Mixed energy + torp builds are pretty much viable in the game. It's just that they aren't optimal for topping DPS charts. My ship for example has 3 torps and 3 energy weapons. It can do respectable DPS, but I do not expect it to top DPS charts anytime soon.
Torps not optimal for topping dps charts is only true if you chase dps in the map ISA. If one has a flexibility in maps, a full torp is superior to beams in certain maps. Considering that both dps leagues and parses have more than just ISA chart.
If I were to Guess, your torp build, which I would most likely outdps in ISA with my rom tac beam build, may already outdps my beam rom tac build in CCA.
Yeah I was assuming ISA since that is the standard map for DPS parses. All the other maps on the table are for fun. AFAIK, if you want invites to the channels, the parse has to be based on ISA.
But yes, there are maps where torps do better than beams. Based on where Marshall is on the top of the charts, that would be HSE and CCA.
Mixed energy + torp builds are pretty much viable in the game. It's just that they aren't optimal for topping DPS charts. My ship for example has 3 torps and 3 energy weapons. It can do respectable DPS, but I do not expect it to top DPS charts anytime soon.
Torps not optimal for topping dps charts is only true if you chase dps in the map ISA. If one has a flexibility in maps, a full torp is superior to beams in certain maps. Considering that both dps leagues and parses have more than just ISA chart.
If I were to Guess, your torp build, which I would most likely outdps in ISA with my rom tac beam build, may already outdps my beam rom tac build in CCA.
Yeah I was assuming ISA since that is the standard map for DPS parses. All the other maps on the table are for fun. AFAIK, if you want invites to the channels, the parse has to be based on ISA.
But yes, there are maps where torps do better than beams. Based on where Marshall is on the top of the charts, that would be HSE and CCA.
Which seems odd, because HSE is ISA on steroids; a target-rich environment where there are plenty of targets both large and small. With very good tanks guarding you, it's a torper's paradise. I can see Sci-Torp boats doing very well in here.
Because if they do change that mechanics as you suggested and torp remains to be vastly superior in shield penetration mechanics, you end up with Overpowered Torps.
Torps are supposed to be the overpowered weapon. Currently it's 250 degree beam arrays which is completely backwards.
There are a lot of things about ship combat I don't agree with, like what I linked in my sig. Torpedoes have been a problem from the very beginning.
To support OP's implied position, what would happen if, say, every single starship gained one fore and one aft slot specifically for torpedoes and/or mines? Would it effect the game in any negative way?
To support OP's implied position, what would happen if, say, every single starship gained one fore and one aft slot specifically for torpedoes and/or mines? Would it effect the game in any negative way?
Power creep. 5/3 ships would become 6/4 and we just know they'd address the issue of further increased DPS by increasing NPC hit points.
I think the answer is simpler than that, like with cannons. Alter the way shields reduce kinetic damage by reducing their kinetic resistance the more they're damaged. It wouldn't affect targets with no shields but could go a long way toward making them useful vs shielded targets. They are the most damaging conventional weapons in Star Trek and I'd love to see them treated as such in this game.
I doubt they'll do anything though. The omega torpedo has been broken for years (damage was lowered back when the cooldown was bugged and it was never reverted). If it's not a source of revenue or part of an expansion they will not work on it.
EDIT: I may not be remembering the omega torpedo problem correctly. It's been years. The problem might be that the tooltip is no longer accurate because it was nerfed. Wish I could remember exactly.
If it's not a source of revenue or part of an expansion they will not work on it.
That is patently absurd. I get your point with the way torpedoes do damage and changing it would benefit more players than merely the ones that bother timing their torps, and I certainly agree. But to claim such a thing is ignorant to all of the instances that they have worked on game elements that aren't "a source of revenue or part of an expansion".
If it's not a source of revenue or part of an expansion they will not work on it.
That is patently absurd. I get your point with the way torpedoes do damage and changing it would benefit more players than merely the ones that bother timing their torps, and I certainly agree. But to claim such a thing is ignorant to all of the instances that they have worked on game elements that aren't "a source of revenue or part of an expansion".
I'm not talking about fixing bugs, I'm talking content and game balance development.
- torpedoes broken since the game's inception
- dreadnought's spinal lance still misaligned
- bridges either laughably too large or in more recent cases not even bothered being made
Those are just three off the top of my head right now. In the meantime we have no lack of new lock box and c-store ships.
Please list instances of development that were for the good of the game or to fix blatant balance issues and that weren't part of a major content addition or monetized in some way.
Torpedoes work fine if you know how to use them. Using Sci-skils, Drain Equipment, or shield-bypassing effects like those on the plasma type all work toward that end.
So... my suggestion is that in considering future ship releases there is a simple fix to encourage more 'Star Trek' like weapon loadouts by giving new ships new slots. You can do this in a lot of ways, but the tail gun is one model already in game where the slot is essentially free but limited. A new generation of ships called something like 'heavy ordnance vessels' could be released where they get a 'free' torpedo tube in the front, or even a specific torpedo to that class of ships. Rear facing mine racks could be incoroprated into some designs which alowed for only mines, and ordnace bays which could use either.
I've had a similar idea actually, although I'd want these extra slots applied to all existing ships as well as future ones.
1) 1 fore slot reserved for torpedoes only.
2) 1 misc slot reserved for mines only.
3) Cruisers (and possibly sci vessels) would have a passive feature allowing them to fire torpedoes equipped in the torpedo slot at 250 degrees rather than 90.
I love torps but 3 is a little wild...and honestly...forcing people to use torps will only make people complain...and I can guarantee ships like that would sell horribly unless it was some OP ship that had 10 weapon slots due to the torp and mines.
The only way torps are going to be played by more is if they give them a hefty buff or they actually fix torpedoes...none of this even a sliver of shields can make torps useless junk.
Never once in Trek have I hear one of the Captains say "Fire phasers and ready the photon torpedoes when their shields are down" Torpedoes were just as effective against shields as energy weapons. Problem is torpedoes need to be replenished...and since that likely wont work well I think maybe they should make torpedoes slower and maybe even change PWO's so they can't reduce the cooldown thus making torps OP.
Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
I love torps but 3 is a little wild...and honestly...forcing people to use torps will only make people complain...and I can guarantee ships like that would sell horribly unless it was some OP ship that had 10 weapon slots due to the torp and mines.
3 what?
Anyway, the slots I suggested were meant to be slots dedicated to just those items so they can see some use. Using the word "force" here is a little ridiculous (it's actually a pretty ridiculous word in many arguments, but that's for another topic) because of how it'd work. You have 1 slot on your ship meant for only shields. 1 slot for only deflectors. Do people complain about being "forced" to use shields or deflectors? Of course not.
The only way torps are going to be played by more is if they give them a hefty buff or they actually fix torpedoes...none of this even a sliver of shields can make torps useless junk.
Never once in Trek have I hear one of the Captains say "Fire phasers and ready the photon torpedoes when their shields are down" Torpedoes were just as effective against shields as energy weapons. Problem is torpedoes need to be replenished...and since that likely wont work well I think maybe they should make torpedoes slower and maybe even change PWO's so they can't reduce the cooldown thus making torps OP.
From what I understand about early STO, torpedoes actually did full damage to shields. The result was the opposite of what we see today: People thought energy weapons were stupid and just used torpedos because they were stronger.
The only real way to "fix" torpedoes is for cryptic to rein in the absurd scaling energy weapons have experienced since Delta Rising and the level cap increase. Not only would that be a step toward helping torpedoes find a place on ships again, but also, it'd mean the ridiculous enemy health pools we've been seeing lately could come down as well.
Torpedoes work fine if you know how to use them. Using Sci-skils, Drain Equipment, or shield-bypassing effects like those on the plasma type all work toward that end.
Sci skills compliment torpedoes, but the inherent bugs with torpedoes still need to be fixed.
Drain doesn't work the same universally. The Spheres in ISA are different from CSA, KSA, and BDA. Drain affects each differently. Lets not talk about the Tac Cubes....
Aside from the bugs already mentioned, the shield-bypassing torpedoes are still stuck in Lvl 50's content. Transphasics damage is so low, don't bother to bring them into Elite's, except Korfez, where there are plenty of smaller targets, BUT, by the time you juice up your Transphasics to high enough levels, you might as well bring in the Big 4 of Neutronic, Enh Bio, Gravimetric, and PEP, and get the job done faster.
The plasma torps all have a small DoT associated with them. What has always irked me is that the individual spread torps have significantly larger DoT components to them vs the high yield torp. 239 plasma DoT per torp in the spread vs 27 for a HIGH YIELD. Makes sense......
3 as in allowing Cruisers to fire torps at 250 degrees...I don't think that's a good idea...if torps do get better that would give people more of a reason to play Escorts or Sci ships because right now all that matters is weapon pew pew and Cruisers win...don't need them to win at torps as well if they ever do get fixed.
Still doesn't make sense? What no bloody middle ground? I mean it went from full effect to no effect at all...where is the logic in that?
I think having them being 100% effective and longer cooldowns make sense...I mean you never saw a ship just sit there and spam their torpedoes endlessly...or better yet make them like the Omega torp...where they have ammo that slowly regenerates...you can blow your ammo quickly or save it strategically...this would be a middle ground...you don't have to return to a starbase to replenish your torps every stf but you also wouldn't be spamming them endlessly either.
If people want some reason how that was possible can say replication techniques have inproved to the point where ships can independently replicate their own torpedoes but not rapidly.
Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
The only real way to "fix" torpedoes is for cryptic to rein in the absurd scaling energy weapons have experienced since Delta Rising and the level cap increase. Not only would that be a step toward helping torpedoes find a place on ships again, but also, it'd mean the ridiculous enemy health pools we've been seeing lately could come down as well.
Systems:
A new unique Shield has been added to the Shields R&D School: Hyper-Capacitor Shield Array [Cap]x4.
Has even higher Capacity and lower Regen than a Covariant base shield.
Has a built-in "Capacitance Bleed" mode which, when toggled on, increases Energy Weapon Damage at the price of draining a small amount of the players current Shield Capacity with each weapon fire.
This recipe requires Level 15 in the Shields R&D School, and also requires an R&D Shield Specialist to create.
So we know how they feel about reining in energy weapons.
Torpedoes can still be effective...the problem is you really need to go all out torpedoes to really see the benefits. Mixed loadouts don't perform as well unfortunately.
I just wanted to say that mixed, torpedo and energy weapons, builds can do very well.
[/quote]
From what I understand about early STO, torpedoes actually did full damage to shields. The result was the opposite of what we see today: People thought energy weapons were stupid and just used torpedos because they were stronger.
The only real way to "fix" torpedoes is for cryptic to rein in the absurd scaling energy weapons have experienced since Delta Rising and the level cap increase. Not only would that be a step toward helping torpedoes find a place on ships again, but also, it'd mean the ridiculous enemy health pools we've been seeing lately could come down as well.[/quote]
I completely agreed that something should be done. I think working to improve torpedoes current state is a good first step; energy weapon innovation helps Cryptic stay in business. If more people use torpedoes than more people can ask for torpedo changes and variation; and then at that point, hopefully, torpedo (kinetic) innovation will also help Cryptic stay in business.
I say no to forcing torpedoes onto ship builds. Maybe on on or two specific ships for thematic purposes, but absolutely NO for the purpose of balancing torps.
I say maybe yes to buffing torpedo damage across the board. I'm not convinced it's a serious issue and I think this thread is secretly a new angle at BFAW whining. Transphasic torp boats used to be a thing - they made the Breen set useful to get for a time. I don't know if they still are that popular though. I actually have a Romulan character that was working on a transphasic torp build with the warbird that can fire while cloaked, but I put him on the back burner and never got back to him.
I say no to forcing torpedoes onto ship builds. Maybe on on or two specific ships for thematic purposes, but absolutely NO for the purpose of balancing torps.
I say maybe yes to buffing torpedo damage across the board. I'm not convinced it's a serious issue and I think this thread is secretly a new angle at BFAW whining. Transphasic torp boats used to be a thing - they made the Breen set useful to get for a time. I don't know if they still are that popular though. I actually have a Romulan character that was working on a transphasic torp build with the warbird that can fire while cloaked, but I put him on the back burner and never got back to him.
Well now a days I'd say Plasma or Photon torp builds are bigger than Transphasic...there really hasn't been much in Transphasic torps while Plasma has gotten things like the Hyper Plasma and the Particle Emissions torp...Photon has the Grav and Bio-Molecular torps plus a bunch of damage boosts.
Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
innate kinetic shield resistance (KSR)
- always on, always 75%
- affected by ZERO debuffs
- no way to drain
- and where does that 75% go anyway? You're shields can't withstand the pressure of a focused particle beam but good golly they can dissipate 75% of a matter/anti-matter reaction into the ether
its a magic coat
lets not talk about the magical mechanics which don't apply torpedo damage to shields AFTER innate resistance has been calculated correctly. in other words 36,000 points of a shield damage from a torpedo post KSR causes far less damage than energy weapons in the same amount.
apparently the mechanic was introduced in beta to counter the fact torpedoes were acting like...well, torpedoes. but times have changed and its shouldn't require a science captain creating grav well magical concoctions and super omnipotent bleedthrough shield penetrating blob o gasms for a torpedo to be effective. they should be as simple to use as the instructions on a claymore.
innate kinetic shield resistance (KSR)
- always on, always 75%
- affected by ZERO debuffs
- no way to drain
- and where does that 75% go anyway? You're shields can't withstand the pressure of a focused particle beam but good golly they can dissipate 75% of a matter/anti-matter reaction into the ether
its a magic coat
lets not talk about the magical mechanics which don't apply torpedo damage to shields AFTER innate resistance has been calculated correctly. in other words 36,000 points of a shield damage from a torpedo post KSR causes far less damage than energy weapons in the same amount.
apparently the mechanic was introduced in beta to counter the fact torpedoes were acting like...well, torpedoes. but times have changed and its shouldn't require a science captain creating grav well magical concoctions and super omnipotent bleedthrough shield penetrating blob o gasms for a torpedo to be effective. they should be as simple to use as the instructions on a claymore.
It's kinda baffling how they could not come up with some kinda of middle ground...it went from one extreme to the other.
Only thing I can figure is perhaps one of two things...one is they said TRIBBLE it and didn't want to balance it...or well explanation two is even worse.
Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
Because if they do change that mechanics as you suggested and torp remains to be vastly superior in shield penetration mechanics, you end up with Overpowered Torps.
Torps are supposed to be the overpowered weapon. Currently it's 250 degree beam arrays which is completely backwards.
There are a lot of things about ship combat I don't agree with, like what I linked in my sig. Torpedoes have been a problem from the very beginning.
I have already address the issue that part of the problem is map. And the 250 degrees isnt really as powerful as the 90 degree beams. Basing yourself in misinformation and rumours much?
That means what you want is torps should be superior to beams in each in every way and every map which I totally disagree upon.
You cant stop complaining until you have all the candy and zero candy for the rest?
apparently the mechanic was introduced in beta to counter the fact torpedoes were acting like...well, torpedoes. but times have changed and its shouldn't require a science captain creating grav well magical concoctions and super omnipotent bleedthrough shield penetrating blob o gasms for a torpedo to be effective. they should be as simple to use as the instructions on a claymore.
When we had Marshall on HSE, we had no sci magic tagging along for torps to deal more DPS than beams vs multiple mobs having 2M+ shields.
I believe the current issue is information and misinformation. People with the correct information is not being asked or quoted, while players who have the incorrect information are the ones who keep posting. So you end up with new players thinking that the misinformation that they received is correct and came from authoritative sources. Thus, ending up with lower torp population.
That is why I am against propping down torps or any form of weapons platform since that would discourage players to play that particular weapons platform especially the new players. A lot of the beam population came from marketing, which are guides, helps, videos focusing on its strength rather than its weaknesses. Which is quite the opposite from what I see from other platforms with certain exception, who focuses on weaknesses and keeps posting "my weapons platforms sucks cryptic needs to buff it and nerf all other weapons"
When we had Marshall on HSE, we had no sci magic tagging along for torps to deal more DPS than beams vs multiple mobs having 2M+ shields.
I believe the current issue is information and misinformation. People with the correct information is not being asked or quoted, while players who have the incorrect information are the ones who keep posting. So you end up with new players thinking that the misinformation that they received is correct and came from authoritative sources. Thus, ending up with lower torp population.
That is why I am against propping down torps or any form of weapons platform since that would discourage players to play that particular weapons platform especially the new players. A lot of the beam population came from marketing, which are guides, helps, videos focusing on its strength rather than its weaknesses. Which is quite the opposite from what I see from other platforms with certain exception, who focuses on weaknesses and keeps posting "my weapons platforms sucks cryptic needs to buff it and nerf all other weapons"
to each his own of course. i've heard several stories as to why the mechanic was implemented in the first place. i wasn't playing during beta. but those reasons are irrelevant since the game has evolved for 5 years and anyone would be hard pressed to make a case for a decision made 5 years ago having relevance today. but the decision forces a specific build and class to be effective, particularly drain builds and sci, and when you do that with a fundamental weapon type (there are only 2, energy and kinetic) you restrict the customization options for players. and perceived limitations are still limitations. and lost revenue opportunity. i can outfit a ship with 8 green quality beams and EPtW and tear through through advanced content but try shooting a high yield tricobalt at a normal frigate and watch as 75% of your weapons effectiveness just disappears.
I have already address the issue that part of the problem is map. And the 250 degrees isnt really as powerful as the 90 degree beams. Basing yourself in misinformation and rumours much?
That means what you want is torps should be superior to beams in each in every way and every map which I totally disagree upon.
You cant stop complaining until you have all the candy and zero candy for the rest?
You keep talking about map problems when I'm discussing these problems in general. It's a well known fact that torpedoes underperform except with certain specialized builds on certain maps with coordinated premade teams. That does not mean they're fine.
I would love if torpedoes were superior to beams but the entire space combat system would have to be redesigned from scratch to make it work without it being completely imbalanced. Not that it matters, it would be trading one OP weapon for another.
And yeah 90 degree dual beams are more powerful than arrays...in theory, just like DHC are more powerful than them both in theory. It's the 8 beams covering both broadsides that make them superior, not their raw damage potential. Again, a few years ago it was fine because that beam coverage was balanced by the fact that they didn't do a whole lot of damage. You could broadside in a cruiser and enjoy survivability at the cost of DPS or you could fly an escort with DHC and enjoy DPS at the cost of survivability. Kinda imbalanced that now you can do both at the same time don't you think?
Were you even around for those times? Were you around for the days when DHC escorts ruled the DPS charts and cruisers were often zombie ships which couldn't deal as much damage but couldn't die either?
try shooting a high yield tricobalt at a normal frigate and watch as 75% of your weapons effectiveness just disappears.
Yeah disappears vs a ship that only has a small percentage of its shields remaining. Its shields can be in the red at the moment of impact and it's enough to significantly affect damage.
But the problem has been around since forever so I don't see it changing. They'll add new torpedoes here and there but won't address torpedo mechanics. They won't even acknowledge the problem.
Think it would be easier to get rid of the Torp consoles, and make all Torpedoes tied to one (or more) of the different beam/cannon damage types.
Which is basically if you use anti-proton weapons and have the crystalline entity torpedo, that is how it works there already.
How would you determine that though? Plasma torps would obviously be tied to plasma energy but what about photon, quantum, transphasic, chroniton, tricobalt, neutronic? It's not so easy.
I might not mind combined consoles that can give you both a specific energy and specific torpedo type but at the levels the separate consoles are now. +30% AP +30% photon might be a very desirable console.
Just a thought.
Oh and might be a good idea to make them unique or the stacking damage would be crazy.
Oh yeah hybrid energy and torp type consoles that might have a damage buff equal to one rarity level lower than single torp or energy type console sounds pretty good. I mean even if the types are not always convential like photon an phaser for instance so that we could have more versitility. I mean why would any energy type be tied to one or two specfic types of torps as you could make even more possibilities by having it be random really. I mean look at the resonating disruptor an transphasic torp set. I would replace the general cannon/beam/torp/mine type consoles, unless we give these general type buffing consoles some kind of random special buff they apply to their weapon type.
Like i said before i think tying the damage resistance/reduction a torp deals to shields to the ship's shield power would be a good idea, as it would make it that those who keep thier shield power low are more vulrable to torps fired at them compared to someone keeping max shield power. It would make maybe sub-system specific power draining abilities actually nice to have if they could be put into game, but to also make just energy draining more valuable. It jsut makes sense that your shield's resilence an resistance is based on your powerr level of your shields not your shield hp.
Think it would be easier to get rid of the Torp consoles, and make all Torpedoes tied to one (or more) of the different beam/cannon damage types.
Which is basically if you use anti-proton weapons and have the crystalline entity torpedo, that is how it works there already.
They missed a opportunity...one of the theories when they announced fleet tac consoles would be a energy and projectile hybrid...before the crit damage and crit chance was announced.
Or they could do it now...since they seem open to adding new things A.K.A. the new shield...maybe they can add hybrib consoles to Cannon, Beam, and Torpedo crafting trees...obviously they wont be great for the min/maxers but they would be great for the players who like using both energy and torp weapons.
Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
I say no to forcing torpedoes onto ship builds. Maybe on on or two specific ships for thematic purposes, but absolutely NO for the purpose of balancing torps.
There's that word again. Forcing. If you logged in one day and your ship suddenly had a bonus slot for torpedoes or mines only, would you seriously complain, or would you take the buff?
Even if they never actually buffed torpedo damage or did anything to temper their out-of-control energy weapon damage, giving every ship a free torpedo or mine slot would automatically make those things worth using. You wouldn't have to slot a torpedo, just like you don't have to slot any active duty officers. You'd only be cheating yourself if you didn't.
I say maybe yes to buffing torpedo damage across the board. I'm not convinced it's a serious issue and I think this thread is secretly a new angle at BFAW whining. Transphasic torp boats used to be a thing - they made the Breen set useful to get for a time. I don't know if they still are that popular though. I actually have a Romulan character that was working on a transphasic torp build with the warbird that can fire while cloaked, but I put him on the back burner and never got back to him.
No, torpedoes don't need "a buff," especially with what damage has become since Delta Rising. Nerf energy weapons and the gross assortment of things that buff them into the stratosphere and torpedoes would become useful again in a more organic fashion. As a bonus, pvp might work a little better, too!
I say no to forcing torpedoes onto ship builds. Maybe on on or two specific ships for thematic purposes, but absolutely NO for the purpose of balancing torps.
There's that word again. Forcing. If you logged in one day and your ship suddenly had a bonus slot for torpedoes or mines only, would you seriously complain, or would you take the buff?
Even if they never actually buffed torpedo damage or did anything to temper their out-of-control energy weapon damage, giving every ship a free torpedo or mine slot would automatically make those things worth using. You wouldn't have to slot a torpedo, just like you don't have to slot any active duty officers. You'd only be cheating yourself if you didn't.
I say maybe yes to buffing torpedo damage across the board. I'm not convinced it's a serious issue and I think this thread is secretly a new angle at BFAW whining. Transphasic torp boats used to be a thing - they made the Breen set useful to get for a time. I don't know if they still are that popular though. I actually have a Romulan character that was working on a transphasic torp build with the warbird that can fire while cloaked, but I put him on the back burner and never got back to him.
No, torpedoes don't need "a buff," especially with what damage has become since Delta Rising. Nerf energy weapons and the gross assortment of things that buff them into the stratosphere and torpedoes would become useful again in a more organic fashion. As a bonus, pvp might work a little better, too!
Trouble is they would have to categorize what can go in that slot...because if they didn't that would automatically make AP the undisputed champion of damage as long as you could slot the AP damage torp in that slot. The AP torp isn't a stellar torp but if they suddenly gave people a free torpedo slot would you not slot the AP torp in the slot if you obtained it...which would make the people who didn't weaker and leave the only other option the one plasma torp that does energy damage, but wouldn't be nearly as strong as it can be shot down.
Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
There's that word again. Forcing. If you logged in one day and your ship suddenly had a bonus slot for torpedoes or mines only, would you seriously complain, or would you take the buff?
And then what though? It still doesn't solve the skill point allocation nor the BOff slots required to run both an energy and torp build. Ok, sure they'll slot a torp, but do you really think they'll use them other than because there is a slot there that they can use? They'll still fly and skill up like they were using a pure energy build.
Making mixed, more canon builds more optimal than pure builds will involve much more than simply adding a torp or mine slot. You'll need to change the skill point tree, you'll need to change BOff skills and you'll need to change consoles for these weapons. To make it even more desirable to use mixed builds, you'll need to change how kinetic resists work vrs shields or change hull resistances against energy weapons.
Trouble is they would have to categorize what can go in that slot...because if they didn't that would automatically make AP the undisputed champion of damage as long as you could slot the AP damage torp in that slot. The AP torp isn't a stellar torp but if they suddenly gave people a free torpedo slot would you not slot the AP torp in the slot if you obtained it...which would make the people who didn't weaker and leave the only other option the one plasma torp that does energy damage, but wouldn't be nearly as strong as it can be shot down.
I think the devs quickly realized with the crystalline torpedo that torpedoes which gain benefits from particular energy consoles were a bad idea, and they nerfed it into the ground. Even with antiproton consoles, it's really not that great. It was one of those "great idea on paper, terrible when actually implemented" kinds of things.
And then what though? It still doesn't solve the skill point allocation nor the BOff slots required to run both an energy and torp build. Ok, sure they'll slot a torp, but do you really think they'll use them other than because there is a slot there that they can use? They'll still fly and skill up like they were using a pure energy build.
Making mixed, more canon builds more optimal than pure builds will involve much more than simply adding a torp or mine slot. You'll need to change the skill point tree, you'll need to change BOff skills and you'll need to change consoles for these weapons. To make it even more desirable to use mixed builds, you'll need to change how kinetic resists work vrs shields or change hull resistances against energy weapons.
Skill points are another design fail going on with this game, but that's really for another thread.
Even if people utilize their torpedo slot simply because it's there, that's still giving torpedoes some use, isn't it? They'll still need to select the one they want, acquire it, upgrade it, then replace it when they change their mind and spot a shinier one.
Also:
1) Again, dragging down energy damage would up the usefulness of torpedoes (and mines). Currently, people (myself included) go pure energy because it's so OP.
2) As for boff slots and such, people would have to decide what they want. Full-on FAW spam, a torpedo spread, or maybe even high yield for better single-target damage amidst their FAW spam.
3) Kinetic vs shields: Obviously full damage vs shields is a bad idea. It was before and would probably be again because torpedoes were designed as heavy burst damage while beams/cannons are sustained damage. Various people mentioned things like "reducing shield kinetic resist as shields lose health." That seems like a good idea to me, as it'd make torpedoes the devastating kill shot they typically are in canon.
4) Also along those lines, giving all torpedoes a sort of charge system like the omega would be a good way to simulate a semi-finite number without requiring unfun consumable maintenance. That way, you wouldn't just spam them all as you mindlessly mash the spacebar due to shields resisting much of the damage (unless transphasics). You'd want to pool them for when a shield facing was down so you could unload your kill shots.
Comments
Yeah I was assuming ISA since that is the standard map for DPS parses. All the other maps on the table are for fun. AFAIK, if you want invites to the channels, the parse has to be based on ISA.
But yes, there are maps where torps do better than beams. Based on where Marshall is on the top of the charts, that would be HSE and CCA.
| USS Curiosity - Pathfinder | USS Rift - Eternal |
The Science Ship Build Thread - Share your Sci Ship builds here!
Which seems odd, because HSE is ISA on steroids; a target-rich environment where there are plenty of targets both large and small. With very good tanks guarding you, it's a torper's paradise. I can see Sci-Torp boats doing very well in here.
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.
Torps are supposed to be the overpowered weapon. Currently it's 250 degree beam arrays which is completely backwards.
There are a lot of things about ship combat I don't agree with, like what I linked in my sig. Torpedoes have been a problem from the very beginning.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
Power creep. 5/3 ships would become 6/4 and we just know they'd address the issue of further increased DPS by increasing NPC hit points.
I think the answer is simpler than that, like with cannons. Alter the way shields reduce kinetic damage by reducing their kinetic resistance the more they're damaged. It wouldn't affect targets with no shields but could go a long way toward making them useful vs shielded targets. They are the most damaging conventional weapons in Star Trek and I'd love to see them treated as such in this game.
I doubt they'll do anything though. The omega torpedo has been broken for years (damage was lowered back when the cooldown was bugged and it was never reverted). If it's not a source of revenue or part of an expansion they will not work on it.
EDIT: I may not be remembering the omega torpedo problem correctly. It's been years. The problem might be that the tooltip is no longer accurate because it was nerfed. Wish I could remember exactly.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
I'm not talking about fixing bugs, I'm talking content and game balance development.
- torpedoes broken since the game's inception
- dreadnought's spinal lance still misaligned
- bridges either laughably too large or in more recent cases not even bothered being made
Those are just three off the top of my head right now. In the meantime we have no lack of new lock box and c-store ships.
Please list instances of development that were for the good of the game or to fix blatant balance issues and that weren't part of a major content addition or monetized in some way.
I love torps but 3 is a little wild...and honestly...forcing people to use torps will only make people complain...and I can guarantee ships like that would sell horribly unless it was some OP ship that had 10 weapon slots due to the torp and mines.
The only way torps are going to be played by more is if they give them a hefty buff or they actually fix torpedoes...none of this even a sliver of shields can make torps useless junk.
Never once in Trek have I hear one of the Captains say "Fire phasers and ready the photon torpedoes when their shields are down" Torpedoes were just as effective against shields as energy weapons. Problem is torpedoes need to be replenished...and since that likely wont work well I think maybe they should make torpedoes slower and maybe even change PWO's so they can't reduce the cooldown thus making torps OP.
Anyway, the slots I suggested were meant to be slots dedicated to just those items so they can see some use. Using the word "force" here is a little ridiculous (it's actually a pretty ridiculous word in many arguments, but that's for another topic) because of how it'd work. You have 1 slot on your ship meant for only shields. 1 slot for only deflectors. Do people complain about being "forced" to use shields or deflectors? Of course not.
From what I understand about early STO, torpedoes actually did full damage to shields. The result was the opposite of what we see today: People thought energy weapons were stupid and just used torpedos because they were stronger.
The only real way to "fix" torpedoes is for cryptic to rein in the absurd scaling energy weapons have experienced since Delta Rising and the level cap increase. Not only would that be a step toward helping torpedoes find a place on ships again, but also, it'd mean the ridiculous enemy health pools we've been seeing lately could come down as well.
Sci skills compliment torpedoes, but the inherent bugs with torpedoes still need to be fixed.
Drain doesn't work the same universally. The Spheres in ISA are different from CSA, KSA, and BDA. Drain affects each differently. Lets not talk about the Tac Cubes....
Aside from the bugs already mentioned, the shield-bypassing torpedoes are still stuck in Lvl 50's content. Transphasics damage is so low, don't bother to bring them into Elite's, except Korfez, where there are plenty of smaller targets, BUT, by the time you juice up your Transphasics to high enough levels, you might as well bring in the Big 4 of Neutronic, Enh Bio, Gravimetric, and PEP, and get the job done faster.
The plasma torps all have a small DoT associated with them. What has always irked me is that the individual spread torps have significantly larger DoT components to them vs the high yield torp. 239 plasma DoT per torp in the spread vs 27 for a HIGH YIELD. Makes sense......
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.
Still doesn't make sense? What no bloody middle ground? I mean it went from full effect to no effect at all...where is the logic in that?
I think having them being 100% effective and longer cooldowns make sense...I mean you never saw a ship just sit there and spam their torpedoes endlessly...or better yet make them like the Omega torp...where they have ammo that slowly regenerates...you can blow your ammo quickly or save it strategically...this would be a middle ground...you don't have to return to a starbase to replenish your torps every stf but you also wouldn't be spamming them endlessly either.
If people want some reason how that was possible can say replication techniques have inproved to the point where ships can independently replicate their own torpedoes but not rapidly.
So we know how they feel about reining in energy weapons.
I just wanted to say that mixed, torpedo and energy weapons, builds can do very well.
And I only run all torpedo builds.
From what I understand about early STO, torpedoes actually did full damage to shields. The result was the opposite of what we see today: People thought energy weapons were stupid and just used torpedos because they were stronger.
The only real way to "fix" torpedoes is for cryptic to rein in the absurd scaling energy weapons have experienced since Delta Rising and the level cap increase. Not only would that be a step toward helping torpedoes find a place on ships again, but also, it'd mean the ridiculous enemy health pools we've been seeing lately could come down as well.[/quote]
I completely agreed that something should be done. I think working to improve torpedoes current state is a good first step; energy weapon innovation helps Cryptic stay in business. If more people use torpedoes than more people can ask for torpedo changes and variation; and then at that point, hopefully, torpedo (kinetic) innovation will also help Cryptic stay in business.
I say maybe yes to buffing torpedo damage across the board. I'm not convinced it's a serious issue and I think this thread is secretly a new angle at BFAW whining. Transphasic torp boats used to be a thing - they made the Breen set useful to get for a time. I don't know if they still are that popular though. I actually have a Romulan character that was working on a transphasic torp build with the warbird that can fire while cloaked, but I put him on the back burner and never got back to him.
Well now a days I'd say Plasma or Photon torp builds are bigger than Transphasic...there really hasn't been much in Transphasic torps while Plasma has gotten things like the Hyper Plasma and the Particle Emissions torp...Photon has the Grav and Bio-Molecular torps plus a bunch of damage boosts.
- always on, always 75%
- affected by ZERO debuffs
- no way to drain
- and where does that 75% go anyway? You're shields can't withstand the pressure of a focused particle beam but good golly they can dissipate 75% of a matter/anti-matter reaction into the ether
its a magic coat
lets not talk about the magical mechanics which don't apply torpedo damage to shields AFTER innate resistance has been calculated correctly. in other words 36,000 points of a shield damage from a torpedo post KSR causes far less damage than energy weapons in the same amount.
apparently the mechanic was introduced in beta to counter the fact torpedoes were acting like...well, torpedoes. but times have changed and its shouldn't require a science captain creating grav well magical concoctions and super omnipotent bleedthrough shield penetrating blob o gasms for a torpedo to be effective. they should be as simple to use as the instructions on a claymore.
It's kinda baffling how they could not come up with some kinda of middle ground...it went from one extreme to the other.
Only thing I can figure is perhaps one of two things...one is they said TRIBBLE it and didn't want to balance it...or well explanation two is even worse.
I have already address the issue that part of the problem is map. And the 250 degrees isnt really as powerful as the 90 degree beams. Basing yourself in misinformation and rumours much?
That means what you want is torps should be superior to beams in each in every way and every map which I totally disagree upon.
You cant stop complaining until you have all the candy and zero candy for the rest?
When we had Marshall on HSE, we had no sci magic tagging along for torps to deal more DPS than beams vs multiple mobs having 2M+ shields.
I believe the current issue is information and misinformation. People with the correct information is not being asked or quoted, while players who have the incorrect information are the ones who keep posting. So you end up with new players thinking that the misinformation that they received is correct and came from authoritative sources. Thus, ending up with lower torp population.
That is why I am against propping down torps or any form of weapons platform since that would discourage players to play that particular weapons platform especially the new players. A lot of the beam population came from marketing, which are guides, helps, videos focusing on its strength rather than its weaknesses. Which is quite the opposite from what I see from other platforms with certain exception, who focuses on weaknesses and keeps posting "my weapons platforms sucks cryptic needs to buff it and nerf all other weapons"
to each his own of course. i've heard several stories as to why the mechanic was implemented in the first place. i wasn't playing during beta. but those reasons are irrelevant since the game has evolved for 5 years and anyone would be hard pressed to make a case for a decision made 5 years ago having relevance today. but the decision forces a specific build and class to be effective, particularly drain builds and sci, and when you do that with a fundamental weapon type (there are only 2, energy and kinetic) you restrict the customization options for players. and perceived limitations are still limitations. and lost revenue opportunity. i can outfit a ship with 8 green quality beams and EPtW and tear through through advanced content but try shooting a high yield tricobalt at a normal frigate and watch as 75% of your weapons effectiveness just disappears.
You keep talking about map problems when I'm discussing these problems in general. It's a well known fact that torpedoes underperform except with certain specialized builds on certain maps with coordinated premade teams. That does not mean they're fine.
I would love if torpedoes were superior to beams but the entire space combat system would have to be redesigned from scratch to make it work without it being completely imbalanced. Not that it matters, it would be trading one OP weapon for another.
And yeah 90 degree dual beams are more powerful than arrays...in theory, just like DHC are more powerful than them both in theory. It's the 8 beams covering both broadsides that make them superior, not their raw damage potential. Again, a few years ago it was fine because that beam coverage was balanced by the fact that they didn't do a whole lot of damage. You could broadside in a cruiser and enjoy survivability at the cost of DPS or you could fly an escort with DHC and enjoy DPS at the cost of survivability. Kinda imbalanced that now you can do both at the same time don't you think?
Were you even around for those times? Were you around for the days when DHC escorts ruled the DPS charts and cruisers were often zombie ships which couldn't deal as much damage but couldn't die either?
Yeah disappears vs a ship that only has a small percentage of its shields remaining. Its shields can be in the red at the moment of impact and it's enough to significantly affect damage.
But the problem has been around since forever so I don't see it changing. They'll add new torpedoes here and there but won't address torpedo mechanics. They won't even acknowledge the problem.
Which is basically if you use anti-proton weapons and have the crystalline entity torpedo, that is how it works there already.
How would you determine that though? Plasma torps would obviously be tied to plasma energy but what about photon, quantum, transphasic, chroniton, tricobalt, neutronic? It's not so easy.
I might not mind combined consoles that can give you both a specific energy and specific torpedo type but at the levels the separate consoles are now. +30% AP +30% photon might be a very desirable console.
Just a thought.
Oh and might be a good idea to make them unique or the stacking damage would be crazy.
Like i said before i think tying the damage resistance/reduction a torp deals to shields to the ship's shield power would be a good idea, as it would make it that those who keep thier shield power low are more vulrable to torps fired at them compared to someone keeping max shield power. It would make maybe sub-system specific power draining abilities actually nice to have if they could be put into game, but to also make just energy draining more valuable. It jsut makes sense that your shield's resilence an resistance is based on your powerr level of your shields not your shield hp.
They missed a opportunity...one of the theories when they announced fleet tac consoles would be a energy and projectile hybrid...before the crit damage and crit chance was announced.
Or they could do it now...since they seem open to adding new things A.K.A. the new shield...maybe they can add hybrib consoles to Cannon, Beam, and Torpedo crafting trees...obviously they wont be great for the min/maxers but they would be great for the players who like using both energy and torp weapons.
Even if they never actually buffed torpedo damage or did anything to temper their out-of-control energy weapon damage, giving every ship a free torpedo or mine slot would automatically make those things worth using. You wouldn't have to slot a torpedo, just like you don't have to slot any active duty officers. You'd only be cheating yourself if you didn't.
No, torpedoes don't need "a buff," especially with what damage has become since Delta Rising. Nerf energy weapons and the gross assortment of things that buff them into the stratosphere and torpedoes would become useful again in a more organic fashion. As a bonus, pvp might work a little better, too!
Trouble is they would have to categorize what can go in that slot...because if they didn't that would automatically make AP the undisputed champion of damage as long as you could slot the AP damage torp in that slot. The AP torp isn't a stellar torp but if they suddenly gave people a free torpedo slot would you not slot the AP torp in the slot if you obtained it...which would make the people who didn't weaker and leave the only other option the one plasma torp that does energy damage, but wouldn't be nearly as strong as it can be shot down.
Making mixed, more canon builds more optimal than pure builds will involve much more than simply adding a torp or mine slot. You'll need to change the skill point tree, you'll need to change BOff skills and you'll need to change consoles for these weapons. To make it even more desirable to use mixed builds, you'll need to change how kinetic resists work vrs shields or change hull resistances against energy weapons.
| USS Curiosity - Pathfinder | USS Rift - Eternal |
The Science Ship Build Thread - Share your Sci Ship builds here!
Skill points are another design fail going on with this game, but that's really for another thread.
Even if people utilize their torpedo slot simply because it's there, that's still giving torpedoes some use, isn't it? They'll still need to select the one they want, acquire it, upgrade it, then replace it when they change their mind and spot a shinier one.
Also:
1) Again, dragging down energy damage would up the usefulness of torpedoes (and mines). Currently, people (myself included) go pure energy because it's so OP.
2) As for boff slots and such, people would have to decide what they want. Full-on FAW spam, a torpedo spread, or maybe even high yield for better single-target damage amidst their FAW spam.
3) Kinetic vs shields: Obviously full damage vs shields is a bad idea. It was before and would probably be again because torpedoes were designed as heavy burst damage while beams/cannons are sustained damage. Various people mentioned things like "reducing shield kinetic resist as shields lose health." That seems like a good idea to me, as it'd make torpedoes the devastating kill shot they typically are in canon.
4) Also along those lines, giving all torpedoes a sort of charge system like the omega would be a good way to simulate a semi-finite number without requiring unfun consumable maintenance. That way, you wouldn't just spam them all as you mindlessly mash the spacebar due to shields resisting much of the damage (unless transphasics). You'd want to pool them for when a shield facing was down so you could unload your kill shots.