with them. No issues with balance any longer. Cannons would be higher dmg in close range, beams would win at distance. The terrible shoot everything in a disco ball of death like we are playing The Last StarFighter and death blossoming instead of playing star trek, would be gone. Scatter would work fine with beams, add a cone instead of a disco ball.... game would be fixed as far as energy weapons go.
*Cannons have the power drain altered to match beams,
*Damage drop off is reduced to be on par with beams outside of a 5km radius but more deadly within 5km
*Base damage of cannons is increased by 15%. So base damage exceeds single beam arrays by at least 15% if not more
*Acc of cannons is increased by 10% as well as crit hits within 5km radius
*Firing Arc is still kept at 45 degrees. Outside of Wide arc cannons
So some issues with cannons are fixed, however BFAW still comes out king after testing because
1. 250' degree firing arc for singles vs 45 degrees for cannons
2. You can equip 8 beams on cruiser and through firing cycles use 8 of the same type of weapon on a single target when broadsiding compared to 4/5 Cannons facing forward depending on ship.
So will you guys still call nerf to BFAW if you got those fixes i listed or you realise firing arc, piloting and positioning of a all cannon ship is also one of the biggest challenges/disadvantages to a weapon that has a very small firing arc and window of opportunity to strike and hit.
I said before flying a beam ship and a cannon ship require different styles of play and it requires a lot more skill to fly a ship using cannons than a ship using beams because of that limited firing arc.
Putting my text above into a different type of context lets take firing arcs and think of them as time firing on a target so
How do you balance a weapon that can only spend 45 secs compared to a weapon that can spend 250 secs on a target ?
Some of those changes would help tremendously, though I personally believe the damage boost might be a bit much.
To answer the question though, yes they will still call for Nefts to FAW. Why? Because by their very nature Beams will always be easier to play then Cannons. Simply put, a lot of players would rather see others brought down instead of trying to increase their own ability and improve. It's simply easier to call for others to be reduced by external method then it is for someone to improve their own ability, and in the end that's what a lot of this is about.
I'm like you, while I prefer beams, I have cannon set ups as well and I do just fine with them. I still destroy things plenty fast and have no issues handling content with cannons. I do acknowledge that Cannons present a new set of challenges, some that are welcome and some that are a result of imbalances in between the weapon type.
While I do feel that Cannons need a boost, there will always be those here that will always call for nerfs to whatever they personally feel is overused or in their opinion 'abused.' Surprisingly, most of the posters in this thread seem fairly free of this bias, but it will always be there. No matter what changes you make, cannons will always require more skill to pull off then beams and there are always going to be those that would rather call for nerfs then take the time to learn to play with a higher level of skill.
I'm not opposed to buffing Cannons... but I honestly don't understand why people think they need to be buffed. I have no problem shooting stuff with my cannons. In fact, it's rather easy for me to build a ship and do over 30k by using cannons, while I'm having trouble getting those same numbers when using beams.
Maybe beams can shoot everything a lot faster or more effectively... I wouldn't know. Does it matter anyway? If it's possible to do 30k DPS with cannons and using Rapid fire most of the time, I'd say that's good enough.
I'm not opposed to buffing Cannons... but I honestly don't understand why people think they need to be buffed. I have no problem shooting stuff with my cannons. In fact, it's rather easy for me to build a ship and do over 30k by using cannons, while I'm having trouble getting those same numbers when using beams.
Maybe beams can shoot everything a lot faster or more effectively... I wouldn't know. Does it matter anyway? If it's possible to do 30k DPS with cannons and using Rapid fire most of the time, I'd say that's good enough.
short answer: while you can do that for most people it's closer to say the reverse.
long answer: I have to go to work fairly soon so someone else will have to give you the long answer.
if I stop posting it doesn't make you right it. just means I don't have enough rum to continue interacting with you.
the biggest issue with removing FAW from the ensign seat is you remove the only ensign level area of effect ability in game. the next one in line begins with lt. science stations with abilities like tactor beam repulsars. there are needs for FAW other than spam.
Maybe that's the problem...it's the only ensign level AoE in this game? But there is TS I
Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
the biggest issue with removing FAW from the ensign seat is you remove the only ensign level area of effect ability in game. the next one in line begins with lt. science stations with abilities like tactor beam repulsars. there are needs for FAW other than spam.
+ what tac skills the new players will be able to use, if faw or bo are removed from the ensign seat?
for me, the cannons skills (crf etc) should have the same seats than the beam skills. easy to do, and the new players will be able to try these skills early in game.
As has been pointed out before, whenever this issue arises, is all that is needed is to replace the +DMG buff on FAW with a +THREAT buff. No other mechanics need to change whatsoever.
I don't know exactly how the meta went from cannons to A2B to FAW but to me it seems that cannons will not replace FAW on escorts without some sort of nerf to FAW.
Simple, really...
Step 1. People sick and tired of "escorts online" start trying everything under the sun in an attempt to "find a way to make cruisers viable again"...
2. Stumble upon having A2B w/cooldown reducers reach "global" on all skills, including BFaW.
3. Lace with "hey, let's get this Marion DOff that increases shield penetration"
4. Watch cannon tacscorts see targets melting under beams almost as quickly as their cannons melt things, constant multiple beam fire, and watch the tops of the DPS tracker get filled with Beam Boats.
5. Elect to use all that damage booster stuff tacscorts get to (ab)use BFaW, and remember that double-slotting BFaW is "just as effective" as A2Batting cooldowns to global - and since we're not mixing cannons, beams and torps like the Defiant does, and BO doesn't have the "flashy effectiveness" of BFaW or even CRF (remember, CRF accelerates all slotted cannons, BO only fires on one beam...) there's enough Tac slots for 2x (2x TT, 2x BFaW, 3x various Attack Patterns...)
Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
the biggest issue with removing FAW from the ensign seat is you remove the only ensign level area of effect ability in game. the next one in line begins with lt. science stations with abilities like tactor beam repulsars. there are needs for FAW other than spam.
Maybe that's the problem...it's the only ensign level AoE in this game? But there is TS I
What i'm referring to is the ability to destroy little objects like mines or tractor beam mines or power drain pods and the like that surround your ship. there is only one ensign level ability that lets you do that and that's faw the next one starts as a lt. science station. and maybe not the ONLY one, but the only ensign level boff ability.
*Cannons have the power drain altered to match beams,
*Damage drop off is reduced to be on par with beams outside of a 5km radius but more deadly within 5km
*Base damage of cannons is increased by 15%. So base damage exceeds single beam arrays by at least 15% if not more
*Acc of cannons is increased by 10% as well as crit hits within 5km radius
*Firing Arc is still kept at 45 degrees. Outside of Wide arc cannons
So some issues with cannons are fixed, however BFAW still comes out king after testing because
1. 250' degree firing arc for singles vs 45 degrees for cannons
2. You can equip 8 beams on cruiser and through firing cycles use 8 of the same type of weapon on a single target when broadsiding compared to 4/5 Cannons facing forward depending on ship.
So will you guys still call nerf to BFAW if you got those fixes i listed or you realise firing arc, piloting and positioning of a all cannon ship is also one of the biggest challenges/disadvantages to a weapon that has a very small firing arc and window of opportunity to strike and hit.
I said before flying a beam ship and a cannon ship require different styles of play and it requires a lot more skill to fly a ship using cannons than a ship using beams because of that limited firing arc.
Putting my text above into a different type of context lets take firing arcs and think of them as time firing on a target so
How do you balance a weapon that can only spend 45 secs compared to a weapon that can spend 250 secs on a target ?
*Cannons have the power drain altered to match beams,
I like that you're thinking about buffing cannons, but giving cannons the same drain as beams is a terrible idea. Even though it says -12, cannons have a shorter firing cycle and end up using less power than beams so your idea would actually be a nerf...a really big nerf. The real problem is how cannons work with overcapping, or the lack there of. It's either a bug or who knows but cannons don't overcap like beams do. Even with the godly amount of overcapping we have now, cannons still won't use all that power and one will still see a drain. It might be that they have a shorter cycle so EPS won't help as much but really who knows. Geko once chimed in on overcapping but he explained it wrong so I don't even think the devs know whats going on with overcapping.
As to the arc thing, you're absolutely right. What would bring cannons back to the forefront would have STFs with fewer but stronger enemies. Cannons just can't do the AOE beams can, and that's a good thing.
Another thing that would help cannons is fixing the CSV bug where it doesn't apply the extra CrtD from DHCs.
I dont know why players keep on insisting on cannon drop off extension. It is very counter intuitive to mechanics. Optimal DPS means you have to be nearer the mob.
Extending cannon drop off will make no difference for optimal cannon DPS.
It is the same problem if you extend Beam range drop off. It wouldnt make any difference at optimal dps.
Not only that, extending rang fall off would be killing one of the powerful DPS traits that is free, Point Blank Shot.
This means it wont solve the problem with players staying at 5-10kms with their Cannon DPS. They will still deal lower DPS compared to someone who mostly can pilot their way 0-2kms from most the mission.
To answer the question though, yes they will still call for Nefts to FAW. Why? Because by their very nature Beams will always be easier to play then Cannons. Simply put, a lot of players would rather see others brought down instead of trying to increase their own ability and improve. It's simply easier to call for others to be reduced by external method then it is for someone to improve their own ability, and in the end that's what a lot of this is about.
Any calls to nerf FAW are simply another round of Stop Liking What I Don't Like.
Buff BO so that it affects all beams like FAW, fix cannon bugs, and fix cannon power bugs. Let's work our way from there and see how much the meta is tilted once you've done that.
Step 1. People sick and tired of "escorts online" start trying everything under the sun in an attempt to "find a way to make cruisers viable again"...
2. Stumble upon having A2B w/cooldown reducers reach "global" on all skills, including BFaW.
3. Lace with "hey, let's get this Marion DOff that increases shield penetration"
4. Watch cannon tacscorts see targets melting under beams almost as quickly as their cannons melt things, constant multiple beam fire, and watch the tops of the DPS tracker get filled with Beam Boats.
5. Elect to use all that damage booster stuff tacscorts get to (ab)use BFaW, and remember that double-slotting BFaW is "just as effective" as A2Batting cooldowns to global - and since we're not mixing cannons, beams and torps like the Defiant does, and BO doesn't have the "flashy effectiveness" of BFaW or even CRF (remember, CRF accelerates all slotted cannons, BO only fires on one beam...) there's enough Tac slots for 2x (2x TT, 2x BFaW, 3x various Attack Patterns...)
Three and a half years ago, I remember being recommended to cannon escorts over beams and cruisers because beam power drain was a heavy impact on DPS. Now, thanks to dragons, drakes, Mr. Leech Console, cruiser commands, and a bevy of other goodies, we have ships so full of weapons power you can give Mr. Scott the day off. That's had to have had an impact as well.
Not only that, extending rang fall off would be killing one of the powerful DPS traits that is free, Point Blank Shot.
Point Blank Shot would still be the same regardless of any change to drop off. Good players will take advantage of that, but there's still times when it's better to hang back. Personally I could go either way.
Cannon ability ranks are only a small part of the problem with cannons.
1)Overcapping favors beams over cannons. So lets assume a 5/3 ship because that the best case for cannon ships.
Using cruiser weapon commands and the Emergency weapon cycle trait. Beams over cap at 4 times your power transfer rate, Dual cannons/turrets/single cannons at 2x and Dual heavy cannons at 1x. The first weapon firing does not suffer from damage loss due to power drain.
8 beams times 10 power drain=70 power drained now factor in Cruiser command and EWC so 70/1.5=46.67 power or 6.67 power drained per beam. (if the game rounds up 49 total 7 per beam) This means you need 49 power over 125 and a transfer rate of 11.67 which is very easy to do just putting 9 points in the eps skill and using Emergency power to weapons almost gets you there.
Dual cannons 4x12 power drain=48+3 turrets x8=72 total power drained factor in cruiser commands and EWC and you get 72/1.5=48 power drained. Which means you need 48 overcap and a transfer rate of 24. The overcap is easy but the power transfer means needing a conductive rcs and at least 1 eps console.
Dual heavy cannons is the same math but you would need 40 power transfer rate which can't be done. (32 for DHC and 8 for turrets)
2)Range is also a big issue beams lose 4% of there damage after 1km where as cannons lose 8% per km after 2km.
3)Beams have 2 arcs where all weapons can fire at once where as cannons have a 45 degree frontal arc and outside of that you can only use your turrets which are nearly useless.
Overcapping needs to be worked on either get rid of it or make it equal for all energy weapons.
Range make it no damage loss under 5km and then same as before after 5km.
Increase arcs for cannons to 90 degrees and make some kind of new heavy turrets that can only be equipped in rear arcs of ships that can mount Dual class cannons make the dps higher then beam array and close to single cannons.
Not only that, extending rang fall off would be killing one of the powerful DPS traits that is free, Point Blank Shot.
Point Blank Shot would still be the same regardless of any change to drop off. Good players will take advantage of that, but there's still times when it's better to hang back. Personally I could go either way.
Hanging back means lower dps. You can also hang back with beams, but that won't help players dps who hang back. Who's fault is it when when the beam user is point blank shot range doing 100k dps while the one hanging out is only doing 10k dps. The same can be applied with cannons. Those wanting to have higher dps won't achieved higher dps if they hang back.
Now if even if we entertain the change of the mechanic for cannon range fall off, the players who hang back with their cannons will still do lower dps than those who don't. Which the point of my issue. Mechanics change won't help if the problem is the pilot.
And I agree with lucho, that even with the current mechanic, all cannon needs is a better pilot when it comes to cannon range drop off.
Overcapping needs to be worked on either get rid of it or make it equal for all energy weapons.
All it needs is a better build, better understanding of mechanics, better teammates. Except with beams you have easy access to PVE pro tested builds, videos, guidelines. Cannons, the public have barely any access to PVE pro cannon tested builds,
You have so much power drain resistance, weapon power drain reduction nowadays that you can make the weapon power drain//overcapping almost negligble for cannons on the right team.
I never understood why FAW needed to have an extra pulse per beam. What about changing the number of pulses from 5 to 4?
Currently:
FAW1 - 5 pulses @ 100% * 8 Beams = 4000 damage
FAW2 - 5 pulses @ 106% * 8 Beams = 4240 damage
FAW3 - 5 pulses @ 112% * 8 Beams = 4480 damage
With reductions in pulses, mechanics would remain the same:
FAW1 - 4 pulses @ 100% * 8 Beams = 3200 damage (same as single target, but spread out)
FAW2 - 4 pulses @ 106% * 8 Beams = 3392 damage
FAW3 - 4 pulses @ 112% * 8 Beams = 3584 damage
"I'm not big on telepaths myself. I'm not big on guns either. But if everyone else has them, I want to make sure I can get my hands on the biggest one I can."
Counter idea: just make CRF/CSV take up the same boff level as FAW and normalize power drain between cannons and beams.
Bingo! I've been saying that for years. WTF are cannon skills not starting at ensign level? If you do like the OP wants and move beam skills up the ranks, then cruisers, which have low Tac seats usually, will be screwed. Let some escort get 3 cannon skills (ensign-LC) and that'd free up the Cmdr. power for something else. Just that would help balance the escort driver whining.
Sometimes I think I play STO just to have something to complain about on the forums.
Compared to FAW cannons aren't fine at all. That's the problem.
This has something to do more with your mentality and those who think like you.
If you play PvE ISA most of the time, and want #1 DPS, then you need FAW. The problem is that. Why do one limits his/herself to ISA and why is everyone even aiming for #1 DPS at ISA?
Cannons are viable weapons that can hit 100k+ DPS in ISA but wouldnt be reaching the optimal potential of beams.
So the question would be why would other platform users want competing the #1 DPS of BFAW at a mission optimzed for Beam FAW?
Why cant others just go find their own STF or the own niche meant for their platforms? Rather than actually making other platforms as optimal as beams in an STF/niche meant for beams.
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.
I always thought of torps as a 'battle-ender' weapon. At least that's how powerful crew members seemed to treat them in the show... "Can't fire a torp, enemy too close, we'd blow ourselves up!" As it is now, torps are mostly there to not use energy so your beam arrays have more juice.
Sometimes I think I play STO just to have something to complain about on the forums.
Comments
*Cannons have the power drain altered to match beams,
*Damage drop off is reduced to be on par with beams outside of a 5km radius but more deadly within 5km
*Base damage of cannons is increased by 15%. So base damage exceeds single beam arrays by at least 15% if not more
*Acc of cannons is increased by 10% as well as crit hits within 5km radius
*Firing Arc is still kept at 45 degrees. Outside of Wide arc cannons
So some issues with cannons are fixed, however BFAW still comes out king after testing because
1. 250' degree firing arc for singles vs 45 degrees for cannons
2. You can equip 8 beams on cruiser and through firing cycles use 8 of the same type of weapon on a single target when broadsiding compared to 4/5 Cannons facing forward depending on ship.
So will you guys still call nerf to BFAW if you got those fixes i listed or you realise firing arc, piloting and positioning of a all cannon ship is also one of the biggest challenges/disadvantages to a weapon that has a very small firing arc and window of opportunity to strike and hit.
I said before flying a beam ship and a cannon ship require different styles of play and it requires a lot more skill to fly a ship using cannons than a ship using beams because of that limited firing arc.
Putting my text above into a different type of context lets take firing arcs and think of them as time firing on a target so
How do you balance a weapon that can only spend 45 secs compared to a weapon that can spend 250 secs on a target ?
2. I forget which Dev stated it, but BFAW is not affected by Accuracy; it has a hit/no-hit check. In fact, he said that all AOE attacks do, including CSV and TS. If you want BFAW to have an Accuracy penalty, you will first need to have it affected by Accuracy, including Accuracy overflow. This would also need to be done for CSV and TS as well.
4. Not everyone has Plasmonic Leech, either from not being KDF or not being able to afford it. You would be punishing the players that don't have it, for no other reason than they use beams and are too poor to afford it. This would not be considered a solution by any definition of the word.
1) It should be a multi-target ability that hits lots of stuff but with low damage. It should be a spam killer but it's not just that. It can be made so powerful it outguns practically every other ability. You can kill multiple spam mobs, or kill a single target just as quickly as a single target attack ability.
2) There's no alternative which forces players to just pick it as the go-to beam attack. That's why you get such inappropriate use of it (e.g. in ISA killing generators early), because people are just using it because nothing else compares for beams.
3)It has very few drawbacks. Little to no power drain, especially with a leech slotted, less range dropoff, 360 degree arc, hits targets out of your field of view, fires faster.....the list goes on.
I'd never consider a massive nerf of it be required, but other abilities should be buffed or maybe introduce new ones to provide an alternative for players.
- Lower cannon ability ranks so they are available at ensign.
- Look at range dropoff for cannons.
- Allow rear facing or broadside cannons other than turrets.
- Change BO to affect all beams at once, or change it so it is a timed affect not a single shot.
- Add a rapid fire single target beam ability.
- Lower the damage output of BFAW shots to account for the faster fire rate.
You keep telling yourself that. Mean while. Cryptic will continue to nerf things proving your point moot.
It just gets harder and harder to believe this is all just a bunch of bumbling happenstance bugs...
Fleet Defiant Kinetic Heavy Fire Support | Fleet Manticore Kinetic Strike Ship | Tactical Command Kinetic Siege Refit | Fleet Defiant Quantum Phase Escort | Fleet Valiant Kinetic Heavy Fire Support
Turning the Galaxy-X into a Torpedo Dreadnought & torpedo tutorial, with written torpedo guide.
"A good weapon and a great strategy will win you many battles." - Marshall
I knew using Kinetics would be playing the game on hard mode, but what I didn't realize was how bad the deck is stacked against Kinetics.
Note: "Spoilered" to save space... it's not like I'm giving away any insider information, mostly because I don't have it.
I wouldn't flip the beam and cannon seating requirements entirely; B:FAW is better than C:SV thanks to underlying weapons requirements and that C:RF is better than B:O thanks to a full 10 sec spike affecting all equipped cannon-type weapons, so maybe...
BO 2 => Lieutenant level, no other changes
BO 3 => Ltc Commander, no other changes
BFAW 1 => Lieutenant level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl higher station)
BFAW 2 => Ltc Commander level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl higher station)
BFAW 3 => Commander level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl higher station)
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 => Lieutenant level, no other changes
CRF 2 => Ltc Commander level, no other changes
CRF 3 => Commander level, no other changes
...to link up with comparable effectiveness and weapon-type restrictions...
...or they could adjust seating requirements based specifically on AoE and parsing potential, so maybe...
BO 2 => Lieutenant level, no other changes
BO 3 => Ltc Commander, no other changes
BFAW 1 => Lieutenant level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl higher station)
BFAW 2 => Ltc Commander level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl higher station)
BFAW 3 => Commander level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl higher 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 level, no other changes (it require 1 lvl higher station)
CSV 1 => Lieutenant level, no other changes
CSV 2 => Ltc Commander level, no other changes
CSV 3 => Commander, no other changes
...given our current preference for big shiny damage totals, adjusting the seating requirements to reflect that might be good...
...or they could remove weapon-type restrictions, which could help clarify whether it is the ability or the weapon-type that is OP/UP, so maybe...
O 2 => Lieutenant level, no weapon-type restriction
O 3 => Ltc Commander, no weapon-type restriction
FAW 1 => Ensign level, no weapon-type restriction
FAW 2 => Lieutenant level, no weapon-type restriction
FAW 3 => Ltc Commander, no weapon-type restriction
RF 1 => Lieutenant level, no weapon-type restriction
RF 2 => Ltc Commander, no weapon-type restriction
RF 3 => Commander, no weapon-type restriction
SV 1 => Lieutenant level, no weapon-type restriction
SV 2 => Ltc Commander, no weapon-type restriction
SV 3 => Commander, no weapon-type restriction
...to separate the discussion about weapon-type vs. weapon-type and attack modifiers vs. attack modifiers. If this were the case, though, I'd suggest toning down Overload's individual damage boost to about 1/6 of the current boost but apply that lower boost to the next shot fired by each affected weapon; otherwise, you'd have turrets consuming your Overload entirely, making it exceedingly unpopular. At the other end of things, the +1 shot per volley from FAW should not be applied to "Heavy" weapons, for obvious reasons...
...or a combination of the first or second plus the third suggestion?
In any case, I do think cannon dropoff is a huge issue, especially with C:SV... you have to be close to your target to do solid damage, but a cone AoE is exponentially reduced in area as you get closer to your targets. Maybe additionally have C:SV reduce the dropoff rates during its duration as a start?
So many possibilities (including the OP's) for tinkering... but in the end, are we sure we'll manage to strike a better balance? Just as importantly, will these changes alter the capabilities of ships players paid real money for? Remember, Escorts can use beams, but not all Cruisers can use dual (heavy) cannons... meaning that any change to seating requirements or effectiveness of beam abilities is also a significant adjustment to every full (mostly Federation) Cruiser in the game; is this necessarily a good idea?
The actual fix is to delete FAW completely, and replace it with Scatter volley. (rename scatter to fire at will)
Scatter volley needs to be chanced to work with beams or cannons. Same for Rapid fire.
So they can leave scatter and rapid exactly where they are with level 3 being commander. At that point people could run what ever they want cannons or beams and use the exact same buffs with them. No issues with balance any longer. Cannons would be higher dmg in close range, beams would win at distance. The terrible shoot everything in a disco ball of death like we are playing The Last StarFighter and death blossoming instead of playing star trek, would be gone. Scatter would work fine with beams, add a cone instead of a disco ball.... game would be fixed as far as energy weapons go.
Some of those changes would help tremendously, though I personally believe the damage boost might be a bit much.
To answer the question though, yes they will still call for Nefts to FAW. Why? Because by their very nature Beams will always be easier to play then Cannons. Simply put, a lot of players would rather see others brought down instead of trying to increase their own ability and improve. It's simply easier to call for others to be reduced by external method then it is for someone to improve their own ability, and in the end that's what a lot of this is about.
I'm like you, while I prefer beams, I have cannon set ups as well and I do just fine with them. I still destroy things plenty fast and have no issues handling content with cannons. I do acknowledge that Cannons present a new set of challenges, some that are welcome and some that are a result of imbalances in between the weapon type.
While I do feel that Cannons need a boost, there will always be those here that will always call for nerfs to whatever they personally feel is overused or in their opinion 'abused.' Surprisingly, most of the posters in this thread seem fairly free of this bias, but it will always be there. No matter what changes you make, cannons will always require more skill to pull off then beams and there are always going to be those that would rather call for nerfs then take the time to learn to play with a higher level of skill.
Maybe beams can shoot everything a lot faster or more effectively... I wouldn't know. Does it matter anyway? If it's possible to do 30k DPS with cannons and using Rapid fire most of the time, I'd say that's good enough.
short answer: while you can do that for most people it's closer to say the reverse.
long answer: I have to go to work fairly soon so someone else will have to give you the long answer.
if I stop posting it doesn't make you right it. just means I don't have enough rum to continue interacting with you.
Maybe that's the problem...it's the only ensign level AoE in this game? But there is TS I
+ what tac skills the new players will be able to use, if faw or bo are removed from the ensign seat?
for me, the cannons skills (crf etc) should have the same seats than the beam skills. easy to do, and the new players will be able to try these skills early in game.
Simple, really...
Step 1. People sick and tired of "escorts online" start trying everything under the sun in an attempt to "find a way to make cruisers viable again"...
2. Stumble upon having A2B w/cooldown reducers reach "global" on all skills, including BFaW.
3. Lace with "hey, let's get this Marion DOff that increases shield penetration"
4. Watch cannon tacscorts see targets melting under beams almost as quickly as their cannons melt things, constant multiple beam fire, and watch the tops of the DPS tracker get filled with Beam Boats.
5. Elect to use all that damage booster stuff tacscorts get to (ab)use BFaW, and remember that double-slotting BFaW is "just as effective" as A2Batting cooldowns to global - and since we're not mixing cannons, beams and torps like the Defiant does, and BO doesn't have the "flashy effectiveness" of BFaW or even CRF (remember, CRF accelerates all slotted cannons, BO only fires on one beam...) there's enough Tac slots for 2x (2x TT, 2x BFaW, 3x various Attack Patterns...)
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
What i'm referring to is the ability to destroy little objects like mines or tractor beam mines or power drain pods and the like that surround your ship. there is only one ensign level ability that lets you do that and that's faw the next one starts as a lt. science station. and maybe not the ONLY one, but the only ensign level boff ability.
I like that you're thinking about buffing cannons, but giving cannons the same drain as beams is a terrible idea. Even though it says -12, cannons have a shorter firing cycle and end up using less power than beams so your idea would actually be a nerf...a really big nerf. The real problem is how cannons work with overcapping, or the lack there of. It's either a bug or who knows but cannons don't overcap like beams do. Even with the godly amount of overcapping we have now, cannons still won't use all that power and one will still see a drain. It might be that they have a shorter cycle so EPS won't help as much but really who knows. Geko once chimed in on overcapping but he explained it wrong so I don't even think the devs know whats going on with overcapping.
As to the arc thing, you're absolutely right. What would bring cannons back to the forefront would have STFs with fewer but stronger enemies. Cannons just can't do the AOE beams can, and that's a good thing.
Another thing that would help cannons is fixing the CSV bug where it doesn't apply the extra CrtD from DHCs.
Extending cannon drop off will make no difference for optimal cannon DPS.
It is the same problem if you extend Beam range drop off. It wouldnt make any difference at optimal dps.
Not only that, extending rang fall off would be killing one of the powerful DPS traits that is free, Point Blank Shot.
This means it wont solve the problem with players staying at 5-10kms with their Cannon DPS. They will still deal lower DPS compared to someone who mostly can pilot their way 0-2kms from most the mission.
Any calls to nerf FAW are simply another round of Stop Liking What I Don't Like.
Buff BO so that it affects all beams like FAW, fix cannon bugs, and fix cannon power bugs. Let's work our way from there and see how much the meta is tilted once you've done that.
Three and a half years ago, I remember being recommended to cannon escorts over beams and cruisers because beam power drain was a heavy impact on DPS. Now, thanks to dragons, drakes, Mr. Leech Console, cruiser commands, and a bevy of other goodies, we have ships so full of weapons power you can give Mr. Scott the day off. That's had to have had an impact as well.
Point Blank Shot would still be the same regardless of any change to drop off. Good players will take advantage of that, but there's still times when it's better to hang back. Personally I could go either way.
1)Overcapping favors beams over cannons. So lets assume a 5/3 ship because that the best case for cannon ships.
Using cruiser weapon commands and the Emergency weapon cycle trait. Beams over cap at 4 times your power transfer rate, Dual cannons/turrets/single cannons at 2x and Dual heavy cannons at 1x. The first weapon firing does not suffer from damage loss due to power drain.
8 beams times 10 power drain=70 power drained now factor in Cruiser command and EWC so 70/1.5=46.67 power or 6.67 power drained per beam. (if the game rounds up 49 total 7 per beam) This means you need 49 power over 125 and a transfer rate of 11.67 which is very easy to do just putting 9 points in the eps skill and using Emergency power to weapons almost gets you there.
Dual cannons 4x12 power drain=48+3 turrets x8=72 total power drained factor in cruiser commands and EWC and you get 72/1.5=48 power drained. Which means you need 48 overcap and a transfer rate of 24. The overcap is easy but the power transfer means needing a conductive rcs and at least 1 eps console.
Dual heavy cannons is the same math but you would need 40 power transfer rate which can't be done. (32 for DHC and 8 for turrets)
2)Range is also a big issue beams lose 4% of there damage after 1km where as cannons lose 8% per km after 2km.
3)Beams have 2 arcs where all weapons can fire at once where as cannons have a 45 degree frontal arc and outside of that you can only use your turrets which are nearly useless.
Overcapping needs to be worked on either get rid of it or make it equal for all energy weapons.
Range make it no damage loss under 5km and then same as before after 5km.
Increase arcs for cannons to 90 degrees and make some kind of new heavy turrets that can only be equipped in rear arcs of ships that can mount Dual class cannons make the dps higher then beam array and close to single cannons.
Hanging back means lower dps. You can also hang back with beams, but that won't help players dps who hang back. Who's fault is it when when the beam user is point blank shot range doing 100k dps while the one hanging out is only doing 10k dps. The same can be applied with cannons. Those wanting to have higher dps won't achieved higher dps if they hang back.
Now if even if we entertain the change of the mechanic for cannon range fall off, the players who hang back with their cannons will still do lower dps than those who don't. Which the point of my issue. Mechanics change won't help if the problem is the pilot.
And I agree with lucho, that even with the current mechanic, all cannon needs is a better pilot when it comes to cannon range drop off.
All it needs is a better build, better understanding of mechanics, better teammates. Except with beams you have easy access to PVE pro tested builds, videos, guidelines. Cannons, the public have barely any access to PVE pro cannon tested builds,
You have so much power drain resistance, weapon power drain reduction nowadays that you can make the weapon power drain//overcapping almost negligble for cannons on the right team.
Currently:
FAW1 - 5 pulses @ 100% * 8 Beams = 4000 damage
FAW2 - 5 pulses @ 106% * 8 Beams = 4240 damage
FAW3 - 5 pulses @ 112% * 8 Beams = 4480 damage
With reductions in pulses, mechanics would remain the same:
FAW1 - 4 pulses @ 100% * 8 Beams = 3200 damage (same as single target, but spread out)
FAW2 - 4 pulses @ 106% * 8 Beams = 3392 damage
FAW3 - 4 pulses @ 112% * 8 Beams = 3584 damage
Stop using DHCs on the cruisers that can fit them and fit them on escorts instead like how you're supposed to! Problem solved.
Anything else is a mobility and pilot skills issue.
Bingo! I've been saying that for years. WTF are cannon skills not starting at ensign level? If you do like the OP wants and move beam skills up the ranks, then cruisers, which have low Tac seats usually, will be screwed. Let some escort get 3 cannon skills (ensign-LC) and that'd free up the Cmdr. power for something else. Just that would help balance the escort driver whining.
This has something to do more with your mentality and those who think like you.
If you play PvE ISA most of the time, and want #1 DPS, then you need FAW. The problem is that. Why do one limits his/herself to ISA and why is everyone even aiming for #1 DPS at ISA?
Cannons are viable weapons that can hit 100k+ DPS in ISA but wouldnt be reaching the optimal potential of beams.
So the question would be why would other platform users want competing the #1 DPS of BFAW at a mission optimzed for Beam FAW?
Why cant others just go find their own STF or the own niche meant for their platforms? Rather than actually making other platforms as optimal as beams in an STF/niche meant for beams.
I always thought of torps as a 'battle-ender' weapon. At least that's how powerful crew members seemed to treat them in the show... "Can't fire a torp, enemy too close, we'd blow ourselves up!" As it is now, torps are mostly there to not use energy so your beam arrays have more juice.