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.
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.
that be kinda nice, more so, if the buff was team wide...
gotta be called some else though. :P
if I stop posting it doesn't make you right it. just means I don't have enough rum to continue interacting with you.
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: 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?
See you think you understand the problem but you don't. I suspect you just don't want your precious overpowered FAW spam nerfed so you make these long-winded generalized arguments about diversity and nothing in particular. FAW may not be nerfed, in fact I think Cryptic will do nothing at all to fix any of these imbalances, not just FAW or torps or cannons. No profit in it.
And my proof that very few fly escorts comes from simple observation. And the few who do fly them seem to be using beams. Ask yourself why that is, and don't respond with some nonsense about diversity because this FAW spam is anything but.
And my proof that very few fly escorts comes from simple observation.
Simple observation is a dangerous way to substantiate something supposedly considered a fact. By not providing details that can be peer reviewed, like most scientists would do, leads to a lot of doubt. You may be correct, but without the detailed numbers that can be objectively reviewed, it is merely opinion, not fact. Please refrain from saying fact when you have no data that can be reviewed by your peers.
And my proof that very few fly escorts comes from simple observation.
Simple observation is a dangerous way to substantiate something supposedly considered a fact. By not providing details that can be peer reviewed, like most scientists would do, leads to a lot of doubt. You may be correct, but without the detailed numbers that can be objectively reviewed, it is merely opinion, not fact. Please refrain from saying fact when you have no data that can be reviewed by your peers.
Lol there's no science involved in this. There's simply few escorts being played now. It's mostly cruisers, scimitars and myriad of alien lock box and lobi store ships, with the occasional escort and science ship.
I'm not going to bother collecting detailed numbers and empirical evidence on what ships are being flown to be collectively reviewed by my peers (it's a friggin videogame) when I know I'm right and everyone can see the same in game.
I'm not a scientist, I'm not going to be a scientist, and I'm not going to apply any sort of scientific method to meaningless videogames. To even think about doing that is a bit crazy to me, no offense.
See you think you understand the problem but you don't. I suspect you just don't want your precious overpowered FAW spam nerfed so you make these long-winded generalized arguments about diversity and nothing in particular. FAW may not be nerfed, in fact I think Cryptic will do nothing at all to fix any of these imbalances, not just FAW or torps or cannons. No profit in it.
And you do? I am telling your information about game balance is incorrect. Because if you think FAW is overpowered give proof that it tops all charts among weapons platforms? You can't can you? Your basis of comparison has always been a noob using Torps vs a good pilot using beams which has nothing to do with weapons platforms but piloting problem.
It is like me comparing you while you using beams vs Marshal in ISA, Marshal will outdps you even if ISA optimized for beams. It is no different with let's say ryan using a full beam while you are using a torp build in CCA and Ryan outdpsing you even though CCA was meant for Torps. All if not most of your samples have nothing to do with weapons platforms but player quality.
And my proof that very few fly escorts comes from simple observation. And the few who do fly them seem to be using beams. Ask yourself why that is, and don't respond with some nonsense about diversity because this FAW spam is anything but.
No nonsense here. I believe you are the one spewing left and right nonsense in the forums. I am not like you who makes opinions packaged as Facts.
If we even entertain the notion to make all weapons platforms the same, there wouldn't be any difference between any weapons platforms, meaning same strengths and weaknesses. No point of different weapons platforms. Doing so, would mean death of diversity.
in the current game mechanics, different weapons have different strengths and weaknesses. the problem with your attitude is you keep focusing on the strength of beams where other weapons platforms are weak than where other weapon platforms are strong and beams are weak. if you don't want to discover or realize that, that is your personal problem.
I already address the situation of the OP, the problem why very few people play torpedoes is because of lack of marketing and information rather than the damage power of weapons platforms themselves.
And before anyone complains, I won't ask for kinetic boosts because that'll muck around too much with Science as well - my GW III does "kinetic" damage just like a torp...
But I haven't seen the semi-traditional "hey, if torps suffer a -75% "usefulness reduction" against shields, can't energy weapons suffer a -75% "usefulness reduction" against bare hull maneuver"? Actual percentage selected is dictated by the needs of balance...
Granted, a stunt like this forces a lot of things. Look like "canon" because I can't remember too many instances of starships popping under BFaW fire, it always takes that "stock ST III torp to BoP footage" to kill KDF BoPs... (and yes, I did skip out on much of DS9's war arc, so that could be the justification for BFaW deaths, but right now I'm not going to argue for or against that...) Either pack a kinetic or team with those who do. Actually have to make balanced choices and not be the "god of death incarnate" with a single spec. Watch Cryptic rebalance mob HPs again because focused energy weapons use doesn't melt targets as they used to. Make people take their torp button off of autofire and maybe start using that "fire torps" button at selective times to hit that down shield, and learn timing so that they can send a HY Tricobalt that crawls along so that it'll impact just as the shields drop... ISA DPS teams won't have astronomical numbers from dumping energy weapon fire into a transformer that's self-healing anyway. Due to "timing" issues, one can't just "afk except for mashing spacebar" and remain effective"... Etc. etc.
Min-maxxers will eventually adjust to the new reality and post the "one true build" for combined arms. Maybe two builds - one for the shield stripper, one for the hull killer. The "slumming casual" might complain because they can't just autofire and pilot anymore. Nobody said this would be perfect, but it's an idea...
Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
And before anyone complains, I won't ask for kinetic boosts because that'll muck around too much with Science as well - my GW III does "kinetic" damage just like a torp...
But I haven't seen the semi-traditional "hey, if torps suffer a -75% "usefulness reduction" against shields, can't energy weapons suffer a -75% "usefulness reduction" against bare hull maneuver"? Actual percentage selected is dictated by the needs of balance...
...
I actually kind of like this, but would reduce that to -50% for beams and maybe -25% for cannons vs hulls. The numbers could be adjusted up or down to balance it out more.
And before anyone complains, I won't ask for kinetic boosts because that'll muck around too much with Science as well - my GW III does "kinetic" damage just like a torp...
But I haven't seen the semi-traditional "hey, if torps suffer a -75% "usefulness reduction" against shields, can't energy weapons suffer a -75% "usefulness reduction" against bare hull maneuver"? Actual percentage selected is dictated by the needs of balance...
...
I actually kind of like this, but would reduce that to -50% for beams and maybe -25% for cannons vs hulls. The numbers could be adjusted up or down to balance it out more.
Without being a mathematician, I'd say off the top of my head that the damage reduction percentage needs to be at a point where 5x-7x energy weapons (current broadside maneuver) does about <25% less damage than the entire forward loadout with torp firing... The thought behind this is 25% is, to me at least, a decent enough "trigger point" so that min-maxxers would run straight to mixed loadouts, while the casual who insists on staying 100% energy weapon wouldn't be consigned to the deathheap of being unable to complete a mission...
I'd also say that cannons, already "optimized" to fire in torp arcs, doesn't "need" to be on a separate reduction threshold, personally, I was somewhat keen on making antiproton get a "bonus to hull damage" instead of it's current crit bonuses - make the game less "how do I hit 100% crit "
Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
The thing I see is that I shoot a torpedo that crits for 12k and the target gets MAYBE 10%shield reduction, but normal torpedo hits from NPCs take my shields down....
^The main reason why we don't use them is because they are not mandatory on every ship that is supposed to have them. Only VERY LOW level science ships are not supposed to have torpedoes. All Cryptic has to do is add a slot or two, based on the type of ship, for torpedoes and/or mines. All ships will have a torpedo slot, but some will have an extra one in the rear or a mine slot in the rear. This is how the show was and it should be how the game is also.
The problem is, this doesn't address the core issues that mines and torpedoes have. Having slots for a torp/mine only doesn't guarantee either use or effectiveness. Maybe it might get more people to see what's wrong with them in the current game environment, though.
end stacking of consoles... folks use 5 tac consoles of the same X. folks can then use energy type console, energy weapon type console, projectile console and projectile dmg type console.
Whilst I don't wish to make sweeping generalisations based on my own observations, I would agree - from my own observations - that there are less escorts in the game at the moment.
I generally play a Sci character in a FT5-U Rhode Island and I frequently find myself the only non-cruiser in whatever team I am in.
I guess the fact that there are LOTS of cruisers to choose from paired with the BFAW obsession may be the reason for the abundance of cruisers. Not immune either - my Eng uses a FT6 Galaxy (though does NOT use BFAW - refuse to lean on that crutch personally).
That's exactly it. People don't use escorts now because there's no need for them. If you're going to use beams and FAW get a cruiser, lockbox or lobi ship, scimitar etc. Escorts are a lot squishier and you don't need their commander tactical slot or bonus weapons power.
I'm not using BFAW anymore either. All my characters are going back to their DHC escorts or carriers, with 1 forward torpedo always. It's old school and nowhere near as effective but TRIBBLE it I find it more fun and to hell with my DPS.
end stacking of consoles... folks use 5 tac consoles of the same X. folks can then use energy type console, energy weapon type console, projectile console and projectile dmg type console.
Didn't there used to be diminishing returns but they changed it? Or am I thinking of another game? There was another spaceship game with combat sort of similar to this I used to play along with STO (which I eventually left entirely in favor of STO) so I sometimes get the minor details confused.
Funny, in that game they said this game would be terrible and I shouldn't switch to it, and it turns out that game is now all but dead.
Wow - that is the exact oposite of what I observe. Generally, an instance of ISA often goes:
Team warps in
Scimitard in team flies ahead of everyone else
Scimitard parks and spams BFAW
Everything dies. Fast
Scimitard does the same with everything else.
So you'll excuse me if I continue to consider BFAW OP.
Don't, just don't. The guy is going to respond with some nonsense about "that's just ISA, it doesn't apply to all maps" when damage is damage no matter if it's spread among 8 different smaller targets or concentrated on one huge target.
If a ship can do that damage in ISA it can do that damage in every single mission and queue in this game. The differences will be minor at best depending on the resistances of the targets in that map. There are no maps or missions where FAW isn't ideal. ISA has a lot of unshielded targets so torp boats can do well and even exceed FAW boats, but FAW boats are useful everywhere while torp boats are very situational and brought out more for amusement and a change of pace than for overall effectiveness in all maps.
One Skill to rule them all, One Skill to find them,
One Skill to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of STO where Balance is a lie.
Tac consoles do not suffer from diminishing returns unlike defense. which is why single energy type is best and you use tac console slots for tac consoles only and all other slots are for universals if you min/max
In the game hardly anyone who wants to build a competetive ship PvE will use a torpedo.
Both builds use all mk14 gear VR or UR, with a few epics
Torpedo Build on a Science Pilot Escort (all torps, 1 array on rear for the Delta radiation bonus)
CombatLogReader—Infected Space[5:26]— Dmg(DPS) — Lousisya 11.122.284(34.117)
Alienus 9.990.331(31.515)
Tys'pyn 7.639.050(24.328)
Fantomas 3.641.762(12.960)
Jordan 3.164.612(11.065)
A quick and Dirty fix for torps: Change the way torp consoles calculate bonus damage: Instead of base damage (that of a mk 1 torp) why not put it LAST after type, skills, etc?
In the game hardly anyone who wants to build a competetive ship PvE will use a torpedo.
Both builds use all mk14 gear VR or UR, with a few epics
Torpedo Build on a Science Pilot Escort (all torps, 1 array on rear for the Delta radiation bonus)
CombatLogReader—Infected Space[5:26]— Dmg(DPS) — Lousisya 11.122.284(34.117)
Alienus 9.990.331(31.515)
Tys'pyn 7.639.050(24.328)
Fantomas 3.641.762(12.960)
Jordan 3.164.612(11.065)
CombatLogReader—Crystalline[3:56]— Dmg(DPS) — Lousisya 8.497.727(38.278)
Lovava 2.382.270(10.094)
Dr. Gravit 2.272.791(9.754)
Kimber 653.229(3.456)
Capitan Fi 520.745(3.566)
Vales 413.585(2.223)
Sir Calins 146.012(858)
T'Penna 133.185(1.057)
Memnahn 123.192(1.009)
AneDust 86.936(5.433)
Torps seem competitive enough - Compared to my top FAW/Plasma Explosion build (using 4 epic embassy consoles and 5/7 weapons epic crtd3+) that barely breaks 60k
Yeah but that's Infected Space and CCA. I've gotten 1st place in CCA with all torpedoes in foreward slot without even the proper consoles or build, just raw unenhanced torpedo damage. That doesn't mean torpedoes are fine, just that those two maps are ideal for torpedoes.
Quick question to illustrate my point: What queues would you not bring a FAW boat to because it wouldn't be very effective? What queues would you not bring a torpedo boat to for the same reason?
Torpedo Build on a Science Pilot Escort (all torps, 1 array on rear for the Delta radiation bonus)
Torpedobuild on a Recluse (all torps, 1 array on rear for the Delta radiation bonus)
Torps seem competitive enough - Compared to my top FAW/Plasma Explosion build (using 4 epic embassy consoles and 5/7 weapons epic crtd3+) that barely breaks 60k
That looks a lot like the dps output of a science ship and a carrier to me. I never doubted the efficacy of all torpedo builds in certain circumstances. I make great DPS with my own carrier using torpedoes primarily, but those torps don't make up more than about 25% of my damage output. With the greatest of respect we are not comparing like with like.
My OP was quite clear, I think many fans of the franchise would like to see more 'orthadox' Trek weapon layouts workj well in game. Running all torps makes no more sense to me than the BFaW scenario.
Torpedo Build on a Science Pilot Escort (all torps, 1 array on rear for the Delta radiation bonus)
Torpedobuild on a Recluse (all torps, 1 array on rear for the Delta radiation bonus)
Torps seem competitive enough - Compared to my top FAW/Plasma Explosion build (using 4 epic embassy consoles and 5/7 weapons epic crtd3+) that barely breaks 60k
That looks a lot like the dps output of a science ship and a carrier to me. I never doubted the efficacy of all torpedo builds in certain circumstances. I make great DPS with my own carrier using torpedoes primarily, but those torps don't make up more than about 25% of my damage output. With the greatest of respect we are not comparing like with like.
My OP was quite clear, I think many fans of the franchise would like to see more 'orthadox' Trek weapon layouts workj well in game. Running all torps makes no more sense to me than the BFaW scenario.
The first two are escort based.. Pure torps, granted I did boost gravg and prtg (also used all rad boosting items I could find, as well as photon torp tac locators (as well as the 2part adapted maco).. They're also ISA, which are *THE* FAW/Embassy place to go for padded numbers.
Just checked the logs for the first report and torps account for the following percentages:
Yeah but that's Infected Space and CCA. I've gotten 1st place in CCA with all torpedoes in foreward slot without even the proper consoles or build, just raw unenhanced torpedo damage. That doesn't mean torpedoes are fine, just that those two maps are ideal for torpedoes.
Quick question to illustrate my point: What queues would you not bring a FAW boat to because it wouldn't be very effective? What queues would you not bring a torpedo boat to for the same reason?
The torpbuilds Ive brought to
Khitomer, Infected, Heralds, Korfez, CCA.
Its not like they are ineffective, its more that FAW generally are superior for nearly every que (save CCA - Where its still pretty darn powerful)
But then.. Embassy consoles are broken. (No way its intended that the plasmaproc off one can crit for 50-80k damage directly to hull)
My OP was quite clear, I think many fans of the franchise would like to see more 'orthadox' Trek weapon layouts workj well in game. Running all torps makes no more sense to me than the BFaW scenario.
You can make Hybrid weapons and Torps builds work at parity with beams or even better. The current top DPS in ISA are hybrid builds. The problem with your OP is you went complaining first before researching.
However, since certain players have repeated that torps and hybrids are even better at times than Beam FAW builds, the problem seems to be denial. Denial that they just are bad pilots or refuse to improve their piloting and blame the weapons platform instead. Like I said, this issue is no different from a player copy pasting beam Wizard user doing 100k+ DPS at ISA with all epic stuff but are just doing less than 5k DPS ISA when they are piloting it. Which gives a personal observation that Beams are bad weapons platforms.
Now, if you meant that you demand that working Torp builds or Hybrid builds with matching videos, step by step process, must be delivered to your doorstep and must be easy available like all the beam guides/video guides by experts/pros, the problem would be spoiled and self entitlement.
Its not like they are ineffective, its more that FAW generally are superior for nearly every que (save CCA - Where its still pretty darn powerful)
You cannot say this as a fact for all maps you mentioned unless you got a table with the best pilots with the best builds parsing it for the other maps. The only fact you can say is for ISA and CCA.
I believe optimal piloting and optimal build should be the comparison. Piloting regardless of weapons platforms affects most of your DPS. That is why the issue for this has always been the player. However, since certain players in the STO forum are ego sensitive and will keep denying the problem is them and would rather blame mechanics, you get threads like these.
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.
Clearly plasma already has its, and Season 10 kind of linked Chroniton and Anti-proton.
They wouldn't necessarily have to have a single damage type link except in special cases like Plasma (perhaps add something to plasma to make up for a lack of multiples).
Faction influence also. Because obviously Phaser and Photons are a common usage of the Fed.
And just make the more exotics like Trocobalt and Transphasic cross all types. Just leaves neutronic which to me screams Polaron.
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.
Oh and might be a good idea to make them unique or the stacking damage would be crazy.
Or limit the combined consoles to a max of 25% /20% Gold tier XIV. Or something similar. 30% / 30% even for a unique seems high. Because eventually there will be more, some set will have one, crafted, season drop...
I like the idea of the consoles... instead of worrying about how to pair Phasers and Photons and DIsruptors and Quantums ect ect....
I think the easiest way to do it would be to...
Remove the General consoles... the warhead yield / geometry / Distribution manifold / prefire chamber.
Replace them with ONE console that Boosts Energy/Kinetic... with the exact same numbers those consoles have now.
It would give people a good option for running combos of mines/torps/beams/cannons in any order they like and still provide a good boost to all. It would be less then min maxing still... however it would be very viable.
It would then be nice to see them add consoles to the spire that Much the same. (removing/replacing [+beam] [+can] [+torp] [+mine])
[Fleet Spire Tactical Sub System Regulator Vulnerability Exploiter MK XII] [+tssr]
+ 27.9% Energy Weapon damage
+ 27.9% Kinetic Weapon damage
+ 8% Critical Severity
[Fleet Spire Tactical Sub System Regulator Vulnerability Locator MK XII] [+tssr]
+ 27.9% Energy Weapon damage
+ 27.9% Kinetic Weapon damage
+ 1.6% Critical Chance
IMO this would pretty much solve the issue. Yes the crazy side of the min max players won't change... but at least people wanting to create a more "rp" style build wouldn't be woefully behind... and depending on the ship being used may even end up ahead with the right build.
Its not like they are ineffective, its more that FAW generally are superior for nearly every que (save CCA - Where its still pretty darn powerful)
But then.. Embassy consoles are broken. (No way its intended that the plasmaproc off one can crit for 50-80k damage directly to hull)
Yeah that's what I mean. FAW is superior for almost everything, to a point it's not even worth switching the build or boff skills for queues where maybe a torp build would be better. You can excel with a FAW build everywhere and just spacebar your way to victory but builds like torp builds are a lot more situational and complex with skill timing etc.
I've gone back to VR mk XII DHC escorts with two of my characters, and the other two will return shortly. FAW is a lot easier to play than those escorts ever were but it's just not fun. I'm weird that way.
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.
Oh and might be a good idea to make them unique or the stacking damage would be crazy.
Or limit the combined consoles to a max of 25% /20% Gold tier XIV. Or something similar. 30% / 30% even for a unique seems high. Because eventually there will be more, some set will have one, crafted, season drop...
Possibly. It's just a thought anyway. I don't expect them to do anything to torpedoes except add a new one once in a while with new reputations.
Comments
| USS Curiosity - Pathfinder | USS Rift - Eternal |
The Science Ship Build Thread - Share your Sci Ship builds here!
that be kinda nice, more so, if the buff was team wide...
gotta be called some else though. :P
if I stop posting it doesn't make you right it. just means I don't have enough rum to continue interacting with you.
That is false.
See you think you understand the problem but you don't. I suspect you just don't want your precious overpowered FAW spam nerfed so you make these long-winded generalized arguments about diversity and nothing in particular. FAW may not be nerfed, in fact I think Cryptic will do nothing at all to fix any of these imbalances, not just FAW or torps or cannons. No profit in it.
And my proof that very few fly escorts comes from simple observation. And the few who do fly them seem to be using beams. Ask yourself why that is, and don't respond with some nonsense about diversity because this FAW spam is anything but.
Simple observation is a dangerous way to substantiate something supposedly considered a fact. By not providing details that can be peer reviewed, like most scientists would do, leads to a lot of doubt. You may be correct, but without the detailed numbers that can be objectively reviewed, it is merely opinion, not fact. Please refrain from saying fact when you have no data that can be reviewed by your peers.
Lol there's no science involved in this. There's simply few escorts being played now. It's mostly cruisers, scimitars and myriad of alien lock box and lobi store ships, with the occasional escort and science ship.
I'm not going to bother collecting detailed numbers and empirical evidence on what ships are being flown to be collectively reviewed by my peers (it's a friggin videogame) when I know I'm right and everyone can see the same in game.
I'm not a scientist, I'm not going to be a scientist, and I'm not going to apply any sort of scientific method to meaningless videogames. To even think about doing that is a bit crazy to me, no offense.
And you do? I am telling your information about game balance is incorrect. Because if you think FAW is overpowered give proof that it tops all charts among weapons platforms? You can't can you? Your basis of comparison has always been a noob using Torps vs a good pilot using beams which has nothing to do with weapons platforms but piloting problem.
It is like me comparing you while you using beams vs Marshal in ISA, Marshal will outdps you even if ISA optimized for beams. It is no different with let's say ryan using a full beam while you are using a torp build in CCA and Ryan outdpsing you even though CCA was meant for Torps. All if not most of your samples have nothing to do with weapons platforms but player quality.
No nonsense here. I believe you are the one spewing left and right nonsense in the forums. I am not like you who makes opinions packaged as Facts.
If we even entertain the notion to make all weapons platforms the same, there wouldn't be any difference between any weapons platforms, meaning same strengths and weaknesses. No point of different weapons platforms. Doing so, would mean death of diversity.
in the current game mechanics, different weapons have different strengths and weaknesses. the problem with your attitude is you keep focusing on the strength of beams where other weapons platforms are weak than where other weapon platforms are strong and beams are weak. if you don't want to discover or realize that, that is your personal problem.
I already address the situation of the OP, the problem why very few people play torpedoes is because of lack of marketing and information rather than the damage power of weapons platforms themselves.
+20% torp accuracy
Common: 90 degree firing arc and +10% Torp Damage
Uncommon: 120 degree firing arc and +12.5% Torp Damage
Rare: 150 degree firing arc and +15% Torp Damage
Very Rare: 180 degree firing arc and +17.5 Torp Damage
Ultra Rare: 250 degree firing arc and +20% Torp Damage
Epic: 360 degree firing arc and +22.5% Torp Damage
Can be used only on ships which also have subsystem targeting attacks.
Comes on a lockbox science ship and/or bought on the lobi store: Bind on Equip.
And before anyone complains, I won't ask for kinetic boosts because that'll muck around too much with Science as well - my GW III does "kinetic" damage just like a torp...
But I haven't seen the semi-traditional "hey, if torps suffer a -75% "usefulness reduction" against shields, can't energy weapons suffer a -75% "usefulness reduction" against bare hull maneuver"? Actual percentage selected is dictated by the needs of balance...
Granted, a stunt like this forces a lot of things. Look like "canon" because I can't remember too many instances of starships popping under BFaW fire, it always takes that "stock ST III torp to BoP footage" to kill KDF BoPs... (and yes, I did skip out on much of DS9's war arc, so that could be the justification for BFaW deaths, but right now I'm not going to argue for or against that...) Either pack a kinetic or team with those who do. Actually have to make balanced choices and not be the "god of death incarnate" with a single spec. Watch Cryptic rebalance mob HPs again because focused energy weapons use doesn't melt targets as they used to. Make people take their torp button off of autofire and maybe start using that "fire torps" button at selective times to hit that down shield, and learn timing so that they can send a HY Tricobalt that crawls along so that it'll impact just as the shields drop... ISA DPS teams won't have astronomical numbers from dumping energy weapon fire into a transformer that's self-healing anyway. Due to "timing" issues, one can't just "afk except for mashing spacebar" and remain effective"... Etc. etc.
Min-maxxers will eventually adjust to the new reality and post the "one true build" for combined arms. Maybe two builds - one for the shield stripper, one for the hull killer. The "slumming casual" might complain because they can't just autofire and pilot anymore. Nobody said this would be perfect, but it's an idea...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
I actually kind of like this, but would reduce that to -50% for beams and maybe -25% for cannons vs hulls. The numbers could be adjusted up or down to balance it out more.
Without being a mathematician, I'd say off the top of my head that the damage reduction percentage needs to be at a point where 5x-7x energy weapons (current broadside maneuver) does about <25% less damage than the entire forward loadout with torp firing... The thought behind this is 25% is, to me at least, a decent enough "trigger point" so that min-maxxers would run straight to mixed loadouts, while the casual who insists on staying 100% energy weapon wouldn't be consigned to the deathheap of being unable to complete a mission...
I'd also say that cannons, already "optimized" to fire in torp arcs, doesn't "need" to be on a separate reduction threshold, personally, I was somewhat keen on making antiproton get a "bonus to hull damage" instead of it's current crit bonuses - make the game less "how do I hit 100% crit
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
The problem is, this doesn't address the core issues that mines and torpedoes have. Having slots for a torp/mine only doesn't guarantee either use or effectiveness. Maybe it might get more people to see what's wrong with them in the current game environment, though.
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.
That's exactly it. People don't use escorts now because there's no need for them. If you're going to use beams and FAW get a cruiser, lockbox or lobi ship, scimitar etc. Escorts are a lot squishier and you don't need their commander tactical slot or bonus weapons power.
I'm not using BFAW anymore either. All my characters are going back to their DHC escorts or carriers, with 1 forward torpedo always. It's old school and nowhere near as effective but TRIBBLE it I find it more fun and to hell with my DPS.
Didn't there used to be diminishing returns but they changed it? Or am I thinking of another game? There was another spaceship game with combat sort of similar to this I used to play along with STO (which I eventually left entirely in favor of STO) so I sometimes get the minor details confused.
Funny, in that game they said this game would be terrible and I shouldn't switch to it, and it turns out that game is now all but dead.
/endofftopic
Don't, just don't. The guy is going to respond with some nonsense about "that's just ISA, it doesn't apply to all maps" when damage is damage no matter if it's spread among 8 different smaller targets or concentrated on one huge target.
If a ship can do that damage in ISA it can do that damage in every single mission and queue in this game. The differences will be minor at best depending on the resistances of the targets in that map. There are no maps or missions where FAW isn't ideal. ISA has a lot of unshielded targets so torp boats can do well and even exceed FAW boats, but FAW boats are useful everywhere while torp boats are very situational and brought out more for amusement and a change of pace than for overall effectiveness in all maps.
One Skill to rule them all, One Skill to find them,
One Skill to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of STO where Balance is a lie.
Both builds use all mk14 gear VR or UR, with a few epics
Torpedo Build on a Science Pilot Escort (all torps, 1 array on rear for the Delta radiation bonus)
CombatLogReader—Infected Space[5:26]— Dmg(DPS) —
Lousisya 11.122.284(34.117)
Alienus 9.990.331(31.515)
Tys'pyn 7.639.050(24.328)
Fantomas 3.641.762(12.960)
Jordan 3.164.612(11.065)
CombatLogReader—Infected Space[5:16]— Dmg(DPS) —
Lousisya 11.767.106(38.204)
Bastian 10.335.414(33.775)
Killsa 6.967.007(22.620)
Zillah 3.991.818(12.712)
S'Mush 3.327.467(10.838)
Torpedobuild on a Recluse (all torps, 1 array on rear for the Delta radiation bonus)
CombatLogReader—Infected Space[4:04]—
Dmg(DPS) —
Lynx 13.185.260(54.484)
Lousisya 11.582.603(47.469)
Nocturnis 5.983.831(25.681)
Darok 3.092.677(14.588)
Ragnok 1.528.092(7.490)
CombatLogReader—Crystalline[3:56]— Dmg(DPS) —
Lousisya 8.497.727(38.278)
Lovava 2.382.270(10.094)
Dr. Gravit 2.272.791(9.754)
Kimber 653.229(3.456)
Capitan Fi 520.745(3.566)
Vales 413.585(2.223)
Sir Calins 146.012(858)
T'Penna 133.185(1.057)
Memnahn 123.192(1.009)
AneDust 86.936(5.433)
Torps seem competitive enough - Compared to my top FAW/Plasma Explosion build (using 4 epic embassy consoles and 5/7 weapons epic crtd3+) that barely breaks 60k
Yeah but that's Infected Space and CCA. I've gotten 1st place in CCA with all torpedoes in foreward slot without even the proper consoles or build, just raw unenhanced torpedo damage. That doesn't mean torpedoes are fine, just that those two maps are ideal for torpedoes.
Quick question to illustrate my point: What queues would you not bring a FAW boat to because it wouldn't be very effective? What queues would you not bring a torpedo boat to for the same reason?
That looks a lot like the dps output of a science ship and a carrier to me. I never doubted the efficacy of all torpedo builds in certain circumstances. I make great DPS with my own carrier using torpedoes primarily, but those torps don't make up more than about 25% of my damage output. With the greatest of respect we are not comparing like with like.
My OP was quite clear, I think many fans of the franchise would like to see more 'orthadox' Trek weapon layouts workj well in game. Running all torps makes no more sense to me than the BFaW scenario.
The first two are escort based.. Pure torps, granted I did boost gravg and prtg (also used all rad boosting items I could find, as well as photon torp tac locators (as well as the 2part adapted maco).. They're also ISA, which are *THE* FAW/Embassy place to go for padded numbers.
Just checked the logs for the first report and torps account for the following percentages:
Kinetic Shearing : 12.16%
Hargh'peng : 8.36%
GraviTorp TS3 : 7.22%
GraviTorp : 6.95%
Enh BioTorp : 5.32%
Enh Biotorp TS3 : 4.67%
Neutronic : 3.79%
Neutronic TS3 : 3.36%
Enh Biotorp TS1 : 2.80%
Tricobalt (from that Klingon torp with AP turrets on) 2.26%
Hargh'peng secondary : 1.27%
GraviTorp TS1: 0.35%
Total 58.51% damage directly from the torps, not counting rift, incubation or radiation.
For comparison DRB1 + GW1 counts for just under 20%
The torpbuilds Ive brought to
Khitomer, Infected, Heralds, Korfez, CCA.
Its not like they are ineffective, its more that FAW generally are superior for nearly every que (save CCA - Where its still pretty darn powerful)
But then.. Embassy consoles are broken. (No way its intended that the plasmaproc off one can crit for 50-80k damage directly to hull)
You can make Hybrid weapons and Torps builds work at parity with beams or even better. The current top DPS in ISA are hybrid builds. The problem with your OP is you went complaining first before researching.
However, since certain players have repeated that torps and hybrids are even better at times than Beam FAW builds, the problem seems to be denial. Denial that they just are bad pilots or refuse to improve their piloting and blame the weapons platform instead. Like I said, this issue is no different from a player copy pasting beam Wizard user doing 100k+ DPS at ISA with all epic stuff but are just doing less than 5k DPS ISA when they are piloting it. Which gives a personal observation that Beams are bad weapons platforms.
Now, if you meant that you demand that working Torp builds or Hybrid builds with matching videos, step by step process, must be delivered to your doorstep and must be easy available like all the beam guides/video guides by experts/pros, the problem would be spoiled and self entitlement.
You cannot say this as a fact for all maps you mentioned unless you got a table with the best pilots with the best builds parsing it for the other maps. The only fact you can say is for ISA and CCA.
I believe optimal piloting and optimal build should be the comparison. Piloting regardless of weapons platforms affects most of your DPS. That is why the issue for this has always been the player. However, since certain players in the STO forum are ego sensitive and will keep denying the problem is them and would rather blame mechanics, you get threads like these.
Clearly plasma already has its, and Season 10 kind of linked Chroniton and Anti-proton.
They wouldn't necessarily have to have a single damage type link except in special cases like Plasma (perhaps add something to plasma to make up for a lack of multiples).
Faction influence also. Because obviously Phaser and Photons are a common usage of the Fed.
And just make the more exotics like Trocobalt and Transphasic cross all types. Just leaves neutronic which to me screams Polaron.
Or limit the combined consoles to a max of 25% /20% Gold tier XIV. Or something similar. 30% / 30% even for a unique seems high. Because eventually there will be more, some set will have one, crafted, season drop...
I think the easiest way to do it would be to...
Remove the General consoles... the warhead yield / geometry / Distribution manifold / prefire chamber.
Replace them with ONE console that Boosts Energy/Kinetic... with the exact same numbers those consoles have now.
It would give people a good option for running combos of mines/torps/beams/cannons in any order they like and still provide a good boost to all. It would be less then min maxing still... however it would be very viable.
It would then be nice to see them add consoles to the spire that Much the same. (removing/replacing [+beam] [+can] [+torp] [+mine])
So;
[Tactical Sub-System Regulator MK XII]
+ 20% Energy Weapon damage
+ 20% Kinetic Weapon damage
[Fleet Spire Tactical Sub System Regulator Vulnerability Exploiter MK XII] [+tssr]
+ 27.9% Energy Weapon damage
+ 27.9% Kinetic Weapon damage
+ 8% Critical Severity
[Fleet Spire Tactical Sub System Regulator Vulnerability Locator MK XII] [+tssr]
+ 27.9% Energy Weapon damage
+ 27.9% Kinetic Weapon damage
+ 1.6% Critical Chance
IMO this would pretty much solve the issue. Yes the crazy side of the min max players won't change... but at least people wanting to create a more "rp" style build wouldn't be woefully behind... and depending on the ship being used may even end up ahead with the right build.
Yeah that's what I mean. FAW is superior for almost everything, to a point it's not even worth switching the build or boff skills for queues where maybe a torp build would be better. You can excel with a FAW build everywhere and just spacebar your way to victory but builds like torp builds are a lot more situational and complex with skill timing etc.
I've gone back to VR mk XII DHC escorts with two of my characters, and the other two will return shortly. FAW is a lot easier to play than those escorts ever were but it's just not fun. I'm weird that way.
Possibly. It's just a thought anyway. I don't expect them to do anything to torpedoes except add a new one once in a while with new reputations.