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.
The issue you just mentioned is not torp damage mechanics but ease of use. That means you want a new player who has no idea of mechanics or little understainding dealing the same amount of damage in beams and torps. Or a player with lower pilot skills be able to deal more damage with little effort in torps.
But that is the thing, once we start talking about piloting/optimized build or the lack of it, the problem aint anymore weapons platform.
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?
Sorry no. Check all the top parses among beams and see the difference between DBB vs Beam arrays. DBB> Beam arrays.
With regards to survivability, based on what you just said, i dont think you understand the mechanics that much, Weapons platforms has nothing to do with survivability. I can use a Pilot ship and build a glass cannon and still use pure beam platforms, the same way I can use a cruiser and use torps just how SoB dealt 170k+ in scimitar using the AP torp.
That is why I see no imbalance except you trying to spin it as imbalance.
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!
It is this kind of statement or misinformation what drives players away from Torps. If you keep posting stuff like this, what you envision will never happen. And the OP is wondering why there are few torp users? Look at what you said, think about the effect it does of players who barely plays the game. If they just browsed and caught only what you posted they will believe your version of story, mind you which is far from the truth, to the point that they wont play torps.
Considering the facts, the damage ratio of a map optimal for beams is 15:13 for the top pure beams vs top pure torps in favor of beams. In CCA, it is 12:7 advantage of a pure torp over a pure beams. In HSE, it is a 9:7 advantage of pure torps over pure beams.
Would you consider that torps useful now you know the facts?
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.
I don't know if I'd go that far...because later on they released a Plasma Torpedo that is also affected by Plasma Energy consoles.
I think buffing torps and going with a system based on the Omega torp would be a good idea...that way you could use them for quick burst or pepper them in for more of a sustained effect.
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.
No not really, because they'll still fly it like a FAW boat because piloting-wise, it would still be easier to DPS via broadsides with FAW than turn fore or aft to fire a normal torpedo volley.
The only people who can use a fore torp in this case would be DBB users, but then again they'll have to sacrifice a BOff slot or even skill tree points to make firing a torp spread or a HY worthwhile.
In the current mechanics, going pure beams or focusing on kinetics is the way to go. Adding an extra slot for torps just won't help that. I also think that adding an extra slot for torpedoes fore and aft would make torp boats OP because they essentially gain an extra weapons slot. Unless you'd want to limit the other weapons slots to work with beams only, then it goes back to the argument that you are forcing a specific build to everyone else.
If you fix the mechanics, there will be no need for extra torp or mine only slots. The current ship weapon slots will be enough to make mixed builds more viable.
At this point I doubt anything can be done to make torpedoes legitimately viable without completely replacing the way weapon abilities work. Sure, they can make torpedoes OP enough you'd be stupid not to equip one or force players to use them against their will by some contrived mechanic, but a balanced option they will never be as long as bridge officer abilities are the limiting factor.
In my opinion, the problem lies with the kinetic resistance for shields and the damage that fire at will beams can do. Changing the latter would also make cannons a bit more attractive.
OP is way off base. Torps can be effective when built around it. I run a photon build on my sci captain and his fleet experimental and it is quite effective.
My tac has the neutronic and that can crit for 60-100k with no buffs and only spread 1.
A complete overhaul of skill tree? Just my humble opinion it doesn't seem necessary. But even if it were, it's not likely to happen anyway. Maybe start with something simple. For starters, simply boosting the base damage of at least basic torpedoes would make them more useful. Eliminate the High Yied penalty for torpedoes, leaving each one that flies out in 2, 3, or 4 at full strength instead of 80 or even 50% each. Rework the torpedo consoles to do 4x the buff they do now and only allow ONE per ship. that leaves a lot of room elsewhere for beam arrays. Or maybe hybrid consoles are the way to go. If anyone thinks this is asking too much, remember the Hazari proverb: If you don't ask for everything, you don't get anything.
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.
ts.
"great idea on paper, terrible when actually implemented" is what STO is all about. It's actually kind of funny.
With regards to survivability, based on what you just said, i dont think you understand the mechanics that much, Weapons platforms has nothing to do with survivability. I can use a Pilot ship and build a glass cannon and still use pure beam platforms, the same way I can use a cruiser and use torps just how SoB dealt 170k+ in scimitar using the AP torp.
Now you're starting to see the overall problem this game has.
Let me ask one question to help continue your understanding of the problem: Are cruisers currently the best ship you can use for both DPS and survivability? Barring scimitars (which are their own wholly OP class) and specialized science builds.
In my opinion, the problem lies with the kinetic resistance for shields and the damage that fire at will beams can do. Changing the latter would also make cannons a bit more attractive.
Maybe I should do a video addressing these points? I wouldn't call myself an authority on torpedo mechanics in this game (because I didn't create them), but I think I've earned the right to say that I am knowledgeable about them.
Maybe I should do a video addressing these points? I wouldn't call myself an authority on torpedo mechanics in this game (because I didn't create them), but I think I've earned the right to say that I am knowledgeable about them.
Please do when you have the time. I'd like to grab more pointers.
Maybe I should do a video addressing these points? I wouldn't call myself an authority on torpedo mechanics in this game (because I didn't create them), but I think I've earned the right to say that I am knowledgeable about them.
Maybe I should do a video addressing these points? I wouldn't call myself an authority on torpedo mechanics in this game (because I didn't create them), but I think I've earned the right to say that I am knowledgeable about them.
Can you give a quick summary of your thoughts? According to your sig you feel torpedoes are underpowered, I'm guessing because of underlying game mechanics like most of us seem to think. In my opinion the biggest problem is how shields negate 75% of their damage no matter how much shields are left or how much power is devoted to them.
A good torpedo crit vs a ship that just lost it's shields can be devastating though. No disputing that. I've had over 100k crits with the enhanced bio torpedo:
Your Enhanced Bio-Molecular Photon Torpedo - High Yield II deals 100339 damage (45951) Kinetic Damage(Critical) to Tholian Recluse
It was reduced by over half by I'm guessing innate resists but over 100k crit? Nice.
The issue you just mentioned is not torp damage mechanics but ease of use. That means you want a new player who has no idea of mechanics or little understainding dealing the same amount of damage in beams and torps. Or a player with lower pilot skills be able to deal more damage with little effort in torps.
But that is the thing, once we start talking about piloting/optimized build or the lack of it, the problem aint anymore weapons platform.
I see your point. And no I would not want to make torpedoes so easy to use. I've got my torpedoes doing spike damage upwards of 100K in some cases. I do believe in making highly effective builds difficult to maintain or else there would be no reason to buy anything. I'm advocating for a better balance. My point was almost any ship with any captain type can tear through content using beams on the cheap. Their setups are rather simple. But torpedo builds lean towards specific ships and captain types. I would actually suggest reducing the damage output of torpedoes in conjunction with castrating the innate kinetic resistance.
Maybe I should do a video addressing these points? I wouldn't call myself an authority on torpedo mechanics in this game (because I didn't create them), but I think I've earned the right to say that I am knowledgeable about them.
I would like to see this. Torpedo myth busters?
EDIT: All this talk about the torpedoes themselves and we haven't even discussed other game mechanics that further reduce torpedo effectiveness
- high yield NPC torpedoes that "seek and kill" your high yield torpedoes but don't die. I've seen them go out of their way to collide w/ my torp then change direction to come after me
- fighters that dive in the way the last minute of a high yield, detonate the torp while it registers as a miss so they receive no damage but i somehow get the full effect of the blast radius
- shield facings that go down but somehow the target indicator shows it to be the opposite shield facing (admit this would affect anyone shooting at a target not just torpedo captains)
- when set to auto fire and a shield facing goes down with no torps on cooldown and no other powers activating there is often a severe delay where the torpedo will not fire unless manually triggered
- high yield misfires when turning into an enemy where regular torpedoes do not suffer this
- sheilds that go down from the phaser proc that seem to stay offline until you fire a torpedo and most often come back online right before a torp impact
- random firing sequences of torpedoes set to autofire (even using the trick where the order in which you set a weapon to autofire determines its firing order often times torpedoes will still fire in random order forcing more manual operation. beams don't suffer this because they often fire all of the same weapon, who cares which beam fires first, torp captains are concerned with this)
so it's not just the torpedoes themselves many of the supporting game features further make using them more cumbersome than beams.
I always run 1 torpedo on the front. My favorite so far is the dyson torpedo, with the console and proton weapon. Set bonus is very nice. I have no idea what my dps is, but I have never had a complaint and I can solo almost anything I want. I cant imagine running a ship with no torpedo.
Beam the shields down, torpedo spread or HY depending on what i'm fighting. They hit pretty hard.
Maybe I should do a video addressing these points? I wouldn't call myself an authority on torpedo mechanics in this game (because I didn't create them), but I think I've earned the right to say that I am knowledgeable about them.
I believe you are the authority in Torp PvE, no one more qualified than you. Since you also embrace diversity, I would prefer you addressing this than some trolls here.
Now you're starting to see the overall problem this game has.
Let me ask one question to help continue your understanding of the problem: Are cruisers currently the best ship you can use for both DPS and survivability? Barring scimitars (which are their own wholly OP class) and specialized science builds.
No it is not a problem of the game. It is called diversity. If a player is stringent on the one build/set of builds or should only do a particular on a particular ship, the problem is the player. If a player adapts/variable, it shouldnt be a problem. That is why the first player or set of players who complain about this are players who are demanding that the game forces only only one build or set of builds.
Like I keep on saying all what you stated down are player problems. If you cannot accept diversity/variability nor adapt and spin it is imbalance, then the problem is your attitude or approach in the game.
No it is not a problem of the game. It is called diversity. If a player is stringent on the one build/set of builds or should only do a particular on a particular ship, the problem is the player. If a player adapts/variable, it shouldnt be a problem. That is why the first player or set of players who complain about this are players who are demanding that the game forces only only one build or set of builds.
Like I keep on saying all what you stated down are player problems. If you cannot accept diversity/variability nor adapt and spin it is imbalance, then the problem is your attitude or approach in the game.
What diversity? What are you talking about?
Do you mean the "everyone is using AP beam arrays" diversity that the game currently has?
I'm wondering if english isn't your primary language because you're going off on tangents that make little sense.
This game used to have a lot more diversity than it does now. The devs can't seem to get it right even though players constantly tell them how.
Newsflash: people have been complaining about torpedoes for forever. They've never worked correctly. People used to complain about beam arrays and FAW (yes there was a time when FAW was considered a bad skill) and now look. The problem is they went way too far and now nobody uses anything but them.
Fact: This game used to be nicknamed Escorts Online because DHC ruled the DPS charts. They were balanced by their very narrow arc and the fact that you usually needed an escort for them. DHC ships were glass cannons and elite STFs could fail if too many people were dying.
Fact: Back then there was a real choice between a DPS ship and a tanky ship. You really couldn't have both. Escorts were fragile and too much aggro could (and did) get them killed. Cruisers survived a lot better but didn't deal as much damage (they were often called "zombie ships" in PvP because you couldn't kill them but they couldn't kill you either). Science ships didn't really fit anywhere. Most people chose DPS escorts because the game never made tanking without DPS useful. It's always been better to DPS your way to victory as fast as possible.
Fact: Cruisers got some much-needed loving and became a viable alternative to cannon escorts. For a while you saw a healthy mix of DHC escorts and beam cruisers. Good times. This was right before a2b became popular.
Fact: The game can now be called FAW Online because everybody uses beams and FAW. There's no need for any other tactical weapon skill. It's superior to BO, CRF, CSV, THY and TS.
Fact: Very few people fly escorts now because you don't need their bonus weapons power, their maneuverability or their DHC. You can literally sit there in a cruiser or other large ship and spacebar your way to victory with beams and FAW.
Fact: DPSers stay away from torpedoes because a beam in that slot delivers more DPS. A beam delivers more DPS than a torpedo. I don't know about anyone else but to me that's ridiculous.
I always have at least one torpedo in a fore slot. Maybe I'm stubborn about it or maybe it's that I don't aspire to higher and higher DPS. Maybe I like how pretty they look with torpedo spread.
Something that I'd like to see is for each enemy group (Klingon NPCs, Cardassian NPCs, Jem'Hadar NPCs, etc.) to have one weapon type they are most resistant to (e.g. only takes 70-80% as much damage from) and one type that they are weak against (20-40% bonus damage against them). This would encourage players to vary their equipment based on what they were expecting to face in combat.
Nice summary of the situation, so what is your solution to the problem?
Basicly it's underpowered torpedos. Namely underpowered basic torpedoes. Not all of us have filled our reps enough and gotten the Neutronic/Gravimetric/Bio-torp/etc... Not all of us can afford the mega expensive kemocite. And some of us might want to do like the shows do and put torp on each side, impossible with rep torpedoes as they're only one per ship. Am I asking for the basics to be as good as the rep torps? Not so much. I'm just asking for them to not be so far below that it's a joke at the expense of anyone who still uses them on their T5/T5U/T6 ships
Basicly it's underpowered torpedos. Namely underpowered basic torpedoes. Not all of us have filled our reps enough and gotten the Neutronic/Gravimetric/Bio-torp/etc... Not all of us can afford the mega expensive kemocite. And some of us might want to do like the shows do and put torp on each side, impossible with rep torpedoes as they're only one per ship. Am I asking for the basics to be as good as the rep torps? Not so much. I'm just asking for them to not be so far below that it's a joke at the expense of anyone who still uses them on their T5/T5U/T6 ships
I think that's the biggest complaint. i add my two cents because i've been determined to make torpedoes relevant on my builds and i've found a way, but it took a lot of effort, time, grinding and money. much more than it took to be effective with beams which took little effort no grinding and small amounts of EC on the exchange. newer players may be put off by this and it shows in the sentiment a lot of people have.
100k crits against bare hull with torpedoes is nice, but 20k+ crits with energy weapons tend to be more prevelant, unless you invest heavily in reduced launch times for torpeodes.
And, the energy weapons has far better cycle rates, and doesn't suffer the innate 75% kinetic DR that torpedoes do.
Torpedoes are the wait and bait weapon, while energy weapons just burn thru everything quickly with no effort weapon!
It's either invest all in on energy weapons to kill quickly, or invest heavily in wait and bait kinetic rampage, there is very little middle ground balance.
I think the first ship I ever decked out with no torpedoes was when the Vista class came out, I just ran with the aux cannons. I have always ran torpedoes and as long as they are used on bare hull they are devastating. I wist they were more effective against shields, but torpedoes in the shows and movies have never been insane against full shields. We have all seen the epic beatdown Kirk issued in the end of star trek 2 with what 2 torpedoes into the reliant, but in star trek 6 Enterprise took a number of shots before a torpedo finally made a new hole in the saucer section.
I am all in favor of adding a dedicated torpedo slot fore and aft to every ship, mostly because I have always felt ships were under armed in the game compared to what was seen in the shows and movies. Torpedoes as designed are fine, but since they fire less rapidly than energy weapons, the limited tac consoles and doff slots are usually better spent on boosting energy weapons. I normally have a projectile weapon officer in my doff roster to help fire more torpedoes and on tac based ships it is easier to get a torpedo high yeild 3 or some other torpedo power into play, that makes torpedoes very devastating. What may make torpedoes more used in the game would be having all weapon boosting consoles boost both an energy weapon and a projectile weapon, or allow a combination of 2 different consoles into 1 upon reaching level 20 in beam, cannon, projectile and engineering schools of the R&D program.
Torps have their uses, I go traditional loadout on cruisers with 6 beam including the KCB and 2 torps, the wide angle quantum up front and the neutronic aft
"The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
Fact: Cruisers got some much-needed loving and became a viable alternative to cannon escorts. For a while you saw a healthy mix of DHC escorts and beam cruisers. Good times. This was right before a2b became popular.
There is a healthy mix now. Chocies of playing cruisers and escorts is a matter of player preference rather than necessity. Because I dont see in game what you are seeing. I see a mix between cruisers and escorts parked at new romulus or esd/sol system. I also see a mixture at top level dps of cruisers and escorts.
With the current mechanics I can do 10k with mines. Thats more than viable for advance queues. Now if you saying optimal, why does every platform need to be optimal?
Fact: Very few people fly escorts now because you don't need their bonus weapons power, their maneuverability or their DHC. You can literally sit there in a cruiser or other large ship and spacebar your way to victory with beams and FAW.
Where are you getting your facts? from your dreams? Where is your proof that very few fly escorts? If you dont like BFAW dont play it. Your consistent attacks onBeam FAW is much like any form hate crime or discrimination. You hate it/dont like because it is different. Respect diversity. More importantly, Get your facts straight.
Fact: DPSers stay away from torpedoes because a beam in that slot delivers more DPS. A beam delivers more DPS than a torpedo. I don't know about anyone else but to me that's ridiculous.
Which DPSers, Marshal or other torp users doing 50k or more than 100k DPS? Diversity. If you dont respect diversity of choices, the problem is you. NoT only that, you just stated a fallacy again. Torps are more powerful in certain cases just like beams are. Beams are not always powerful than torps. Just like Torps not always powerful than beams. Your statement is what drives Torp population down, misinformation from a non-expert, bad marketing for torps.
It's either invest all in on energy weapons to kill quickly, or invest heavily in wait and bait kinetic rampage, there is very little middle ground balance.
When is balanced, balanced? That is what I have been asking players who have been claiming balance.
When torps dominate where beams suppose dominate? Does this mean torps need to win each every horse race? Or balance is not balance but more of bias?
Look at the post I made above, Torps are winning at certain horse races but not all horse races. So why does Torps or any weapons platforms like beams or cannons need to win every horse race or every niche?
Interesting. My wife and I were talking about this earlier, and I had an interesting idea for a more balanced ship.
If I had made STO, my ship designs would have been _much_ different than the STO designs. Instead of the setup we have now, I'd have made something more like Starfleet Command, with defined weapons slots. Here's a few examples.
The Galaxy Class Cruiser would be a beam-heavy ship. with its most powerful array having a 270 degree coverage, allowing anything except targets directly behind the ship to be struck. It would have two, one dorsal, one ventral, allowing for anything within the arc of fire to be hit with two powerful beams. Another 8 smaller beam mounts would increase coverage, but each beam would be a small fraction of the power of the main beams. You'd get extra damage from targets in their arcs, which might be a 90 Starboard and 90 port for two of the arrays, 90 aft for the two small arrays on the back of the saucer, and a 360 arc for the ventral belly array, though you'd have to implement roll maneuvers to allow the ship to move that arc and keep enemy ships from staying above the GCS and denying the ship that array. The other two weapons would be the forward and aft Photon Torpedo mounts, with requirements to launch their torpedoes at ships in the forward and aft arcs of the ship.
The Defiant Class Escort would be a cannon-heavy ship, mounting two small beam arrays that have 360 coverage (one ventral, the other dorsal, but same roll problem). The main weapons would be four heavy cannon mounts mounted forward, plus a pair of torpedo mounts fore and another pair (?) aft. This would be a very damaging ship, as you can imagine.
This has interesting implications for the Sovereign Class. Like the GCS before it, it has excellent beam coverage, with its strongest loadouts in its fore, left broadside and right broadside arc. It has heavier torpedo armament than the GCS, with a total of 10 photon torpedo launchers, but what sets the SCS apart from the GCS is the quantum torpedo turret. In addition to the fixed torpedo launcher with their usual 90deg mount, the SCS mounts a torpedo launcher that can lob torpedoes anywhere within a 270deg arc of the ship.
This would have had fundamental changes across the board with the ships, though. How do you do consoles for a ship that must support at least 2, if not 3, different classes of weapons? Should I have a torpedo and energy console set? And how do you handle the heavy damage from the saucer phaser arrays on the GCS?
I think the realities of ships and the design choices by captains are influenced by the tradeoffs Cryptic made to force Star Trek into a MMO friendly game.
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.
Yeah. There's actually a section in the TNG tech manual about pairing beams and torpedoes for extra fun. Called 'dimpling', the idea was to stress a section of the shield grid with beam weapons to the point that a torpedo can slip past, delivering more of its damage to the hull. I could imagine a BOFF tac skill here -- "Shield Dimpling". For a set time, your beams increase the shield penetration of torpedoes.
Comments
The issue you just mentioned is not torp damage mechanics but ease of use. That means you want a new player who has no idea of mechanics or little understainding dealing the same amount of damage in beams and torps. Or a player with lower pilot skills be able to deal more damage with little effort in torps.
But that is the thing, once we start talking about piloting/optimized build or the lack of it, the problem aint anymore weapons platform.
Sorry no. Check all the top parses among beams and see the difference between DBB vs Beam arrays. DBB> Beam arrays.
With regards to survivability, based on what you just said, i dont think you understand the mechanics that much, Weapons platforms has nothing to do with survivability. I can use a Pilot ship and build a glass cannon and still use pure beam platforms, the same way I can use a cruiser and use torps just how SoB dealt 170k+ in scimitar using the AP torp.
That is why I see no imbalance except you trying to spin it as imbalance.
It is this kind of statement or misinformation what drives players away from Torps. If you keep posting stuff like this, what you envision will never happen. And the OP is wondering why there are few torp users? Look at what you said, think about the effect it does of players who barely plays the game. If they just browsed and caught only what you posted they will believe your version of story, mind you which is far from the truth, to the point that they wont play torps.
Considering the facts, the damage ratio of a map optimal for beams is 15:13 for the top pure beams vs top pure torps in favor of beams. In CCA, it is 12:7 advantage of a pure torp over a pure beams. In HSE, it is a 9:7 advantage of pure torps over pure beams.
Would you consider that torps useful now you know the facts?
I don't know if I'd go that far...because later on they released a Plasma Torpedo that is also affected by Plasma Energy consoles.
I think buffing torps and going with a system based on the Omega torp would be a good idea...that way you could use them for quick burst or pepper them in for more of a sustained effect.
No not really, because they'll still fly it like a FAW boat because piloting-wise, it would still be easier to DPS via broadsides with FAW than turn fore or aft to fire a normal torpedo volley.
The only people who can use a fore torp in this case would be DBB users, but then again they'll have to sacrifice a BOff slot or even skill tree points to make firing a torp spread or a HY worthwhile.
In the current mechanics, going pure beams or focusing on kinetics is the way to go. Adding an extra slot for torps just won't help that. I also think that adding an extra slot for torpedoes fore and aft would make torp boats OP because they essentially gain an extra weapons slot. Unless you'd want to limit the other weapons slots to work with beams only, then it goes back to the argument that you are forcing a specific build to everyone else.
If you fix the mechanics, there will be no need for extra torp or mine only slots. The current ship weapon slots will be enough to make mixed builds more viable.
| USS Curiosity - Pathfinder | USS Rift - Eternal |
The Science Ship Build Thread - Share your Sci Ship builds here!
My tac has the neutronic and that can crit for 60-100k with no buffs and only spread 1.
"great idea on paper, terrible when actually implemented" is what STO is all about. It's actually kind of funny.
Now you're starting to see the overall problem this game has.
Let me ask one question to help continue your understanding of the problem: Are cruisers currently the best ship you can use for both DPS and survivability? Barring scimitars (which are their own wholly OP class) and specialized science builds.
That's my opinion too.
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.
| USS Curiosity - Pathfinder | USS Rift - Eternal |
The Science Ship Build Thread - Share your Sci Ship builds here!
Yes!!! Very Much!! Please!!
Can you give a quick summary of your thoughts? According to your sig you feel torpedoes are underpowered, I'm guessing because of underlying game mechanics like most of us seem to think. In my opinion the biggest problem is how shields negate 75% of their damage no matter how much shields are left or how much power is devoted to them.
A good torpedo crit vs a ship that just lost it's shields can be devastating though. No disputing that. I've had over 100k crits with the enhanced bio torpedo:
It was reduced by over half by I'm guessing innate resists but over 100k crit? Nice.
I see your point. And no I would not want to make torpedoes so easy to use. I've got my torpedoes doing spike damage upwards of 100K in some cases. I do believe in making highly effective builds difficult to maintain or else there would be no reason to buy anything. I'm advocating for a better balance. My point was almost any ship with any captain type can tear through content using beams on the cheap. Their setups are rather simple. But torpedo builds lean towards specific ships and captain types. I would actually suggest reducing the damage output of torpedoes in conjunction with castrating the innate kinetic resistance.
I would like to see this. Torpedo myth busters?
EDIT: All this talk about the torpedoes themselves and we haven't even discussed other game mechanics that further reduce torpedo effectiveness
- high yield NPC torpedoes that "seek and kill" your high yield torpedoes but don't die. I've seen them go out of their way to collide w/ my torp then change direction to come after me
- fighters that dive in the way the last minute of a high yield, detonate the torp while it registers as a miss so they receive no damage but i somehow get the full effect of the blast radius
- shield facings that go down but somehow the target indicator shows it to be the opposite shield facing (admit this would affect anyone shooting at a target not just torpedo captains)
- when set to auto fire and a shield facing goes down with no torps on cooldown and no other powers activating there is often a severe delay where the torpedo will not fire unless manually triggered
- high yield misfires when turning into an enemy where regular torpedoes do not suffer this
- sheilds that go down from the phaser proc that seem to stay offline until you fire a torpedo and most often come back online right before a torp impact
- random firing sequences of torpedoes set to autofire (even using the trick where the order in which you set a weapon to autofire determines its firing order often times torpedoes will still fire in random order forcing more manual operation. beams don't suffer this because they often fire all of the same weapon, who cares which beam fires first, torp captains are concerned with this)
so it's not just the torpedoes themselves many of the supporting game features further make using them more cumbersome than beams.
Beam the shields down, torpedo spread or HY depending on what i'm fighting. They hit pretty hard.
I believe you are the authority in Torp PvE, no one more qualified than you. Since you also embrace diversity, I would prefer you addressing this than some trolls here.
No it is not a problem of the game. It is called diversity. If a player is stringent on the one build/set of builds or should only do a particular on a particular ship, the problem is the player. If a player adapts/variable, it shouldnt be a problem. That is why the first player or set of players who complain about this are players who are demanding that the game forces only only one build or set of builds.
Like I keep on saying all what you stated down are player problems. If you cannot accept diversity/variability nor adapt and spin it is imbalance, then the problem is your attitude or approach in the game.
What diversity? What are you talking about?
Do you mean the "everyone is using AP beam arrays" diversity that the game currently has?
I'm wondering if english isn't your primary language because you're going off on tangents that make little sense.
This game used to have a lot more diversity than it does now. The devs can't seem to get it right even though players constantly tell them how.
Newsflash: people have been complaining about torpedoes for forever. They've never worked correctly. People used to complain about beam arrays and FAW (yes there was a time when FAW was considered a bad skill) and now look. The problem is they went way too far and now nobody uses anything but them.
Fact: Back then there was a real choice between a DPS ship and a tanky ship. You really couldn't have both. Escorts were fragile and too much aggro could (and did) get them killed. Cruisers survived a lot better but didn't deal as much damage (they were often called "zombie ships" in PvP because you couldn't kill them but they couldn't kill you either). Science ships didn't really fit anywhere. Most people chose DPS escorts because the game never made tanking without DPS useful. It's always been better to DPS your way to victory as fast as possible.
Fact: Cruisers got some much-needed loving and became a viable alternative to cannon escorts. For a while you saw a healthy mix of DHC escorts and beam cruisers. Good times. This was right before a2b became popular.
Fact: The game can now be called FAW Online because everybody uses beams and FAW. There's no need for any other tactical weapon skill. It's superior to BO, CRF, CSV, THY and TS.
Fact: Very few people fly escorts now because you don't need their bonus weapons power, their maneuverability or their DHC. You can literally sit there in a cruiser or other large ship and spacebar your way to victory with beams and FAW.
Fact: DPSers stay away from torpedoes because a beam in that slot delivers more DPS. A beam delivers more DPS than a torpedo. I don't know about anyone else but to me that's ridiculous.
I always have at least one torpedo in a fore slot. Maybe I'm stubborn about it or maybe it's that I don't aspire to higher and higher DPS. Maybe I like how pretty they look with torpedo spread.
Basicly it's underpowered torpedos. Namely underpowered basic torpedoes. Not all of us have filled our reps enough and gotten the Neutronic/Gravimetric/Bio-torp/etc... Not all of us can afford the mega expensive kemocite. And some of us might want to do like the shows do and put torp on each side, impossible with rep torpedoes as they're only one per ship. Am I asking for the basics to be as good as the rep torps? Not so much. I'm just asking for them to not be so far below that it's a joke at the expense of anyone who still uses them on their T5/T5U/T6 ships
I think that's the biggest complaint. i add my two cents because i've been determined to make torpedoes relevant on my builds and i've found a way, but it took a lot of effort, time, grinding and money. much more than it took to be effective with beams which took little effort no grinding and small amounts of EC on the exchange. newer players may be put off by this and it shows in the sentiment a lot of people have.
And, the energy weapons has far better cycle rates, and doesn't suffer the innate 75% kinetic DR that torpedoes do.
Torpedoes are the wait and bait weapon, while energy weapons just burn thru everything quickly with no effort weapon!
It's either invest all in on energy weapons to kill quickly, or invest heavily in wait and bait kinetic rampage, there is very little middle ground balance.
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
I am all in favor of adding a dedicated torpedo slot fore and aft to every ship, mostly because I have always felt ships were under armed in the game compared to what was seen in the shows and movies. Torpedoes as designed are fine, but since they fire less rapidly than energy weapons, the limited tac consoles and doff slots are usually better spent on boosting energy weapons. I normally have a projectile weapon officer in my doff roster to help fire more torpedoes and on tac based ships it is easier to get a torpedo high yeild 3 or some other torpedo power into play, that makes torpedoes very devastating. What may make torpedoes more used in the game would be having all weapon boosting consoles boost both an energy weapon and a projectile weapon, or allow a combination of 2 different consoles into 1 upon reaching level 20 in beam, cannon, projectile and engineering schools of the R&D program.
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
There is a healthy mix now. Chocies of playing cruisers and escorts is a matter of player preference rather than necessity. Because I dont see in game what you are seeing. I see a mix between cruisers and escorts parked at new romulus or esd/sol system. I also see a mixture at top level dps of cruisers and escorts.
With the current mechanics I can do 10k with mines. Thats more than viable for advance queues. Now if you saying optimal, why does every platform need to be optimal?
Where are you getting your facts? from your dreams? Where is your proof that very few fly escorts? If you dont like BFAW dont play it. Your consistent attacks onBeam FAW is much like any form hate crime or discrimination. You hate it/dont like because it is different. Respect diversity. More importantly, Get your facts straight.
Which DPSers, Marshal or other torp users doing 50k or more than 100k DPS? Diversity. If you dont respect diversity of choices, the problem is you. NoT only that, you just stated a fallacy again. Torps are more powerful in certain cases just like beams are. Beams are not always powerful than torps. Just like Torps not always powerful than beams. Your statement is what drives Torp population down, misinformation from a non-expert, bad marketing for torps.
When is balanced, balanced? That is what I have been asking players who have been claiming balance.
When torps dominate where beams suppose dominate? Does this mean torps need to win each every horse race? Or balance is not balance but more of bias?
Look at the post I made above, Torps are winning at certain horse races but not all horse races. So why does Torps or any weapons platforms like beams or cannons need to win every horse race or every niche?
If I had made STO, my ship designs would have been _much_ different than the STO designs. Instead of the setup we have now, I'd have made something more like Starfleet Command, with defined weapons slots. Here's a few examples.
The Galaxy Class Cruiser would be a beam-heavy ship. with its most powerful array having a 270 degree coverage, allowing anything except targets directly behind the ship to be struck. It would have two, one dorsal, one ventral, allowing for anything within the arc of fire to be hit with two powerful beams. Another 8 smaller beam mounts would increase coverage, but each beam would be a small fraction of the power of the main beams. You'd get extra damage from targets in their arcs, which might be a 90 Starboard and 90 port for two of the arrays, 90 aft for the two small arrays on the back of the saucer, and a 360 arc for the ventral belly array, though you'd have to implement roll maneuvers to allow the ship to move that arc and keep enemy ships from staying above the GCS and denying the ship that array. The other two weapons would be the forward and aft Photon Torpedo mounts, with requirements to launch their torpedoes at ships in the forward and aft arcs of the ship.
The Defiant Class Escort would be a cannon-heavy ship, mounting two small beam arrays that have 360 coverage (one ventral, the other dorsal, but same roll problem). The main weapons would be four heavy cannon mounts mounted forward, plus a pair of torpedo mounts fore and another pair (?) aft. This would be a very damaging ship, as you can imagine.
This has interesting implications for the Sovereign Class. Like the GCS before it, it has excellent beam coverage, with its strongest loadouts in its fore, left broadside and right broadside arc. It has heavier torpedo armament than the GCS, with a total of 10 photon torpedo launchers, but what sets the SCS apart from the GCS is the quantum torpedo turret. In addition to the fixed torpedo launcher with their usual 90deg mount, the SCS mounts a torpedo launcher that can lob torpedoes anywhere within a 270deg arc of the ship.
This would have had fundamental changes across the board with the ships, though. How do you do consoles for a ship that must support at least 2, if not 3, different classes of weapons? Should I have a torpedo and energy console set? And how do you handle the heavy damage from the saucer phaser arrays on the GCS?
I think the realities of ships and the design choices by captains are influenced by the tradeoffs Cryptic made to force Star Trek into a MMO friendly game.
the best part about your post was "..my wife and I were talking about this earlier..."
Yeah. There's actually a section in the TNG tech manual about pairing beams and torpedoes for extra fun. Called 'dimpling', the idea was to stress a section of the shield grid with beam weapons to the point that a torpedo can slip past, delivering more of its damage to the hull. I could imagine a BOFF tac skill here -- "Shield Dimpling". For a set time, your beams increase the shield penetration of torpedoes.