I have always felt the problem with FaW is essentially caused by the game's poor implementation of fire control. As a player you can only have one active target and that is the only thing you can fire at. FaW permits any weapons that cannot bear on a particular selected target to fire at something else instead. This is a super effifient way of fighting.
If you really want to reflect the consequences of independent fire control rather than centralised fire control, then FaW probably should not benefit from many other buffs. Particularly those relating to tactical choices a commander might make - like attack patterns for example.
Even if I am FAWer and i have it on all my toons, i am for a buff for cannons and torpedoes. Make them worth again.
My proposals for it : 1) Slightly nerf for BFAW: Cancel the automatic hits , on the contrary , increase the possibility of miss (lower accuracy) 2x than normal. So for example, if average hit rate is now about 96%, with BFAW activated it should be 92%. It is logical, continuous firing is less accurate than shooting a batch 2) Abilities: CSV I- ensign, CSV-lieutenant, etc. 3) I don't know anyone who playing a single cannons, so buff them or delete them, the same as turrets now, they are a junk now, compare to a omni-beams. It should be nice to play a carrier in Galactica style with all turrets and cannon barrage 4) Reduce cannon's distance damage drop-off at least 50% , or reduce drop-off for all weapons to 2% per km. I think it is no reason to force players shooting from 2km, even it is fun to watch big ships (scimitars) try to press in small space where you can flanking and fire from the closest range. 5) buff torpedo damage and give all torpedoes [radius] 0.5km, torpedo should be against unshielded target one hit kill 6) tactical consoles : energy + torpedo dmg , so you can play hybrid (cannons+torpedoes) build without big overall damage loss, the same as they have in tv series.
I hope that Borticus will read it and bring more diversity to the game (and it helps to sell more stuff).
I think piloting is a concern. The issue with buffing cannons is that people can fire them while stationary.
First step is to make cannon damage scale with throttle and throttle duration, like an innate Pedal to the Metal, only with inverse scaling below 30% throttle or slowing down. You need to be rocking some turnrate. Best bonus for staying on full throttle and not stopping. Maybe an additional bonus for turning while firing.
Then you buff canons based on the expected piloting ability of players after tests.
At this point, turnrate becomes a DPS stat.
Beams should be for minimal maneuverability. Cannons should scale with maneuverability to be effective. No reverse. No caution. No "I'm going to back up and retarget". Full throttle dancing around targets.
The damage boost you're proposing would have to be worth it though. You should be able to obliterate a frigate in one or two passes, and do serious damage to a cruiser. I'm talking about punching through their shields AND doing significant hull damage in one pass. Especially on enemies that heal. That's what it will take to basically make it worth people time to actually hit and run like the playstyle would dictate, drive bys versus park and shoot. Where the time you're doing damage with your nose on target is worth the time once you passed where you have to set up your next run.
Incidentally, one other thought would be to adjust DHCs to continue functioning as turrets when out of arc. So they become 360 degree weapons that become heavier cannons when a target is "in sights". That reduces the damage you'd need to add to make a throttle bonus for cannons worthwhile.
How would that work though? I mean the wing cannons on a Bird of Prey don't swivel that much. A Defiant's canons are even more locked in there's no adjusting the angle without adjusting the heading at all.
Always makes me laugh when people say how powerful the Defiant's cannons are. Sure she cut through Bird of Prey's, Dominion Attack ships and Breen frigates but i don't remember her actually taking on and disabling or destroying anything outside her weight class. The only ships she destroyed or disabled outside her weight class that i can remember were a Dominion Battlecruiser flanked by 2 Bird of Prey's in Sacrifice of Angels and a Galor/Keldon in the DS9 Ep. Defiant but that was a quantum torp not cannons.
So please why is the Defiant considered a uber ship when during the Dominion War in all the battle scenes bar SOA she was only seen fighting ships in her weight class no actual capital ships.
I believe it out-manuvered a Klingon Neg'Var Battlecruiser in one of the mirrored universe episodes, where the Rebels built a Defiant ship and Sisko helped get it working and then helped command it and then took control of the helm and flyed in close range to prevent target lock on them, thats how they won that fight.
Not quite a head-2-head fight, but either way, they won, isn't that all that people care about? winning.
The Defiant has destroyed a Galor class. But on the other hand a Nebula could destroy a Galor too. But like I said earlier it was the undisputed king of its small ship weight class. It was tougher than every other ship and could hit harder. It was designed to fight Borg Cubes so that does mean something.
As for the Alliance's Negh'var Super Star Destroyer she won that on Death Star principles. The ship was so damn big that it couldn't bring any of its primary weapons to bear on the Defiant which was flying nap of the ship all over it. So it was able to fire on it with absolute impunity. The Defiant's Quad Phaser cannons are heavy weapons no matter what.
Even if I am FAWer and i have it on all my toons, i am for a buff for cannons and torpedoes. Make them worth again.
My proposals for it : 1) Slightly nerf for BFAW: Cancel the automatic hits , on the contrary , increase the possibility of miss (lower accuracy) 2x than normal. So for example, if average hit rate is now about 96%, with BFAW activated it should be 92%. It is logical, continuous firing is less accurate than shooting a batch 2) Abilities: CSV I- ensign, CSV-lieutenant, etc. 3) I don't know anyone who playing a single cannons, so buff them or delete them, the same as turrets now, they are a junk now, compare to a omni-beams. It should be nice to play a carrier in Galactica style with all turrets and cannon barrage 4) Reduce cannon's distance damage drop-off at least 50% , or reduce drop-off for all weapons to 2% per km. I think it is no reason to force players shooting from 2km, even it is fun to watch big ships (scimitars) try to press in small space where you can flanking and fire from the closest range. 5) buff torpedo damage and give all torpedoes [radius] 0.5km, torpedo should be against unshielded target one hit kill 6) tactical consoles : energy + torpedo dmg , so you can play hybrid (cannons+torpedoes) build without big overall damage loss, the same as they have in tv series.
I hope that Borticus will read it and bring more diversity to the game (and it helps to sell more stuff).
The problem with that is that BFAW is a prime spam clearing tool. When you have Romulan Warbirds launching Hyper Plasma torps at you, BFAW is your best shot. Also considering that we're dealing with faster than light computers targeting sublight targets, and fire trajectories is basic math that our computers today can do, the idea of missing just because you're targeting multiple targets doesn't hold up.
I think Turrets have their place in the same vein as the BFAW point defense idea, turrets give cannon boats the ability to defend themselves a little when off target arc.
Single cannons on the other hand have no niche. There was one long ago, but it's obsolete.
Weapon drop off at range is ridiculous, you're right. These weapons are supposed to have a light second range, 30x the fight range in this game. I can get outmaneuvering it a little, but damage drop off makes no sense.
One hit kill on torpedoes...just no. That is something that needs increasing definitely, but one hit is too much. The Enterprise-A ate a torpedo unshielded and kept going. Even Chang's Bird of Prey ate more than one torpedo before it died. The Enterprise-D also tanked torpedo hits before she died. This would be simpler if ship injuries were an integrated part of the damage mechanics instead of penalties for dying. For instance if you have a major warp core injury THEN a torpedo should one shot you with shields down. That said I agree completely that 10% shields blocking a torpedo hit is bogus.
I wouldn't mind hybrid tac consoles, but they would systematically obsolete every other tac console in the game. I would like for their slotting to change. Make each piece of ship equipment have modification slots like ground kits. So you put in Beams and the beam consoles have their own space, the torpedoes have their own space. Perhaps based on the space that would be available on ship. There's no way a Bird of Prey would be able to cram in as many torpedo mods into its little nose that Galaxy class could it its several deck tall torpedo bays. On the other hand a BoP which is a designed cannon boat would be able to accommodate more mods than it could for beam arrays.
"Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many they are few"
I think piloting is a concern. The issue with buffing cannons is that people can fire them while stationary.
First step is to make cannon damage scale with throttle and throttle duration, like an innate Pedal to the Metal, only with inverse scaling below 30% throttle or slowing down. You need to be rocking some turnrate. Best bonus for staying on full throttle and not stopping. Maybe an additional bonus for turning while firing.
Then you buff canons based on the expected piloting ability of players after tests.
At this point, turnrate becomes a DPS stat.
Beams should be for minimal maneuverability. Cannons should scale with maneuverability to be effective. No reverse. No caution. No "I'm going to back up and retarget". Full throttle dancing around targets.
The damage boost you're proposing would have to be worth it though. You should be able to obliterate a frigate in one or two passes, and do serious damage to a cruiser. I'm talking about punching through their shields AND doing significant hull damage in one pass. Especially on enemies that heal. That's what it will take to basically make it worth people time to actually hit and run like the playstyle would dictate, drive bys versus park and shoot. Where the time you're doing damage with your nose on target is worth the time once you passed where you have to set up your next run.
Incidentally, one other thought would be to adjust DHCs to continue functioning as turrets when out of arc. So they become 360 degree weapons that become heavier cannons when a target is "in sights". That reduces the damage you'd need to add to make a throttle bonus for cannons worthwhile.
How would that work though? I mean the wing cannons on a Bird of Prey don't swivel that much. A Defiant's canons are even more locked in there's no adjusting the angle without adjusting the heading at all.
Always makes me laugh when people say how powerful the Defiant's cannons are. Sure she cut through Bird of Prey's, Dominion Attack ships and Breen frigates but i don't remember her actually taking on and disabling or destroying anything outside her weight class. The only ships she destroyed or disabled outside her weight class that i can remember were a Dominion Battlecruiser flanked by 2 Bird of Prey's in Sacrifice of Angels and a Galor/Keldon in the DS9 Ep. Defiant but that was a quantum torp not cannons.
So please why is the Defiant considered a uber ship when during the Dominion War in all the battle scenes bar SOA she was only seen fighting ships in her weight class no actual capital ships.
I believe it out-manuvered a Klingon Neg'Var Battlecruiser in one of the mirrored universe episodes, where the Rebels built a Defiant ship and Sisko helped get it working and then helped command it and then took control of the helm and flyed in close range to prevent target lock on them, thats how they won that fight.
Not quite a head-2-head fight, but either way, they won, isn't that all that people care about? winning.
The Defiant has destroyed a Galor class. But on the other hand a Nebula could destroy a Galor too. But like I said earlier it was the undisputed king of its small ship weight class. It was tougher than every other ship and could hit harder. It was designed to fight Borg Cubes so that does mean something.
As for the Alliance's Negh'var Super Star Destroyer she won that on Death Star principles. The ship was so damn big that it couldn't bring any of its primary weapons to bear on the Defiant which was flying nap of the ship all over it. So it was able to fire on it with absolute impunity. The Defiant's Quad Phaser cannons are heavy weapons no matter what.
Even if I am FAWer and i have it on all my toons, i am for a buff for cannons and torpedoes. Make them worth again.
My proposals for it : 1) Slightly nerf for BFAW: Cancel the automatic hits , on the contrary , increase the possibility of miss (lower accuracy) 2x than normal. So for example, if average hit rate is now about 96%, with BFAW activated it should be 92%. It is logical, continuous firing is less accurate than shooting a batch 2) Abilities: CSV I- ensign, CSV-lieutenant, etc. 3) I don't know anyone who playing a single cannons, so buff them or delete them, the same as turrets now, they are a junk now, compare to a omni-beams. It should be nice to play a carrier in Galactica style with all turrets and cannon barrage 4) Reduce cannon's distance damage drop-off at least 50% , or reduce drop-off for all weapons to 2% per km. I think it is no reason to force players shooting from 2km, even it is fun to watch big ships (scimitars) try to press in small space where you can flanking and fire from the closest range. 5) buff torpedo damage and give all torpedoes [radius] 0.5km, torpedo should be against unshielded target one hit kill 6) tactical consoles : energy + torpedo dmg , so you can play hybrid (cannons+torpedoes) build without big overall damage loss, the same as they have in tv series.
I hope that Borticus will read it and bring more diversity to the game (and it helps to sell more stuff).
The problem with that is that BFAW is a prime spam clearing tool. When you have Romulan Warbirds launching Hyper Plasma torps at you, BFAW is your best shot. Also considering that we're dealing with faster than light computers targeting sublight targets, and fire trajectories is basic math that our computers today can do, the idea of missing just because you're targeting multiple targets doesn't hold up.
I think Turrets have their place in the same vein as the BFAW point defense idea, turrets give cannon boats the ability to defend themselves a little when off target arc.
Single cannons on the other hand have no niche. There was one long ago, but it's obsolete.
Weapon drop off at range is ridiculous, you're right. These weapons are supposed to have a light second range, 30x the fight range in this game. I can get outmaneuvering it a little, but damage drop off makes no sense.
One hit kill on torpedoes...just no. That is something that needs increasing definitely, but one hit is too much. The Enterprise-A ate a torpedo unshielded and kept going. Even Chang's Bird of Prey ate more than one torpedo before it died. The Enterprise-D also tanked torpedo hits before she died. This would be simpler if ship injuries were an integrated part of the damage mechanics instead of penalties for dying. For instance if you have a major warp core injury THEN a torpedo should one shot you with shields down. That said I agree completely that 10% shields blocking a torpedo hit is bogus.
I wouldn't mind hybrid tac consoles, but they would systematically obsolete every other tac console in the game. I would like for their slotting to change. Make each piece of ship equipment have modification slots like ground kits. So you put in Beams and the beam consoles have their own space, the torpedoes have their own space. Perhaps based on the space that would be available on ship. There's no way a Bird of Prey would be able to cram in as many torpedo mods into its little nose that Galaxy class could it its several deck tall torpedo bays. On the other hand a BoP which is a designed cannon boat would be able to accommodate more mods than it could for beam arrays.
It wouldn't fire from the cannon hardpoint. You would just have extra "imaginary" turrets equipped that fire from rear turret hardpoints and don't fire when the dual heavy cannon is in-arc.
I wouldn't mind hybrid tac consoles, but they would systematically obsolete every other tac console in the game.
If you make them unique they wouldn't obsolete anything, you just wouldn't have to sacrifice an energy console for a torpedo console. Not that that's the reason why people don't use torpedoes, but allowing 1 hybrid console per ship might help.
I wouldn't mind hybrid tac consoles, but they would systematically obsolete every other tac console in the game.
If you make them unique they wouldn't obsolete anything, you just wouldn't have to sacrifice an energy console for a torpedo console. Not that that's the reason why people don't use torpedoes, but allowing 1 hybrid console per ship might help.
If you were playing this game, you know there are certain hybrid tac consoles and they are being used by certain players.
Population use of weapons platform is due positive marketing. When Marshal posted what he can do with Torps thru video and guides there was a sudden increase in Torp users. The problem is that it was done a couple of weeks back. Beams users have been doing these kind of marketing for months/years.
The problem with cannons is that no one is as dedicated and as skilled as Marshal(for kinetics) at cannons. Most are relying on top end beam users to spoonfeed them with how to do viable cannon builds. That means these players dont have their full time on cannons like Marshal has for torps.
Even @darkknightucf says torpedoes suck and have issues (or at least he says so each week in The SHOW). Pointing out that cannons and torpedoes kill things in PvE doesn't mean they don't have issues that need to be fixed. Torpedoes and Cannons have huge glaring issues and bugs that need to be fixed. Honestly IDK why anyone would not be for fixing these bugs. If a beam didn't get the use of one of its mods there would be a huge outcry to fix them, so why should torpedoes and cannons be stuck with such a bug?
As for FAW: Fixing FAW would mean also changing all NPC hp at elite (and some advanced) level. I don't think that will happen any time soon but I'm all for a new tac power that gives a rapid fire effect to beams like Reroute Reserves to Weapons but not locked to pilot ships (and have it use weapon power and not engine power).
I'm (slowly) working with members of the Gunship Guild to get a thorough understanding of cannons. As a former Cannoneer myself back when it was "Escorts Online", I was the knucklehead that did DHC's + Torp fore + mine aft for PvE. CSE's were so much fun doing lane sweeps w/ my Defiant. |=)
What I advocate for primarily are fixes to Kinetics. Secondary (and much harder to deal with from a Dev standpoint) are addition of powers/traits/abilities that directly enhance Kinetics, and (even harder) mechanics changes to Kinetics that won't make them OP, but will increase their effectiveness relative to the new content. For example, as a whole, relegating Transphasics obsolete past level 53 is not good game design.
What I DO NOT advocate for is what could be realistically seen as a nerf to FaW. Aside from the obvious double-proc issues w/ the AoE abilities, a fundamental look at all the weapon powers is needed in order to provide unique offerings in weapon platforms AND firing modes, where the player's skill determines the effectiveness of the build. Yes, not every weapon should be effective everywhere, and in all situations, so why do we have one very huge stand-out now?
While I do enjoy Kinetics for the feel and theme, I do still advocate for parity in traits and abilities that affect all weapons. I don't want Kinetics to be OP, I just want the (glaring) bugs fixed first, and then make adjustments appropriately.
I never got into the DPS meta-game of STO (because it wasn't needed in my opinion) but I think before we can look at a balance pass, DPS inequality needs a look at. I started looking much harder at mechanics going into this DPS Channel contest. It took me a couple of weeks to figure out a means to break 30k without completely mastering a playstyle I wasn't necessarily interested in becoming attached to and I have years worth of resources most players don't have.
And until DPS inequality is lessened, things like addressing FAW either with buffs to other powers or nerfs to FAW are going to inherently become unstable because they will either break the game in terms of even more insane ease for the skilled or more insane difficulty for the weak players.
As of earlier this year, fewer than 10% of players cracked 30k DPS. This is going by DPS League charts which I have noted elsewhere probably skew favorably because they only chart games where one in five players run a parser and upload data, which is going to skew towards higher DPS. Uncharted games will have lower DPS.
Nearly half of players do less than 5k. 78% of players tracked have never broken 10k.
I'm going to target three areas where I think skill needs to be reduced.
1) Keybinds: They're simply too deep a system to expect the average player to adopt. I don't dispute that masters of keybinds should continue to perform well but you can do a lot just with a spacebar bind for some or all abilities and there's no reason why something that simple should require a keybind. It requires no real thought, timing, or skill. So it should be easier to do.
I propose:
-- Converting a large number of abilities into toggles or always-on effects that require no keystroke. In this case, you average out the damage boost over time and convert them into an always on effect.
-- Converting some abilities to have the option to autofire at every opportunity when toggled on.
-- Leaving some abilities with the requirement to activate them and visually distinguishing these somehow.
2) Cooldowns: Cooldown management has become too much of the meta-game. Highly desirable DOffs and abilities have created a vast power gap when they should, ideally, be marginal gains.
I propose:
-- Reducing base cooldowns while leaving shared/global cooldown untouched. A2B will still get you to the global cooldown but the basic player should start closer to the global cooldown.
3) Tactical Bridge Officer Station Abilities: There is a lack of support for many weapons types, particularly at the ensign level.
I propose:
Introducing ensign cannon powers and buffing higher ranked cannon powers.
4) Piloting: Piloting requires excessive skill for return with narrow arc weapons, particularly DHCs.
I propose:
-- Set ALL cannons to scale damage with ship throttle.
-- Extend drop-off range to 7km.
-- Set dual heavy cannons to continue functioning at a wider arc as turrets as a kind of arc dropoff to encourage ships that CAN use DHCs to use DHCs. In the forward 45 degrees, they do DHC damage. In the forward 90 but outside the 45, they do dual (non-heavy) cannon damage. In the forward 180 but outside the forward 90, they act as single cannons. In the rear arc, the ship acts as though turrets of that type were equipped. I would actually propose making this a new cannon toggle or always on bridge officer station ability. It eats up a bridge officer station ability but provides a much needed boost without making unreasonable piloting demands. I propose making this ability available to everyone easily (not a lockbox training manual). Furthermore, I propose making this an Engineering ability that starts at Lt. This fits with the idea of escorts like the Defiant as being overclocked for firepower. In general, I would look at engineering being a source of energy weapon boosts going forward while Tactical gets more torpedo love.
Now, all of this starts to paint a picture as to where FAW can go.
I'll start off with an opening volley:
-- I'd suggest making FAW an always on toggle.
-- I suggest dividing its damage increase over time. This can be done in a way that makes it buffed slightly for people with no cooldown reductions but as a toggle, it will no longer benefit from cooldown reductions. DOffs which previously enhanced its cooldown might instead create resistance to weapons being sent offline.
-- Toggle abilities would function by lowering your cap for a subsystem. This balances the power level concerns somewhat when looking at something like Plasmonic Leech if FAW reduces weapons power level by a flat 10% of current "natural" levels when on. Think of it as reverse efficiency. The more you have, the more you lose off the top.
-- I'd suggest artificially heightened threat generation while active.
-- Rather than simply enhance other player defense in PvP, I have a novel idea:
-- Give FAW affected attacks a proc which has the chance to increase defense, speed, and turnrate for enemy player vessels. This proc chance increases over time, up to 10 stacks. Basically, if you leave it on in PvP, the enemy player will "wise up". This could in general be a new balancing mechanism: Procs from special attacks which benefit the enemy target, some of which build over time. Think of this as a critical fail roll in DND and a means of balancing some weapons/powers without a direct nerf.
As for FAW: Fixing FAW would mean also changing all NPC hp at elite (and some advanced) level. I don't think that will happen any time soon but I'm all for a new tac power that gives a rapid fire effect to beams like Reroute Reserves to Weapons but not locked to pilot ships (and have it use weapon power and not engine power).
Nothing to do with HP NPC since this an issue by players who cannot deal minimum damage requirement regardless of weapons platforms.
Cannons do have currently an issue at the harder elites. All weapons are viable except only one is optimal if you base this per STF. The issue is once you reach the upper echelons, that is if a player even reaches the upper echelons. However, even with those issues it still can hold on its own but wont anytime compete with Torps for optimal DPS at HSE.
That means cannons are viable weapons platforms. There shouldnt be any issue in terms of DPS minimum requirements with cannons if you are just playing advance, normal or those easy elites like korfez.
Also no one has yet marketed nor optimized cannons the same way has beams or the recent torps have. However, Cannons have certain fixes/bugs that needs fixing.
No need to touch BFAW. Once you start nerfing BFAW, Torps would be left alone at the top in PvE. This could double Torps lead in CCA, HSE(which torps already have a lead currently) and overtake beams in ISA. So much for balance talk
> @seaofsorrows said: > Proposed changes to BFAW: Disagree > > 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.
^This. Only a very small number of people understand this logic. Sadly this truth is always ignored. People seem to have it stuck in their head that those who use the "best" abilities need to be punished, and a "nerf" is how we punish those who use it. It keeps the perpetual "that ability is OP!" attitudes rolling when people migrate to the next "best" thing...in which case starts the whole "nerf" process all over again.
Example. FAW was at one time the most powerful weapon ability in game. It was nerfed. Then CRF became the next best thing until it was nerfed. Then BAO was the next best thing until it was nerfed...all the way until now we are right back to square one again...back to FAW. Imagine that...? Yet we want to start the process of nerfing all over again? tsk tsk...
If you were playing this game, you know there are certain hybrid tac consoles and they are being used by certain players.
Population use of weapons platform is due positive marketing. When Marshal posted what he can do with Torps thru video and guides there was a sudden increase in Torp users. The problem is that it was done a couple of weeks back. Beams users have been doing these kind of marketing for months/years.
The problem with cannons is that no one is as dedicated and as skilled as Marshal(for kinetics) at cannons. Most are relying on top end beam users to spoonfeed them with how to do viable cannon builds. That means these players dont have their full time on cannons like Marshal has for torps.
Again you're not comprehending. It's getting tiring. This is the last time I'll reply to you so I'll say this: if you were actually paying attention you'd know that I said a new kind of hybrid console, one that gives a full energy and full torpedo damage bonus, unlike the current hybrid consoles. At mk XIV epic it would give +37.5%/+37.5% and would be unique.
I'm (slowly) working with members of the Gunship Guild to get a thorough understanding of cannons. As a former Cannoneer myself back when it was "Escorts Online", I was the knucklehead that did DHC's + Torp fore + mine aft for PvE. CSE's were so much fun doing lane sweeps w/ my Defiant. |=)
What I advocate for primarily are fixes to Kinetics. Secondary (and much harder to deal with from a Dev standpoint) are addition of powers/traits/abilities that directly enhance Kinetics, and (even harder) mechanics changes to Kinetics that won't make them OP, but will increase their effectiveness relative to the new content. For example, as a whole, relegating Transphasics obsolete past level 53 is not good game design.
What I DO NOT advocate for is what could be realistically seen as a nerf to FaW. Aside from the obvious double-proc issues w/ the AoE abilities, a fundamental look at all the weapon powers is needed in order to provide unique offerings in weapon platforms AND firing modes, where the player's skill determines the effectiveness of the build. Yes, not every weapon should be effective everywhere, and in all situations, so why do we have one very huge stand-out now?
While I do enjoy Kinetics for the feel and theme, I do still advocate for parity in traits and abilities that affect all weapons. I don't want Kinetics to be OP, I just want the (glaring) bugs fixed first, and then make adjustments appropriately.
I'm now going back to my DHC+1 torp escorts (but no mines). My romulan just got back in his old T6 intel warbird and my other characters will soon go back to their escorts when I'm doing getting the ship traits I want. Is it optimal DPS? Hell no. But at this point I don't care. It's more fun to me and in a way it's a sort of protest against the current FAW meta. TRIBBLE that I'm going old school.
Unfortunately though FAW will have to be nerfed slightly (in my opinion only its efficiency vs single targets) along with maybe buffing the other skills, because like I've said before to only buff the other skills without nerfing it is to increase the power creep further. We want balance not power creep, right? I hope so. Can't just buff, buff, buff whenever there's disparity between skills. You have to also address why there's disparity to begin with, and currently it's because FAW is too good at doing everything in every situation. You have a lot of enemy fighters, incoming torpedoes and other small targets you need to destroy quickly? Use FAW. You have a lot of ships around you and you need AOE? Use FAW. You have a heavily shielded, high hull single target? Use FAW. You want to squeeze the most damage you can out of your ship? Don't equip a torpedo, equip another beam instead and FAW your way to victory (the fact that this is actually true makes it ridiculous. In what Star Trek universe should another beam be superior to a torpedo?)
Perhaps, just perhaps, this disparity can be solved by fixing overcapping. Maybe making 125 power a hard cap instead of a soft cap will make FAW no longer the One Skill To Rule Them All.
Maybe the devs also need to clearly define the purpose of each skill of the four energy weapon skills. The purpose of CRF and CSV are pretty clear but what about BO and BFAW? They're not so clearly defined.
Comments
If you really want to reflect the consequences of independent fire control rather than centralised fire control, then FaW probably should not benefit from many other buffs. Particularly those relating to tactical choices a commander might make - like attack patterns for example.
My proposals for it : 1) Slightly nerf for BFAW: Cancel the automatic hits , on the contrary , increase the possibility of miss (lower accuracy) 2x than normal. So for example, if average hit rate is now about 96%, with BFAW activated it should be 92%. It is logical, continuous firing is less accurate than shooting a batch 2) Abilities: CSV I- ensign, CSV-lieutenant, etc. 3) I don't know anyone who playing a single cannons, so buff them or delete them, the same as turrets now, they are a junk now, compare to a omni-beams. It should be nice to play a carrier in Galactica style with all turrets and cannon barrage 4) Reduce cannon's distance damage drop-off at least 50% , or reduce drop-off for all weapons to 2% per km. I think it is no reason to force players shooting from 2km, even it is fun to watch big ships (scimitars) try to press in small space where you can flanking and fire from the closest range. 5) buff torpedo damage and give all torpedoes [radius] 0.5km, torpedo should be against unshielded target one hit kill 6) tactical consoles : energy + torpedo dmg , so you can play hybrid (cannons+torpedoes) build without big overall damage loss, the same as they have in tv series.
I hope that Borticus will read it and bring more diversity to the game (and it helps to sell more stuff).
The Defiant has destroyed a Galor class. But on the other hand a Nebula could destroy a Galor too. But like I said earlier it was the undisputed king of its small ship weight class. It was tougher than every other ship and could hit harder. It was designed to fight Borg Cubes so that does mean something.
As for the Alliance's Negh'var Super Star Destroyer she won that on Death Star principles. The ship was so damn big that it couldn't bring any of its primary weapons to bear on the Defiant which was flying nap of the ship all over it. So it was able to fire on it with absolute impunity. The Defiant's Quad Phaser cannons are heavy weapons no matter what.
The problem with that is that BFAW is a prime spam clearing tool. When you have Romulan Warbirds launching Hyper Plasma torps at you, BFAW is your best shot. Also considering that we're dealing with faster than light computers targeting sublight targets, and fire trajectories is basic math that our computers today can do, the idea of missing just because you're targeting multiple targets doesn't hold up.
I think Turrets have their place in the same vein as the BFAW point defense idea, turrets give cannon boats the ability to defend themselves a little when off target arc.
Single cannons on the other hand have no niche. There was one long ago, but it's obsolete.
Weapon drop off at range is ridiculous, you're right. These weapons are supposed to have a light second range, 30x the fight range in this game. I can get outmaneuvering it a little, but damage drop off makes no sense.
One hit kill on torpedoes...just no. That is something that needs increasing definitely, but one hit is too much. The Enterprise-A ate a torpedo unshielded and kept going. Even Chang's Bird of Prey ate more than one torpedo before it died. The Enterprise-D also tanked torpedo hits before she died. This would be simpler if ship injuries were an integrated part of the damage mechanics instead of penalties for dying. For instance if you have a major warp core injury THEN a torpedo should one shot you with shields down. That said I agree completely that 10% shields blocking a torpedo hit is bogus.
I wouldn't mind hybrid tac consoles, but they would systematically obsolete every other tac console in the game. I would like for their slotting to change. Make each piece of ship equipment have modification slots like ground kits. So you put in Beams and the beam consoles have their own space, the torpedoes have their own space. Perhaps based on the space that would be available on ship. There's no way a Bird of Prey would be able to cram in as many torpedo mods into its little nose that Galaxy class could it its several deck tall torpedo bays. On the other hand a BoP which is a designed cannon boat would be able to accommodate more mods than it could for beam arrays.
It wouldn't fire from the cannon hardpoint. You would just have extra "imaginary" turrets equipped that fire from rear turret hardpoints and don't fire when the dual heavy cannon is in-arc.
If you make them unique they wouldn't obsolete anything, you just wouldn't have to sacrifice an energy console for a torpedo console. Not that that's the reason why people don't use torpedoes, but allowing 1 hybrid console per ship might help.
If you were playing this game, you know there are certain hybrid tac consoles and they are being used by certain players.
Population use of weapons platform is due positive marketing. When Marshal posted what he can do with Torps thru video and guides there was a sudden increase in Torp users. The problem is that it was done a couple of weeks back. Beams users have been doing these kind of marketing for months/years.
The problem with cannons is that no one is as dedicated and as skilled as Marshal(for kinetics) at cannons. Most are relying on top end beam users to spoonfeed them with how to do viable cannon builds. That means these players dont have their full time on cannons like Marshal has for torps.
As for FAW: Fixing FAW would mean also changing all NPC hp at elite (and some advanced) level. I don't think that will happen any time soon but I'm all for a new tac power that gives a rapid fire effect to beams like Reroute Reserves to Weapons but not locked to pilot ships (and have it use weapon power and not engine power).
I'm (slowly) working with members of the Gunship Guild to get a thorough understanding of cannons. As a former Cannoneer myself back when it was "Escorts Online", I was the knucklehead that did DHC's + Torp fore + mine aft for PvE. CSE's were so much fun doing lane sweeps w/ my Defiant. |=)
What I advocate for primarily are fixes to Kinetics. Secondary (and much harder to deal with from a Dev standpoint) are addition of powers/traits/abilities that directly enhance Kinetics, and (even harder) mechanics changes to Kinetics that won't make them OP, but will increase their effectiveness relative to the new content. For example, as a whole, relegating Transphasics obsolete past level 53 is not good game design.
What I DO NOT advocate for is what could be realistically seen as a nerf to FaW. Aside from the obvious double-proc issues w/ the AoE abilities, a fundamental look at all the weapon powers is needed in order to provide unique offerings in weapon platforms AND firing modes, where the player's skill determines the effectiveness of the build. Yes, not every weapon should be effective everywhere, and in all situations, so why do we have one very huge stand-out now?
While I do enjoy Kinetics for the feel and theme, I do still advocate for parity in traits and abilities that affect all weapons. I don't want Kinetics to be OP, I just want the (glaring) bugs fixed first, and then make adjustments appropriately.
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.
I never got into the DPS meta-game of STO (because it wasn't needed in my opinion) but I think before we can look at a balance pass, DPS inequality needs a look at. I started looking much harder at mechanics going into this DPS Channel contest. It took me a couple of weeks to figure out a means to break 30k without completely mastering a playstyle I wasn't necessarily interested in becoming attached to and I have years worth of resources most players don't have.
And until DPS inequality is lessened, things like addressing FAW either with buffs to other powers or nerfs to FAW are going to inherently become unstable because they will either break the game in terms of even more insane ease for the skilled or more insane difficulty for the weak players.
As of earlier this year, fewer than 10% of players cracked 30k DPS. This is going by DPS League charts which I have noted elsewhere probably skew favorably because they only chart games where one in five players run a parser and upload data, which is going to skew towards higher DPS. Uncharted games will have lower DPS.
Nearly half of players do less than 5k. 78% of players tracked have never broken 10k.
I'm going to target three areas where I think skill needs to be reduced.
1) Keybinds: They're simply too deep a system to expect the average player to adopt. I don't dispute that masters of keybinds should continue to perform well but you can do a lot just with a spacebar bind for some or all abilities and there's no reason why something that simple should require a keybind. It requires no real thought, timing, or skill. So it should be easier to do.
I propose:
-- Converting a large number of abilities into toggles or always-on effects that require no keystroke. In this case, you average out the damage boost over time and convert them into an always on effect.
-- Converting some abilities to have the option to autofire at every opportunity when toggled on.
-- Leaving some abilities with the requirement to activate them and visually distinguishing these somehow.
2) Cooldowns: Cooldown management has become too much of the meta-game. Highly desirable DOffs and abilities have created a vast power gap when they should, ideally, be marginal gains.
I propose:
-- Reducing base cooldowns while leaving shared/global cooldown untouched. A2B will still get you to the global cooldown but the basic player should start closer to the global cooldown.
3) Tactical Bridge Officer Station Abilities: There is a lack of support for many weapons types, particularly at the ensign level.
I propose:
Introducing ensign cannon powers and buffing higher ranked cannon powers.
4) Piloting: Piloting requires excessive skill for return with narrow arc weapons, particularly DHCs.
I propose:
-- Set ALL cannons to scale damage with ship throttle.
-- Extend drop-off range to 7km.
-- Set dual heavy cannons to continue functioning at a wider arc as turrets as a kind of arc dropoff to encourage ships that CAN use DHCs to use DHCs. In the forward 45 degrees, they do DHC damage. In the forward 90 but outside the 45, they do dual (non-heavy) cannon damage. In the forward 180 but outside the forward 90, they act as single cannons. In the rear arc, the ship acts as though turrets of that type were equipped. I would actually propose making this a new cannon toggle or always on bridge officer station ability. It eats up a bridge officer station ability but provides a much needed boost without making unreasonable piloting demands. I propose making this ability available to everyone easily (not a lockbox training manual). Furthermore, I propose making this an Engineering ability that starts at Lt. This fits with the idea of escorts like the Defiant as being overclocked for firepower. In general, I would look at engineering being a source of energy weapon boosts going forward while Tactical gets more torpedo love.
Now, all of this starts to paint a picture as to where FAW can go.
I'll start off with an opening volley:
-- I'd suggest making FAW an always on toggle.
-- I suggest dividing its damage increase over time. This can be done in a way that makes it buffed slightly for people with no cooldown reductions but as a toggle, it will no longer benefit from cooldown reductions. DOffs which previously enhanced its cooldown might instead create resistance to weapons being sent offline.
-- Toggle abilities would function by lowering your cap for a subsystem. This balances the power level concerns somewhat when looking at something like Plasmonic Leech if FAW reduces weapons power level by a flat 10% of current "natural" levels when on. Think of it as reverse efficiency. The more you have, the more you lose off the top.
-- I'd suggest artificially heightened threat generation while active.
-- Rather than simply enhance other player defense in PvP, I have a novel idea:
-- Give FAW affected attacks a proc which has the chance to increase defense, speed, and turnrate for enemy player vessels. This proc chance increases over time, up to 10 stacks. Basically, if you leave it on in PvP, the enemy player will "wise up". This could in general be a new balancing mechanism: Procs from special attacks which benefit the enemy target, some of which build over time. Think of this as a critical fail roll in DND and a means of balancing some weapons/powers without a direct nerf.
Except it is opposite what is said in records. Torps tops certain charts. Not saying bugs doesnt need fixing.
Nothing to do with HP NPC since this an issue by players who cannot deal minimum damage requirement regardless of weapons platforms.
Cannons do have currently an issue at the harder elites. All weapons are viable except only one is optimal if you base this per STF. The issue is once you reach the upper echelons, that is if a player even reaches the upper echelons. However, even with those issues it still can hold on its own but wont anytime compete with Torps for optimal DPS at HSE.
That means cannons are viable weapons platforms. There shouldnt be any issue in terms of DPS minimum requirements with cannons if you are just playing advance, normal or those easy elites like korfez.
Also no one has yet marketed nor optimized cannons the same way has beams or the recent torps have. However, Cannons have certain fixes/bugs that needs fixing.
No need to touch BFAW. Once you start nerfing BFAW, Torps would be left alone at the top in PvE. This could double Torps lead in CCA, HSE(which torps already have a lead currently) and overtake beams in ISA. So much for balance talk
> Proposed changes to BFAW: Disagree
>
> 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.
^This. Only a very small number of people understand this logic. Sadly this truth is always ignored. People seem to have it stuck in their head that those who use the "best" abilities need to be punished, and a "nerf" is how we punish those who use it. It keeps the perpetual "that ability is OP!" attitudes rolling when people migrate to the next "best" thing...in which case starts the whole "nerf" process all over again.
Example. FAW was at one time the most powerful weapon ability in game. It was nerfed. Then CRF became the next best thing until it was nerfed. Then BAO was the next best thing until it was nerfed...all the way until now we are right back to square one again...back to FAW. Imagine that...? Yet we want to start the process of nerfing all over again? tsk tsk...
Again you're not comprehending. It's getting tiring. This is the last time I'll reply to you so I'll say this: if you were actually paying attention you'd know that I said a new kind of hybrid console, one that gives a full energy and full torpedo damage bonus, unlike the current hybrid consoles. At mk XIV epic it would give +37.5%/+37.5% and would be unique.
I'm now going back to my DHC+1 torp escorts (but no mines). My romulan just got back in his old T6 intel warbird and my other characters will soon go back to their escorts when I'm doing getting the ship traits I want. Is it optimal DPS? Hell no. But at this point I don't care. It's more fun to me and in a way it's a sort of protest against the current FAW meta. TRIBBLE that I'm going old school.
Unfortunately though FAW will have to be nerfed slightly (in my opinion only its efficiency vs single targets) along with maybe buffing the other skills, because like I've said before to only buff the other skills without nerfing it is to increase the power creep further. We want balance not power creep, right? I hope so. Can't just buff, buff, buff whenever there's disparity between skills. You have to also address why there's disparity to begin with, and currently it's because FAW is too good at doing everything in every situation. You have a lot of enemy fighters, incoming torpedoes and other small targets you need to destroy quickly? Use FAW. You have a lot of ships around you and you need AOE? Use FAW. You have a heavily shielded, high hull single target? Use FAW. You want to squeeze the most damage you can out of your ship? Don't equip a torpedo, equip another beam instead and FAW your way to victory (the fact that this is actually true makes it ridiculous. In what Star Trek universe should another beam be superior to a torpedo?)
Perhaps, just perhaps, this disparity can be solved by fixing overcapping. Maybe making 125 power a hard cap instead of a soft cap will make FAW no longer the One Skill To Rule Them All.
Maybe the devs also need to clearly define the purpose of each skill of the four energy weapon skills. The purpose of CRF and CSV are pretty clear but what about BO and BFAW? They're not so clearly defined.